1 John 3 5

the anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the subjunctive Jay Adkins JAdkins264 at aol.com
Thu Oct 14 07:08:15 EDT 1999

 

Spiritual death or Physical death? GAR and Paratactic Connectors Dear ers,Can someone please explain why in the anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 the subjunctive verbs are translated like an indicative or an infinitive by so many translations?The phrases are:1 John 3:5 ….EFANERWQH, INA TAS AMARTIAS ARH 1 John 3:8 ….EFANERWQH O UIOS TOU QEOU INA LUSH TA ERGA TOU DIABOLOU1Joh 3:5 (DBY) …. *he* has been manifested that he might take away our sins;1Joh 3:8 (DBY) …. To this end the Son of God has been manifested, that he might undo the works of the devil1Joh 3:5 (NEB) …. Christ appeared, as you know, to do away with sins….1Joh 3:8 (NEB) …. the Son of God appeared for the very purpose of undoing the devil’s work.I have counted 9 translations that treat verse 5 as an indicative or an infinitive and 8 as subjunctive. In verse 8 the same translations treat it as an indicative or an infinitive 14 times and only 3 as subjunctive. I understand that the subjunctive in an Indefinite Relative Clause is often translated like an indicative, but why in a purpose clause would you do so? Is it because there is a futuristic aspect in the English phrasing which accounts for the degree of doubt represented by the subjunctive? That is my only guess as I really do not know the answer. There is no hidden agenda here.Sola Gratia,JayAlways Under Grace!

 

Spiritual death or Physical death?GAR and Paratactic Connectors

the anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the subjunctive Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Thu Oct 14 08:36:26 EDT 1999

 

GAR and Paratactic Connectors GAR and Paratactic Connectors To: Jay Adkins,As for the infinitive, it is used in both Greek and English to expresspurpose. As for your translations from “DBY,” the English word “might” in”DBY” appears to be suggesting tentativeness: “he might take away our sins”(1 Jn 3:5 DBY); and “he might undo the works of the devil” (1 Jn 3:8 DBY),and not purpose.-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.com

 

GAR and Paratactic ConnectorsGAR and Paratactic Connectors

the anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the subjunctive Jay Adkins JAdkins264 at aol.com
Fri Oct 15 09:14:42 EDT 1999

 

1 Cor 7:12-16 PEMPTAIOI in Acts 20:6 D Carl wrote:> It’s always fascinated me that the hINA + subjunctive clause > came eventually to supplant the morphologically distinct > infinitive; thus the modern Greek infinitive is NA + the > conjugated present or aorist subjunctive of a verb (NA > PW, for instance is the 1st person infinitive of “say”–> from what was once the Hellenistic hINA EIPW.> In any case, “might” in those Darby version formulations does> not express doubt as such; it’s simply the obsolescent usage > of the auxiliary verb “may” in a past tense contingency > construction.Thank you all very much for your responses. I was not aware of the changes in modern Greek. Furthermore, not all the translations that used the subjunctive force in these verses are as old as Darby, which helped to confuse me even more.1Joh 3:5 (NIV) But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin.1Joh 3:8 (NKJV) He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil.Sola Gratia,JayAlways Under Grace!

 

1 Cor 7:12-16PEMPTAIOI in Acts 20:6 D

the anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the subjunctive Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Fri Oct 15 09:56:05 EDT 1999

 

PEMPTAIOI in Acts 20:6 D the anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the subjunctive To: Jay Adkins, << Furthermore, not all the translations that used the subjunctive force inthese verses are as old as Darby, which helped to confuse me even more.1Joh 3:5 (NIV) “But you know that he appeared so that he might take awayour sins. And in him is no sin.” 1Joh 3:8 (NKJV) “He who sins is of thedevil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose theSon of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil.” >>I had suspected that such an idiom was archaic, but I wasn’t absolutely forsure. Perhaps I should have asked myself the last time I heard a fathertell a child the following: “Your Mother went to the grocery store so thatshe might pick up some eggs,” or anything even similar?-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.com

