1 John 1:4

Periphrastic construction in I John 1:4 Robert R. Monti robemon at regent.edu
Fri Jul 2 00:57:33 EDT 1999

 

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] [Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] Right now I’m working my way through I John to keep up my Greek translationwork up on my own. I’d like some input on I John ch. 1, v. 4:KAI TAUTA GRAFOMEN hHMAIS, hINA hH CARA hHMWN hH PEPLHRWMENH.Concerning hH PEPLHRWMENH, I made the following note:hH PEPLHRWMENH is the periphrastic construction (perfect participleand presentsubjunctive form of EIMI). It emphasizes a state of existence. ForJohn, the completedprocess of writing about the manifested eternal life which theapostles had seen, heardtouched is meant to achieve a durative state in both John and hisintended audience –“that our joy might be completed.”Comments would be appreciated — either on- or off-list is fine. I wouldalso appreciate it if somebody would discuss the use of DE to lend strengthto a statement or argument, as in I John ch. 1, v. 3b:KAI hH KOINWNIA *DE* hH hHMETERA META TOU PATROS KAI META TOU hUIOUAUTOU IHSOU CRISTOU.Thanks!_________________________________________________________Robert R. MontiM. Div. candidateRegent University School of DivinityVirginia Beach, VArobemon at regent.eduhttp://home.regent.edu/robemon

 

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48][Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48]

Periphrastic construction in I John 1:4 Robert R. Monti robemon at regent.edu
Fri Jul 2 00:57:33 EDT 1999

 

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] [Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] Right now I’m working my way through I John to keep up my Greek translationwork up on my own. I’d like some input on I John ch. 1, v. 4:KAI TAUTA GRAFOMEN hHMAIS, hINA hH CARA hHMWN hH PEPLHRWMENH.Concerning hH PEPLHRWMENH, I made the following note:hH PEPLHRWMENH is the periphrastic construction (perfect participleand presentsubjunctive form of EIMI). It emphasizes a state of existence. ForJohn, the completedprocess of writing about the manifested eternal life which theapostles had seen, heardtouched is meant to achieve a durative state in both John and hisintended audience –“that our joy might be completed.”Comments would be appreciated — either on- or off-list is fine. I wouldalso appreciate it if somebody would discuss the use of DE to lend strengthto a statement or argument, as in I John ch. 1, v. 3b:KAI hH KOINWNIA *DE* hH hHMETERA META TOU PATROS KAI META TOU hUIOUAUTOU IHSOU CRISTOU.Thanks!_________________________________________________________Robert R. MontiM. Div. candidateRegent University School of DivinityVirginia Beach, VArobemon at regent.eduhttp://home.regent.edu/robemon

 

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48][Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48]

Periphrastic construction in I John 1:4 Carl Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Jul 2 07:44:58 EDT 1999

 

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] [Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] On 07/02/99, “”Robert R. Monti” <robemon at regent.edu>” wrote:> Right now I’m working my way through I John to keep up my Greek translation> work up on my own. I’d like some input on I John ch. 1, v. 4:> > KAI TAUTA GRAFOMEN hHMAIS, hINA hH CARA hHMWN hH PEPLHRWMENH.There’s a major transliteration error here that I’m going to correct each time I see it, beginning with transcription of the verse in question. KAI TAUTA GRAFOMEN hHMEIS, hINA hH CARA hHMWN Hi PLHRWMENH.> Concerning Hi PEPLHRWMENH, I made the following note:> > Hi PEPLHRWMENH is the periphrastic construction (perfect participle> and present> subjunctive form of EIMI). It emphasizes a state of existence. For> John, the completed> process of writing about the manifested eternal life which the> apostles had seen, heard> touched is meant to achieve a durative state in both John and his> intended audience —> “that our joy might be completed.”I think that, in considering this verse, one must be aware that Hi PEPLHRWMENH need NOT be considered a periphrastic construction, although it COULD be. An alternative reading might be to read the Hi as present subjunctive and PEPLHRWMENH as a predicate adjective in the sense “complete.” And I really think that this is probably the easier way to read it.However, we might ask whether this is ultimately another way of saying the same thing, especially as there is no NON-periphrastic form of the perfect passive subjunctive. In either case, I think that the emphasis in the perfect passive partaiciple PEPLHRWMENH is on an achieved state rather than on the achievement of the state: i.e., it’s not a matter of EFFECTING the completion that is emphasized by use of this verb form (as it seems to me you are reading it when you write, “that our joy may be completed”–that idea would better be expressed, I think, with an aorist passive subjunctive, e.g. hINA hH CARA hHMWN PLHRWQHi); rather it’s a matter of the present status of the joy as fully effective–as a fait accompli, so to speak. This is why I say that PEPLHRWMENH might almost as well be viewed as a predicate adjective and the whole clause might almost as well be written hINA hH CARA hHMWN Hi PLHRHS. And I think that the common translations of the clause are right: “that our joy may be COMPLETE”–rather than “COMPLETED.”> Comments would be appreciated — either on- or off-list is fine. I would> also appreciate it if somebody would discuss the use of DE to lend strength> to a statement or argument, as in I John ch. 1, v. 3b:> KAI hH KOINWNIA *DE* hH hHMETERA META TOU PATROS KAI META TOU hUIOU> AUTOU IHSOU CRISTOU.This is a little bit awkward and seems almost like an afterthought in a sentence that some might well consider a monstrous anacoluthon comparable in its own way to Ephesians 1:3-10 [No, I DON’T want to start up the “bad Greek” thread–I think this is intelligible but curiously, awkwardly phrased]. We have to look at this as a clarification, I think, of the preceding clause, hINA KAI hUMEIS KOINWNIAN ECHTE MEQ’ hHMWN, and I’d be inclined to put the entire clause of 3b in parentheses: “(even our own fellowship with the Father and with His son Jesus Christ)”.One COULD say that there is an implicit ESTIN in this clause and that it is declarative: “even our own fellowship is with the Father and with His son Jesus Christ.” I think that’s a legitimate alternative.OR alternatively one could say that this clause is an expansive description of the KOINWNIA that the writer wants the addresses to share; it ought perhaps, if thus understood, to be set in the accusative to agree with the KOINWNIAN of the previous verse, but it might be understood as something I rather despise to acknowledge the existence of: a NOMINATIVUS PENDENS; the nearest parallel would be the final phrase of GJn 1:14, PLHRHS CARITOS KAI ALHQEIAS, where one expects PLHRH, an accusative to agree with DOXAN, or alternatively PLHROUS, a genitive to agree with AUTOU.Of course, I’ve been talking about a different problem than the one you have raised, one that seems closely bound up with the function of that DE. But I think the function of the DE is practically to turn the entire clause in which it is imbedded into a parenthetical one; to convey its force VERY LOOSELY, I’d convey the clause thus: “even the fellowship, that is, that we ourselves have with the Father and with His son Jesus Christ.”But there’s something grammatically awkward in this phrasing, whichever alternative explanation one accepts: either the whole phrase ought not to be in the nominative, or else one must accept an implicit ESTIN. Perhaps the second alternative is easier, but I rather suspect that the first alternative may be more in accord with the composition as it stands (that it’s something of an anacoluthon).This has been awkward writing on the web, where I’m in recurrent peril of losing my connection. My home domain is down and I am connected to the net by an alternative ISP. I hope it goes through.

