RE: [John_Lit] John 1:1-10 - my proposed translation
>>The question has been asked but gone unanswered comcerning your ability tospeak, read, write and interpret New Testament Greek. I am beginning to get
the uncomfortable suspicion that you are a "lexicon" graecist. Lexicons are
great tools for those who have a facility in Greek and, of course, this list
requires members who engage in interpretive issues to know Greek well.
"Speak" NT Greek? You *are* a tough moderator!
"to know Greek well" is a bit vague. I read the OT and NT in Greek, and
consult helps as needed.
I make mistakes - often egregous ones - so I value exchange with others.
Of course, as moderator, feel free to point out any egregious errors I may
have made. However, please refrain from evaluations based on alledged
Orthodoxy, popular readings or undisclosed criteria.
If you find my reading of "utterance" too lexicon-based, to Gen 1, what is
the correct modus operandum for identifying the meaning of hO LOGOS that
will prove my salt?
I am tempted to interpret your moderation by condescencion as an example of
the "Not Invented Here" syndrome.
Does it alarm you that Jeffrey suggests "purpose" for LOGOS?? Or are you
delighted that he has not resorted to the crass practice of consulting a
- --- Bill Ross <BillRoss@...> wrote:
> <B>Can you provide us with any evidence for this
> My stated premise for my translation of "utterance"
> has not been addressed.
> Let my restate it for closer scrutiny...
> When John says "EN ARKH" ISTM that most translators
> understand him to be
> saying "Once upon a time..."
statement? I have some handbooks on the Gospel of John
written by translators, some commentaries in which the
commentators give their own translations and discuss
what they mean by them, and some works by John scolars
like C.H. Dodd who discuss Jn. 1:1, and none of them
give any hint that they have the understanding you say
"most translators" do.
So could you produce something from a translator that
shows that "Once upon a time" is what ytasnaltors
understand John to be saying in 1:1?
whereas I hear him
> saying "Ladies andNow I'm really confused. Are you saying that it is
> gentlemen, if you would, please turn in you
> Septuagint to page 1. I am going
> to tell you who is being referred to by the word
> "us" in "Let us make
John's intent to say that God made the world through
the male and the female he created in Gen 1:26?
>But this is expressly what he does not say about
> The main think that John is expounding, I believe,
> is that in Gen 1,
> everything that was made, without exception, was
> made in conjunction with
> the utterance, "let there be...".
"man". There is a conspicuous absence of the let
there be phrase in the section of Gen 1 where God
creates "man, both male and female" in his image.
>You are missing a clause here. Is your fundamental
> In the course of this discussion, I realize that my
> objection to "the word"
> (non-capitalized only) is not so much linguistic as
> it is to the baggage
> that the term is made to carry - that it is a
> reference to something from
> Greek philosophy rather than God's word(s).
> So, I ask, is my fundamental interpretation, that EN
> ARKH refers us to Gen
> 1, and "PROS TON THEON" refers us to "let us
> make..." and "by means of hO
> LOGOS everything was made" refers us to "Let there
interpretaion what? Reasonable? I don't see how it
could be. What possible lingusitic or allusive
connection could there be between "he was with God"
and the divibe declaration of intent to make humankind
in God's image in Gen 1:26? And it becomes even more
unlikely given how Dr. Gibson has shown how all that
John says about the LOGOS in John 1:1 is what Jews
were saying about the Torah.
R. Robert Jenkins
Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out!