 

PEMPTAIOI in Acts 20:6 Dthe anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the subjunctive

the anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the subjunctive Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Oct 15 10:01:22 EDT 1999

 

the anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the subjunctive The anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the Subjunctive At 9:14 AM -0500 10/15/99, Jay Adkins wrote:>Carl wrote:> >> It’s always fascinated me that the hINA + subjunctive clause>> came eventually to supplant the morphologically distinct>> infinitive; thus the modern Greek infinitive is NA + the>> conjugated present or aorist subjunctive of a verb (NA>> PW, for instance is the 1st person infinitive of “say”–>> from what was once the Hellenistic hINA EIPW.> >> In any case, “might” in those Darby version formulations does>> not express doubt as such; it’s simply the obsolescent usage>> of the auxiliary verb “may” in a past tense contingency>> construction.> >Thank you all very much for your responses. I was not aware of the changes>in modern Greek. Furthermore, not all the translations that used the>subjunctive force in these verses are as old as Darby, which helped to>confuse me even more.> >1Joh 3:5 (NIV) But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our>sins. And in him is no sin.> >1Joh 3:8 (NKJV) He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from>the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He>might destroy the works of the devil.It might be worth mentioning (although it’s pretty obvious, if only onestops to think about it), that: (1) any language that is widely spoken is always changing; (2) there’s always (or usually) a difference between the diction and grammatical usage that most people use conversationally or ininformal documents and what they write in more formal documents; (3) the “dignity” of a document or text has a considerable bearing onthe diction and grammatical usage employed in it; (4) religious and legal documents and texts and other documents andtexts of a similar “dignity” are likely to employ more archaic,obsolescent, or even altogether obsolete diction and grammar (although itcould be argued that if anyone is still reading and understanding anobsolescent diction or grammatical usage for a reason other thanantiquarian scholarly interest, that diction or grammatical usage cannotreally be quite obsolete–I still remember as a child memorizing and beingtold the meaning of what Jesus said to his parents when found in theTemple: “Wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?”–but I’dquestion whether anyone conversationally today uses “wist” as asecond-person plural preterite of “know”);(5) although I don’t think there’s any one-to-one correspondencebetween theological conservatism and preference for ‘obsolescent’ dictionand grammatical usages, I do think there’s something of a tendency fortheologically conservative groups to prefer language that preserves more ofthe discernible grace and dignity of the King James Version, inasmuch as itand Shakespeare have probably influenced the nature of historical Englishmore than any other literary texts. It hardly surprises me therefore thatNKJV should still use “that he might destroy the works of the devil” for 1John 3:8–surely one can still hear/read remnants of 17th century Englishin that. Nor does it surprise me that NIV, however much it represents acompromise with more recent English idiom, should still use the obsolescent”so that he might take away our sins” for 1 John 3:5; I think that these doindeed reflect a sense that this older usage has greater dignity than thenow much more normal standard English usage, “appeared in order to takeaway our sins” for 1 John 3:5 or “The reason that the Son of God appearedwas to destroy the devil’s works” for 1 John 3:8. I don’t mean to implythat these are the only ways to convey the Greek of those verses in”formal” English, but they may be sufficient to show why the tastes andinclinations of some people are more attuned to the archaic diction andusage. And I have no quarrel with those to whom such language speaksclearly and eloquently, even if it is not my own preference.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics/Washington UniversityOne Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu

 

the anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the subjunctiveThe anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the Subjunctive

The anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the Subjunctive George Goolde goolde at mtnempire.net
Fri Oct 15 10:35:31 EDT 1999