 

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48][Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48]

Periphrastic construction in I John 1:4 Carl Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Jul 2 07:44:58 EDT 1999

 

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] [Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] On 07/02/99, “”Robert R. Monti” <robemon at regent.edu>” wrote:> Right now I’m working my way through I John to keep up my Greek translation> work up on my own. I’d like some input on I John ch. 1, v. 4:> > KAI TAUTA GRAFOMEN hHMAIS, hINA hH CARA hHMWN hH PEPLHRWMENH.There’s a major transliteration error here that I’m going to correct each time I see it, beginning with transcription of the verse in question. KAI TAUTA GRAFOMEN hHMEIS, hINA hH CARA hHMWN Hi PLHRWMENH.> Concerning Hi PEPLHRWMENH, I made the following note:> > Hi PEPLHRWMENH is the periphrastic construction (perfect participle> and present> subjunctive form of EIMI). It emphasizes a state of existence. For> John, the completed> process of writing about the manifested eternal life which the> apostles had seen, heard> touched is meant to achieve a durative state in both John and his> intended audience —> “that our joy might be completed.”I think that, in considering this verse, one must be aware that Hi PEPLHRWMENH need NOT be considered a periphrastic construction, although it COULD be. An alternative reading might be to read the Hi as present subjunctive and PEPLHRWMENH as a predicate adjective in the sense “complete.” And I really think that this is probably the easier way to read it.However, we might ask whether this is ultimately another way of saying the same thing, especially as there is no NON-periphrastic form of the perfect passive subjunctive. In either case, I think that the emphasis in the perfect passive partaiciple PEPLHRWMENH is on an achieved state rather than on the achievement of the state: i.e., it’s not a matter of EFFECTING the completion that is emphasized by use of this verb form (as it seems to me you are reading it when you write, “that our joy may be completed”–that idea would better be expressed, I think, with an aorist passive subjunctive, e.g. hINA hH CARA hHMWN PLHRWQHi); rather it’s a matter of the present status of the joy as fully effective–as a fait accompli, so to speak. This is why I say that PEPLHRWMENH might almost as well be viewed as a predicate adjective and the whole clause might almost as well be written hINA hH CARA hHMWN Hi PLHRHS. And I think that the common translations of the clause are right: “that our joy may be COMPLETE”–rather than “COMPLETED.”> Comments would be appreciated — either on- or off-list is fine. I would> also appreciate it if somebody would discuss the use of DE to lend strength> to a statement or argument, as in I John ch. 1, v. 3b:> KAI hH KOINWNIA *DE* hH hHMETERA META TOU PATROS KAI META TOU hUIOU> AUTOU IHSOU CRISTOU.This is a little bit awkward and seems almost like an afterthought in a sentence that some might well consider a monstrous anacoluthon comparable in its own way to Ephesians 1:3-10 [No, I DON’T want to start up the “bad Greek” thread–I think this is intelligible but curiously, awkwardly phrased]. We have to look at this as a clarification, I think, of the preceding clause, hINA KAI hUMEIS KOINWNIAN ECHTE MEQ’ hHMWN, and I’d be inclined to put the entire clause of 3b in parentheses: “(even our own fellowship with the Father and with His son Jesus Christ)”.One COULD say that there is an implicit ESTIN in this clause and that it is declarative: “even our own fellowship is with the Father and with His son Jesus Christ.” I think that’s a legitimate alternative.OR alternatively one could say that this clause is an expansive description of the KOINWNIA that the writer wants the addresses to share; it ought perhaps, if thus understood, to be set in the accusative to agree with the KOINWNIAN of the previous verse, but it might be understood as something I rather despise to acknowledge the existence of: a NOMINATIVUS PENDENS; the nearest parallel would be the final phrase of GJn 1:14, PLHRHS CARITOS KAI ALHQEIAS, where one expects PLHRH, an accusative to agree with DOXAN, or alternatively PLHROUS, a genitive to agree with AUTOU.Of course, I’ve been talking about a different problem than the one you have raised, one that seems closely bound up with the function of that DE. But I think the function of the DE is practically to turn the entire clause in which it is imbedded into a parenthetical one; to convey its force VERY LOOSELY, I’d convey the clause thus: “even the fellowship, that is, that we ourselves have with the Father and with His son Jesus Christ.”But there’s something grammatically awkward in this phrasing, whichever alternative explanation one accepts: either the whole phrase ought not to be in the nominative, or else one must accept an implicit ESTIN. Perhaps the second alternative is easier, but I rather suspect that the first alternative may be more in accord with the composition as it stands (that it’s something of an anacoluthon).This has been awkward writing on the web, where I’m in recurrent peril of losing my connection. My home domain is down and I am connected to the net by an alternative ISP. I hope it goes through.

 

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48][Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48]

DE in I John 1:3 (was Re: Periphrastic construction in I John 1:4) Mike Sangrey mike at sojurn.lns.pa.us
Fri Jul 2 15:15:29 EDT 1999

 

1Thess 3:13 I am looking for a Russian “Greek” cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu said:> On 07/02/99, “”Robert R. Monti” <robemon at regent.edu>” wrote:[some text deleted]>> … I would>> also appreciate it if somebody would discuss the use of DE to lend strength>> to a statement or argument, as in I John ch. 1, v. 3b:>> KAI hH KOINWNIA *DE* hH hHMETERA META TOU PATROS KAI META TOU hUIOU>> AUTOU IHSOU CRISTOU.> This is a little bit awkward and seems almost like an afterthought in> a sentence that some might well consider a monstrous anacoluthon> comparable in its own way to Ephesians 1:3-10 [No, I DON’T want to> start up the “bad Greek” thread–I think this is intelligible but> curiously, awkwardly phrased]. We have to look at this as a> clarification, I think, of the preceding clause, hINA KAI hUMEIS> KOINWNIAN ECHTE MEQ’ hHMWN, and I’d be inclined to put the entire> clause of 3b in parentheses: “(even our own fellowship with the> Father and with His son Jesus Christ)”.> One COULD say that there is an implicit ESTIN in this clause and that> it is declarative: “even our own fellowship is with the Father and> with His son Jesus Christ.” I think that’s a legitimate alternative.> OR alternatively one could say that this clause is an expansive> description of the KOINWNIA that the writer wants the addresses to> share; it ought perhaps, if thus understood, to be set in the> accusative to agree with the KOINWNIAN of the previous verse, but it> might be understood as something I rather despise to acknowledge the> existence of: a NOMINATIVUS PENDENS; the nearest parallel would be> the final phrase of GJn 1:14, PLHRHS CARITOS KAI ALHQEIAS, where one> expects PLHRH, an accusative to agree with DOXAN, or alternatively> PLHROUS, a genitive to agree with AUTOU.> Of course, I’ve been talking about a different problem than the one> you have raised, one that seems closely bound up with the function of> that DE. But I think the function of the DE is practically to turn> the entire clause in which it is imbedded into a parenthetical one;> to convey its force VERY LOOSELY, I’d convey the clause thus: “even> the fellowship, that is, that we ourselves have with the Father and> with His son Jesus Christ.”> But there’s something grammatically awkward in this phrasing,> whichever alternative explanation one accepts: either the whole> phrase ought not to be in the nominative, or else one must accept an> implicit ESTIN. Perhaps the second alternative is easier, but I> rather suspect that the first alternative may be more in accord with> the composition as it stands (that it’s something of an anacoluthon).May I share a thought about the use of DE here? Read this as a question: being a sounding board to help with my understanding.Could DE be thought of as a thoughtful pause? The DE would tendto lightly push the hH KOINWNIA away from the hH hHMETERA. Or,alternatively, one could think of it as connecting the two articularwords more loosely than they would normally be connected. We don’t havea simple “our fellowship” because the DE is stuck in there. This use ofDE–if it exists at all–would be similar to a “word” some untrainedspeakers use, namely “ummmm” (which, to my ear, has a similar phonemicquality to DE.) As if John is about to convey something important which hedoes not want his hearers to miss. The result is that the DE addsemphasis to the type of fellowship John wanted for his hearers. (Iwonder, since DE frequently can’t be translated as a word, should it not,at least sometimes, be translated as a space? Keep that thought in mindas I proceed.)Now, having said that the “our” is lightly separated from the”fellowship”, I note that the case pulls them together, and we wouldnaturally expect that from a possesive pronoun. So, John *is* talkingabout “our fellowship”, but there is something more which is added by the”space” which he has introduced by his sentence construction.So, with the hH KOINWNIA, John first focuses his hearers attention onfellowship and not just any fellowship, but a particular fellowship.And then he proceeds, after the pause, with the expansive description ofthat fellowship (as Carl has said above.) Perhaps not great grammar, but,if DE could be thought of as conveying a pause, and that was normal tothe Greek ear, then it would be perfectly good grammar in Greek, thoughterrible grammar in English. [Please don’t pour the blood of startinga ‘good grammar/bad grammar’ discussion at such a little greek’s feet.That would be most unkind. 😉 ]If I could translate the pause, I would have, “…that you also may havefellowship with us; even the fellowship …ummm… [like] our fellowshipwith the Father and with the son Jesus Christ.” Better English grammarwould produce, “…that you also may have fellowship with us; even thefellowship very much like our fellowship with the Father and with theson Jesus Christ.”And, again, I’m very much interested in feedback regarding this (positiveor negative).Carl: regarding the implied ESTIN, does Smyth 1183b apply to an impliedESTIN.> This has been awkward writing on the web, where I’m in recurrent peril> of losing my connection. My home domain is down and I am connected to> the net by an alternative ISP. I hope it goes through. Hmmmmm…is ‘peril’ an hyperbole or are you addicted? 🙂 Actually, ifyour Internet connection goes down it is I who am in peril.I apologize for the longishness; thanks a head of time.– Mike Sangreymike at sojurn.lns.pa.us

 

1Thess 3:13 I am looking for a Russian “Greek”

DE in I John 1:3 (was Re: Periphrastic construction in I John 1:4) Mike Sangrey mike at sojurn.lns.pa.us
Fri Jul 2 15:15:29 EDT 1999

 