 

the anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the subjunctive The anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the Subjunctive Just “piling on” here in saying that Carl’s five point statement on the nature of language and biblical translation is one of the most accurate and to-the-point that I have seen. His statement about “dignity” captures the essence of why some prefer the 1611 KJV even if it is difficult for them to understand it. I personally gravitate toward the less “dignified” of the formal equivalent translations and end up at the NKJV or the 1995 NASB (which is less formal than the previous NASB).Anyway, thanks, Carl, for a good clarifying statement.GeorgeGeorge A. GooldeProfessor, Bible and TheologySouthern California Bible College & SeminaryEl Cajon, Californiagoolde at mtnempire.net

 

the anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the subjunctiveThe anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the Subjunctive

The anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the Subjunctive Jay Adkins JAdkins264 at aol.com
Fri Oct 15 10:44:39 EDT 1999

 

The anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the Subjunctive 1 Timothy 2:11 In a message dated 10/15/99 2:01:49 PM !!!First Boot!!!, cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu writes:> (1) any language that is widely spoken is always changing;> (2) there’s always (or usually) a difference between the diction and> grammatical usage that most people use conversationally or in> informal documents and what they write in more formal documents;> (3) the “dignity” of a document or text has a considerable bearing on> the diction and grammatical usage employed in it;> (4) religious and legal documents and texts and other documents and> texts of a similar “dignity” are likely to employ more archaic,> obsolescent, or even altogether obsolete diction and grammar (although it> could be argued that if anyone is still reading and understanding an> obsolescent diction or grammatical usage for a reason other than> antiquarian scholarly interest, that diction or grammatical usage cannot> really be quite obsolete–I still remember as a child memorizing and being> told the meaning of what Jesus said to his parents when found in the> Temple: “Wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?”–but I’d> question whether anyone conversationally today uses “wist” as a> second-person plural preterite of “know”);> (5) although I don’t think there’s any one-to-one correspondence> between theological conservatism and preference for ‘obsolescent’ diction> and grammatical usages, I do think there’s something of a tendency for> theologically conservative groups to prefer language that preserves more of> the discernible grace and dignity of the King James Version, inasmuch as it> and Shakespeare have probably influenced the nature of historical English> more than any other literary texts. It hardly surprises me therefore that> NKJV should still use “that he might destroy the works of the devil” for 1> John 3:8–surely one can still hear/read remnants of 17th century English> in that. Nor does it surprise me that NIV, however much it represents a> compromise with more recent English idiom, should still use the obsolescent> “so that he might take away our sins” for 1 John 3:5; I think that these do> indeed reflect a sense that this older usage has greater dignity than the> now much more normal standard English usage, “appeared in order to take> away our sins” for 1 John 3:5 or “The reason that the Son of God appeared> was to destroy the devil’s works” for 1 John 3:8. I don’t mean to imply> that these are the only ways to convey the Greek of those verses in> “formal” English, but they may be sufficient to show why the tastes and> inclinations of some people are more attuned to the archaic diction and> usage. And I have no quarrel with those to whom such language speaks> clearly and eloquently, even if it is not my own preference.> Again, thank you. I had not even considered the differences between written and spoken English in regard to this construction. This makes good sense to me and can easily agree, however, I am wondering though if there is still another possible purpose in using this type of phrasing. Since the dual purposes of Jesus’ appearance in these verses could not be achieved unless He did appear, could the terms ‘might’ or ‘may’ simply be expressing this as the contingent aspect of the phrase? Not that there was any doubt the results would be achieved, but it was contingent on His appearance. Or am I really confused now? Even so, I could still understand that using these terms would still not be the best way to express it, as it is already implied.As for my own translation, I agree with you and will use the infinitive. My preference for being as literal as possible, includes using recent English idiom that is more conversational than most formal written documents, as my understanding of the NT Greek is that it was/is conversational and not formal. I asked the question in the first place because I did not understand the construction. Thanks to you, I think I have a much better grasp of it, not that it still could not be improved upon. The above questions are again merely to better understand the question that slows us all down, why?Sola Gratia,JayAlways Under Grace!

 

The anaphora of 1 John 3:5 & 8 & the Subjunctive1 Timothy 2:11

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.