1Thess 3:13 I am looking for a Russian “Greek” cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu said:> On 07/02/99, “”Robert R. Monti” <robemon at regent.edu>” wrote:[some text deleted]>> … I would>> also appreciate it if somebody would discuss the use of DE to lend strength>> to a statement or argument, as in I John ch. 1, v. 3b:>> KAI hH KOINWNIA *DE* hH hHMETERA META TOU PATROS KAI META TOU hUIOU>> AUTOU IHSOU CRISTOU.> This is a little bit awkward and seems almost like an afterthought in> a sentence that some might well consider a monstrous anacoluthon> comparable in its own way to Ephesians 1:3-10 [No, I DON’T want to> start up the “bad Greek” thread–I think this is intelligible but> curiously, awkwardly phrased]. We have to look at this as a> clarification, I think, of the preceding clause, hINA KAI hUMEIS> KOINWNIAN ECHTE MEQ’ hHMWN, and I’d be inclined to put the entire> clause of 3b in parentheses: “(even our own fellowship with the> Father and with His son Jesus Christ)”.> One COULD say that there is an implicit ESTIN in this clause and that> it is declarative: “even our own fellowship is with the Father and> with His son Jesus Christ.” I think that’s a legitimate alternative.> OR alternatively one could say that this clause is an expansive> description of the KOINWNIA that the writer wants the addresses to> share; it ought perhaps, if thus understood, to be set in the> accusative to agree with the KOINWNIAN of the previous verse, but it> might be understood as something I rather despise to acknowledge the> existence of: a NOMINATIVUS PENDENS; the nearest parallel would be> the final phrase of GJn 1:14, PLHRHS CARITOS KAI ALHQEIAS, where one> expects PLHRH, an accusative to agree with DOXAN, or alternatively> PLHROUS, a genitive to agree with AUTOU.> Of course, I’ve been talking about a different problem than the one> you have raised, one that seems closely bound up with the function of> that DE. But I think the function of the DE is practically to turn> the entire clause in which it is imbedded into a parenthetical one;> to convey its force VERY LOOSELY, I’d convey the clause thus: “even> the fellowship, that is, that we ourselves have with the Father and> with His son Jesus Christ.”> But there’s something grammatically awkward in this phrasing,> whichever alternative explanation one accepts: either the whole> phrase ought not to be in the nominative, or else one must accept an> implicit ESTIN. Perhaps the second alternative is easier, but I> rather suspect that the first alternative may be more in accord with> the composition as it stands (that it’s something of an anacoluthon).May I share a thought about the use of DE here? Read this as a question: being a sounding board to help with my understanding.Could DE be thought of as a thoughtful pause? The DE would tendto lightly push the hH KOINWNIA away from the hH hHMETERA. Or,alternatively, one could think of it as connecting the two articularwords more loosely than they would normally be connected. We don’t havea simple “our fellowship” because the DE is stuck in there. This use ofDE–if it exists at all–would be similar to a “word” some untrainedspeakers use, namely “ummmm” (which, to my ear, has a similar phonemicquality to DE.) As if John is about to convey something important which hedoes not want his hearers to miss. The result is that the DE addsemphasis to the type of fellowship John wanted for his hearers. (Iwonder, since DE frequently can’t be translated as a word, should it not,at least sometimes, be translated as a space? Keep that thought in mindas I proceed.)Now, having said that the “our” is lightly separated from the”fellowship”, I note that the case pulls them together, and we wouldnaturally expect that from a possesive pronoun. So, John *is* talkingabout “our fellowship”, but there is something more which is added by the”space” which he has introduced by his sentence construction.So, with the hH KOINWNIA, John first focuses his hearers attention onfellowship and not just any fellowship, but a particular fellowship.And then he proceeds, after the pause, with the expansive description ofthat fellowship (as Carl has said above.) Perhaps not great grammar, but,if DE could be thought of as conveying a pause, and that was normal tothe Greek ear, then it would be perfectly good grammar in Greek, thoughterrible grammar in English. [Please don’t pour the blood of startinga ‘good grammar/bad grammar’ discussion at such a little greek’s feet.That would be most unkind. 😉 ]If I could translate the pause, I would have, “…that you also may havefellowship with us; even the fellowship …ummm… [like] our fellowshipwith the Father and with the son Jesus Christ.” Better English grammarwould produce, “…that you also may have fellowship with us; even thefellowship very much like our fellowship with the Father and with theson Jesus Christ.”And, again, I’m very much interested in feedback regarding this (positiveor negative).Carl: regarding the implied ESTIN, does Smyth 1183b apply to an impliedESTIN.> This has been awkward writing on the web, where I’m in recurrent peril> of losing my connection. My home domain is down and I am connected to> the net by an alternative ISP. I hope it goes through. Hmmmmm…is ‘peril’ an hyperbole or are you addicted? 🙂 Actually, ifyour Internet connection goes down it is I who am in peril.I apologize for the longishness; thanks a head of time.– Mike Sangreymike at sojurn.lns.pa.us

 

1Thess 3:13 I am looking for a Russian “Greek”

DE in I John 1:3 (was Re: Periphrastic construction in I John 1:4) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Jul 3 06:55:10 EDT 1999

 

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] Mark 8:24 “Longishness” seems to be the doom of this concatenation of question andresponses; if anyone is uninterested in the lowly question of the particleDE, I would suggest that now is the time to press the delete button, but ifone IS interested in that lowly question, I think the whole sequence hangstogether.At 3:15 PM -0400 7/2/99, Mike Sangrey wrote:>cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu said:>> On 07/02/99, “”Robert R. Monti” <robemon at regent.edu>” wrote:> >[some text deleted]> >>> … I would>>> also appreciate it if somebody would discuss the use of DE to lend strength>>> to a statement or argument, as in I John ch. 1, v. 3b:> >>> KAI hH KOINWNIA *DE* hH hHMETERA META TOU PATROS KAI META TOU hUIOU>>> AUTOU IHSOU CRISTOU.> >> This is a little bit awkward and seems almost like an afterthought in>> a sentence that some might well consider a monstrous anacoluthon>> comparable in its own way to Ephesians 1:3-10 [No, I DON’T want to>> start up the “bad Greek” thread–I think this is intelligible but>> curiously, awkwardly phrased]. We have to look at this as a>> clarification, I think, of the preceding clause, hINA KAI hUMEIS>> KOINWNIAN ECHTE MEQ’ hHMWN, and I’d be inclined to put the entire>> clause of 3b in parentheses: “(even our own fellowship with the>> Father and with His son Jesus Christ)”.> >> One COULD say that there is an implicit ESTIN in this clause and that>> it is declarative: “even our own fellowship is with the Father and>> with His son Jesus Christ.” I think that’s a legitimate alternative.> >> OR alternatively one could say that this clause is an expansive>> description of the KOINWNIA that the writer wants the addresses to>> share; it ought perhaps, if thus understood, to be set in the>> accusative to agree with the KOINWNIAN of the previous verse, but it>> might be understood as something I rather despise to acknowledge the>> existence of: a NOMINATIVUS PENDENS; the nearest parallel would be>> the final phrase of GJn 1:14, PLHRHS CARITOS KAI ALHQEIAS, where one>> expects PLHRH, an accusative to agree with DOXAN, or alternatively>> PLHROUS, a genitive to agree with AUTOU.> >> Of course, I’ve been talking about a different problem than the one>> you have raised, one that seems closely bound up with the function of>> that DE. But I think the function of the DE is practically to turn>> the entire clause in which it is imbedded into a parenthetical one;>> to convey its force VERY LOOSELY, I’d convey the clause thus: “even>> the fellowship, that is, that we ourselves have with the Father and>> with His son Jesus Christ.”> >> But there’s something grammatically awkward in this phrasing,>> whichever alternative explanation one accepts: either the whole>> phrase ought not to be in the nominative, or else one must accept an>> implicit ESTIN. Perhaps the second alternative is easier, but I>> rather suspect that the first alternative may be more in accord with>> the composition as it stands (that it’s something of an anacoluthon).> >May I share a thought about the use of DE here? Read this as a question:> being a sounding board to help with my understanding.> >Could DE be thought of as a thoughtful pause? The DE would tend>to lightly push the hH KOINWNIA away from the hH hHMETERA. Or,>alternatively, one could think of it as connecting the two articular>words more loosely than they would normally be connected. We don’t have>a simple “our fellowship” because the DE is stuck in there. This use of>DE–if it exists at all–would be similar to a “word” some untrained>speakers use, namely “ummmm” (which, to my ear, has a similar phonemic>quality to DE.) As if John is about to convey something important which he>does not want his hearers to miss. The result is that the DE adds>emphasis to the type of fellowship John wanted for his hearers. (I>wonder, since DE frequently can’t be translated as a word, should it not,>at least sometimes, be translated as a space? Keep that thought in mind>as I proceed.)> >Now, having said that the “our” is lightly separated from the>“fellowship”, I note that the case pulls them together, and we would>naturally expect that from a possesive pronoun. So, John *is* talking>about “our fellowship”, but there is something more which is added by the>“space” which he has introduced by his sentence construction.> >So, with the hH KOINWNIA, John first focuses his hearers attention on>fellowship and not just any fellowship, but a particular fellowship.>And then he proceeds, after the pause, with the expansive description of>that fellowship (as Carl has said above.) Perhaps not great grammar, but,>if DE could be thought of as conveying a pause, and that was normal to>the Greek ear, then it would be perfectly good grammar in Greek, though>terrible grammar in English. [Please don’t pour the blood of starting>a ‘good grammar/bad grammar’ discussion at such a little greek’s feet.>That would be most unkind. 😉 ]> >If I could translate the pause, I would have, “…that you also may have>fellowship with us; even the fellowship …ummm… [like] our fellowship>with the Father and with the son Jesus Christ.” Better English grammar>would produce, “…that you also may have fellowship with us; even the>fellowship very much like our fellowship with the Father and with the>son Jesus Christ.”> >And, again, I’m very much interested in feedback regarding this (positive>or negative).I very much like this interpretation of DE as justifying a somewhat awkwardbut necessary and helpful expansion of the notion of “fellowship.” I don’tquite know about ‘ummm…’ — I guess that phonemic quality is differentfrom ‘duhhh …’ — but let me suggest another way of getting to the sameend point: I find it useful occasionally to recall to mind that MEN and DEare weakened/ablauted forms of the particles MHN and DH, which have anoriginal sense something like “to be sure” and “in fact” respectively (ifthey are differentiated at all). Suppose we substitute “in fact” for the”ummm” in your suggested version; we’ll then have: ” … that you also mayhave fellowship with us, even the fellowship, in fact, that we have (hHhHMETERA) with the Father and with His son Jesus Christ.”And finally, to banish the “bad grammar” notion once for all, I think thatthis usage of DE is consistent with the “homiletic” or “sermonic” characterof 1 John — and I mean “homiletic” and “sermonic” in the Greek/Latinsenses. We have here carefully structured (rhetorically) discourse thatretains an air of conversational informality–an ease of discourse sharedby speaker/writer and listening audience (as I assume this text, like allNT documents) was written originally for the ear of an audience, not solelyfor the eye of a silent reader).>Carl: regarding the implied ESTIN, does Smyth 1183b apply to an implied>ESTIN.I think what he says in 944 is quite adequate to the point. But I haveaccess to only the online (first edition) of Smyth right now; 1183b in theonline edition really seems to be a different topic.>> This has been awkward writing on the web, where I’m in recurrent peril>> of losing my connection. My home domain is down and I am connected to>> the net by an alternative ISP. I hope it goes through.> >Hmmmmm…is ‘peril’ an hyperbole or are you addicted? 🙂 Actually, if>your Internet connection goes down it is I who am in peril.In fact, I was bumped off three times in the middle of that message and hadto reconnect: it was a KINDUNOS, and what I really feared was that what Ihad already written would be lost before I could get it sent. Of course itonly existed on my machine, but that would have been lost if my browser hadcrashed when my connection failed. Fortunately my home domain is back up sothat I can again respond off-line before dispatching. I won’t respond tothe question of addiction as a matter of customary praetermission.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48]Mark 8:24

DE in I John 1:3 (was Re: Periphrastic construction in I John 1:4) Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Jul 3 06:55:10 EDT 1999

 

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48] Mark 8:24 “Longishness” seems to be the doom of this concatenation of question andresponses; if anyone is uninterested in the lowly question of the particleDE, I would suggest that now is the time to press the delete button, but ifone IS interested in that lowly question, I think the whole sequence hangstogether.At 3:15 PM -0400 7/2/99, Mike Sangrey wrote:>cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu said:>> On 07/02/99, “”Robert R. Monti” <robemon at regent.edu>” wrote:> >[some text deleted]> >>> … I would>>> also appreciate it if somebody would discuss the use of DE to lend strength>>> to a statement or argument, as in I John ch. 1, v. 3b:> >>> KAI hH KOINWNIA *DE* hH hHMETERA META TOU PATROS KAI META TOU hUIOU>>> AUTOU IHSOU CRISTOU.> >> This is a little bit awkward and seems almost like an afterthought in>> a sentence that some might well consider a monstrous anacoluthon>> comparable in its own way to Ephesians 1:3-10 [No, I DON’T want to>> start up the “bad Greek” thread–I think this is intelligible but>> curiously, awkwardly phrased]. We have to look at this as a>> clarification, I think, of the preceding clause, hINA KAI hUMEIS>> KOINWNIAN ECHTE MEQ’ hHMWN, and I’d be inclined to put the entire>> clause of 3b in parentheses: “(even our own fellowship with the>> Father and with His son Jesus Christ)”.> >> One COULD say that there is an implicit ESTIN in this clause and that>> it is declarative: “even our own fellowship is with the Father and>> with His son Jesus Christ.” I think that’s a legitimate alternative.> >> OR alternatively one could say that this clause is an expansive>> description of the KOINWNIA that the writer wants the addresses to>> share; it ought perhaps, if thus understood, to be set in the>> accusative to agree with the KOINWNIAN of the previous verse, but it>> might be understood as something I rather despise to acknowledge the>> existence of: a NOMINATIVUS PENDENS; the nearest parallel would be>> the final phrase of GJn 1:14, PLHRHS CARITOS KAI ALHQEIAS, where one>> expects PLHRH, an accusative to agree with DOXAN, or alternatively>> PLHROUS, a genitive to agree with AUTOU.> >> Of course, I’ve been talking about a different problem than the one>> you have raised, one that seems closely bound up with the function of>> that DE. But I think the function of the DE is practically to turn>> the entire clause in which it is imbedded into a parenthetical one;>> to convey its force VERY LOOSELY, I’d convey the clause thus: “even>> the fellowship, that is, that we ourselves have with the Father and>> with His son Jesus Christ.”> >> But there’s something grammatically awkward in this phrasing,>> whichever alternative explanation one accepts: either the whole>> phrase ought not to be in the nominative, or else one must accept an>> implicit ESTIN. Perhaps the second alternative is easier, but I>> rather suspect that the first alternative may be more in accord with>> the composition as it stands (that it’s something of an anacoluthon).> >May I share a thought about the use of DE here? Read this as a question:> being a sounding board to help with my understanding.> >Could DE be thought of as a thoughtful pause? The DE would tend>to lightly push the hH KOINWNIA away from the hH hHMETERA. Or,>alternatively, one could think of it as connecting the two articular>words more loosely than they would normally be connected. We don’t have>a simple “our fellowship” because the DE is stuck in there. This use of>DE–if it exists at all–would be similar to a “word” some untrained>speakers use, namely “ummmm” (which, to my ear, has a similar phonemic>quality to DE.) As if John is about to convey something important which he>does not want his hearers to miss. The result is that the DE adds>emphasis to the type of fellowship John wanted for his hearers. (I>wonder, since DE frequently can’t be translated as a word, should it not,>at least sometimes, be translated as a space? Keep that thought in mind>as I proceed.)> >Now, having said that the “our” is lightly separated from the>“fellowship”, I note that the case pulls them together, and we would>naturally expect that from a possesive pronoun. So, John *is* talking>about “our fellowship”, but there is something more which is added by the>“space” which he has introduced by his sentence construction.> >So, with the hH KOINWNIA, John first focuses his hearers attention on>fellowship and not just any fellowship, but a particular fellowship.>And then he proceeds, after the pause, with the expansive description of>that fellowship (as Carl has said above.) Perhaps not great grammar, but,>if DE could be thought of as conveying a pause, and that was normal to>the Greek ear, then it would be perfectly good grammar in Greek, though>terrible grammar in English. [Please don’t pour the blood of starting>a ‘good grammar/bad grammar’ discussion at such a little greek’s feet.>That would be most unkind. 😉 ]> >If I could translate the pause, I would have, “…that you also may have>fellowship with us; even the fellowship …ummm… [like] our fellowship>with the Father and with the son Jesus Christ.” Better English grammar>would produce, “…that you also may have fellowship with us; even the>fellowship very much like our fellowship with the Father and with the>son Jesus Christ.”> >And, again, I’m very much interested in feedback regarding this (positive>or negative).I very much like this interpretation of DE as justifying a somewhat awkwardbut necessary and helpful expansion of the notion of “fellowship.” I don’tquite know about ‘ummm…’ — I guess that phonemic quality is differentfrom ‘duhhh …’ — but let me suggest another way of getting to the sameend point: I find it useful occasionally to recall to mind that MEN and DEare weakened/ablauted forms of the particles MHN and DH, which have anoriginal sense something like “to be sure” and “in fact” respectively (ifthey are differentiated at all). Suppose we substitute “in fact” for the”ummm” in your suggested version; we’ll then have: ” … that you also mayhave fellowship with us, even the fellowship, in fact, that we have (hHhHMETERA) with the Father and with His son Jesus Christ.”And finally, to banish the “bad grammar” notion once for all, I think thatthis usage of DE is consistent with the “homiletic” or “sermonic” characterof 1 John — and I mean “homiletic” and “sermonic” in the Greek/Latinsenses. We have here carefully structured (rhetorically) discourse thatretains an air of conversational informality–an ease of discourse sharedby speaker/writer and listening audience (as I assume this text, like allNT documents) was written originally for the ear of an audience, not solelyfor the eye of a silent reader).>Carl: regarding the implied ESTIN, does Smyth 1183b apply to an implied>ESTIN.I think what he says in 944 is quite adequate to the point. But I haveaccess to only the online (first edition) of Smyth right now; 1183b in theonline edition really seems to be a different topic.>> This has been awkward writing on the web, where I’m in recurrent peril>> of losing my connection. My home domain is down and I am connected to>> the net by an alternative ISP. I hope it goes through.> >Hmmmmm…is ‘peril’ an hyperbole or are you addicted? 🙂 Actually, if>your Internet connection goes down it is I who am in peril.In fact, I was bumped off three times in the middle of that message and hadto reconnect: it was a KINDUNOS, and what I really feared was that what Ihad already written would be lost before I could get it sent. Of course itonly existed on my machine, but that would have been lost if my browser hadcrashed when my connection failed. Fortunately my home domain is back up sothat I can again respond off-line before dispatching. I won’t respond tothe question of addiction as a matter of customary praetermission.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

[Fwd: Tense of TETAGMENOI in Acts 13:48]Mark 8:24

Pronouns in John 1:1 and I John 1-4 KJohn36574 at aol.com KJohn36574 at aol.com
Tue Dec 21 23:01:55 EST 1999

 

1 John 3:9 Luke 23:43 Can the pronouns in John 1:1 and I John 1:1-4 be translated “it” as Tyndale and Beck, respectively, have done?In William Tyndale’s translation of John 1:1 we have:”In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God: and the word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing, that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men, and the light shineth in the darkness, but the darkness comprehended it not.”In William Beck’s translation of I John 1:1-4 we have:”It was there from the beginning, we heard It, we saw It with our eyes, we looked at It, and our hands touched It – we’re writing about the Word of Life. That Life showed itself and we saw It, and now we testify and tell you about the everlasting Life that was with the Father and showed itself to us. We saw and heard It, and we tell you about It so that you, too, will have It in fellowship with us. Our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. We’re writing this so that our joy may be complete.”Ken JohnsonElk Grove, CAKJohn36574 at aol.com

 

1 John 3:9Luke 23:43

Pronouns in John 1:1 and I John 1-4 Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Wed Dec 22 09:03:29 EST 1999

 

Blayney Revision of KJV Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1-4 To: Ken Johnson,<< Can the pronouns in John 1:1-5 and I John 1:1-4 be translated “it” as Tyndale and Beck, respectively, have done? >>Can they? They not only can, but they have done so as you yourself have noted. I wonder if the question you really wanted to ask was: Should they? Or perhaps better yet, why did they?It should also be noted that these two passage are quite different.<< In William Tyndale’s translation of John 1:1-5 we have: “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God: and the word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it (a), and without it (b), was made nothing, that was made. In it (c) was life, and the life was the light of men, and the light shineth in the darkness, but the darkness comprehended it (d) not.” >>There are four “its” in this passage which I’ve marked with the letters “a” through “d.” The first three “its” are masculine pronouns referring to the masculine noun LOGOS. The fourth “it” is a neuter pronoun referring to the neuter noun FWS.<< In William Beck’s translation of I John 1:1-4 we have: “It (a) was there from the beginning, we heard It (b), we saw It (c) with our eyes, we looked at It (d), and our hands touched It (e) – we’re writing about the Word of Life. That Life showed itself (f) and we saw It (g), and now we testify and tell you about the everlasting Life that was with the Father and showed itself (h) to us. We saw and heard It (i), and we tell you about It (j) so that you, too, will have It (k) in fellowship with us. Our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. We’re writing this so that our joy may be complete.” >>There are eleven “its” in this passage, which I have marked with the letters “a” through “k.” Five of these “its,” those labeled “a,” “b,” “c,” “d,” & “i,” refer to the relative neuter pronoun hO. But six of these “its,” those labeled “e,” “f,” “g,” “h,” “j,” & “k,” refer to no explicit pronoun in the Greek text. As for the five neuter relative pronouns, it is grammatically unclear as to what they refer.-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.comDisclaimer: “I’m just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree), what do I know?”

 

Blayney Revision of KJVPronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1-4

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1-4 Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Wed Dec 22 09:50:26 EST 1999

 

Pronouns in John 1:1 and I John 1-4 1 John 3:9 To: Solomon Landers,<< AUTOS is a pronoun that takes the gender of its antecedent. In John 1:1, AUTOU is the same form in both the genitive singular masculine and the genitive singular nueter, but since it refers to hO LOGOS (masculine), a better translation would be “he, him.” >>Why would “he, him” be a better translation? The pronouns AUTOU & AUTWi are only masculine because the Greek term LOGOS is grammatically masculine. But in English the term “word” is considered to be a “thing,” and normally in English we would refer to such a term as “it.” Grammatically, it seems to me that “it” would be the better translation.-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.comDisclaimer: “I’m just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree), what do I know?”

 

Pronouns in John 1:1 and I John 1-41 John 3:9

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1-4 Numberup at worldnet.att.net Numberup at worldnet.att.net
Wed Dec 22 12:09:24 EST 1999

 

Blayney Revision of KJV John 1:1 pronouns Can you tell me how to get a copy of Beck’s translation? I have oftenseen it cited, but cannot find a copy.AUTOS is a pronoun that takes the gender of its antecedent. In John1:1, AUTOU is the same form in both the genitive singular masculineand the genitive singular nueter, but since it refers to hO LOGOS(masculine), a better translation would be “he, him.”However, in 1 John 1, Beck is justified in translating “it” because theantecedent is hOS, [what, that which] and is a neuter singularpronomial. He translates “life” as “it,” though it is feminine in theGreek, but makes better reading in English.Solomon LandersMemra Institute for Biblical Researchhttp://www.memrain.org<Ken Johnson writes:><Can the pronouns in John 1:1 amd I John 1:1-4 be translated “it” asTyndale and Beck, respectively, have done?>

 

Blayney Revision of KJVJohn 1:1 pronouns

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1-4 Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Wed Dec 22 14:37:01 EST 1999

 

John 8:58 (I am, I have been, I was?) John 8:58 To: Solomon Landers,SCM: << Why would “he, him” be a better translation? The pronouns AUTOU & AUTWi are only masculine because the Greek term LOGOS is grammatically masculine. But in English the term “word” is considered to be a “thing,” and normally in English we would refer to such a term as “it.” Grammatically, it seems to me that “it” would be the better translation. >>SL: << You are of course, grammatically correct. But I think the writer’s (John’s) context and target audience enter the picture, as well as the target audience of the translator into English. >>I would concur, that is why “it” would be the better translation. In an earlier message I had written:SCM: << … the Johannine Jesus says: “I do know him [God] and I keep his word” (Jn 8:55). If for John the God’s LOGOS was Jesus, how could the Johannine Jesus keep it? Another example, the Johannine Jesus says: “Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; and the word that you hear is not mine, but is from the Father who sent me” (Jn 14:24). Again, the Johannine Jesus speaks as if God’s LOGOS is different from himself! Nowhere does John’s gospel simply identify Jesus as God’s LOGOS. The difference of interpretations of John 1:14 is rooted in the fact that some take God’s LOGOS as an individual, while others (such as myself) take God’s LOGOS in the Johannine prologue as an instrumental force. >>There is no evidence in all of the Johannine Gospel that this author thought of God’s LOGOS as anything other than an instrumental force. Thus given “the writer’s (John’s) context and target audience” as well as “the target audience of the translator into English,” it would more accurately reflect John’s Greek text to translate those pronouns as “it.”-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.comDisclaimer: “I’m just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree), what do I know?”

 

John 8:58 (I am, I have been, I was?)John 8:58

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1-4 Numberup at worldnet.att.net Numberup at worldnet.att.net
Wed Dec 22 17:07:52 EST 1999

 

Pronouns in John 1:1 and ! John 1-4 John 8:58 (I am, I have been, I was?) You are of course, grammatically correct. But I think the writer’s (John’s) contextand target audience enter the picture, as well as the target audience of thetranslator into English.Solomon LandersMemra Institute for Biblical Researchhttp://www.memrainSteven Craig Miller wrote:> > Why would “he, him” be a better translation? The pronouns AUTOU & AUTWi are> only masculine because the Greek term LOGOS is grammatically masculine. But> in English the term “word” is considered to be a “thing,” and normally in> English we would refer to such a term as “it.” Grammatically, it seems to> me that “it” would be the better translation.> > -Steven Craig Miller> Alton, Illinois (USA)> scmiller at www.plantnet.com> Disclaimer: “I’m just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree),> what do I know?”>

 

Pronouns in John 1:1 and ! John 1-4John 8:58 (I am, I have been, I was?)

Pronouns in John 1:1 and ! John 1-4 KJohn36574 at aol.com KJohn36574 at aol.com
Wed Dec 22 17:03:43 EST 1999

 

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4 Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1-4 To: Steven Craig MillerBoyce W. Blackwelder stated:”The noun logos (from the verb lego, to collect, put words side by side, relate, speak, say) means reason, speech, or word. It signifies not only a word in the grammatical sense, but a spoken word which implies an idea or concept. It denotes, therefore, both the thought inwardly conceived in the mind and outwardly expressed through the vehicle of language.”(“Light from the Greek New Testament” (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House), 40.I think “the logos” as an “instrumental force” is probably too limiting. I think “the logos” in the man Christ Jesus was more than God’s “power”, since Jesus Christ was also the “love and wisdom” of God (Paul). He was the Shekinah glory of God in the flesh. The “Expression” of God the Father. Or God the Father expressing himself in a human being. The Son “exegeted him [God the Father]” (Jn. 1:18). As Irenaeus said so well:”The Father is that which is invisible about the Son, the Son is that which is visible about the Father.””…He [John] relates, therefore, with the utmost simplicity of language, the scenes in which Jesus seemed to him most significantly to have revealed His power and His goodness, and most forcibly to have demonstrated that the Father was in Him.”Marcus Dods, “The Expositor’s Bible” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947), 115.See also: John 8:19; 14:6-10 as evidence that the Father was in Jesus Christ.Ken Johnson (Eph. 4:4-6)Elk Grove, CAKJohn36574 at aol.com

 

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1-4

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1-4 Numberup at worldnet.att.net Numberup at worldnet.att.net
Wed Dec 22 18:06:49 EST 1999

 

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4 Jude 9 (Archangel–First in command and/or time?) Well, I don’t want to get theological about what John says at 1:14, but I would haveto say that I fall into the camp of those who think it definitely personalizes theLOGOS.Solomon LandersMemra Institute for Biblical Researchhttp://www.memrain.orgSteven Craig Miller wrote:<….The difference of interpretations of John 1:14 is rooted in the fact that sometake God’s LOGOS as an individual, while others (such as myself) take God’s LOGOS inthe Johannine prologue as an instrumental force.>

 

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4Jude 9 (Archangel–First in command and/or time?)

The Epistolary Plural in 1 John 1:4? Ilvgrammta at aol.com Ilvgrammta at aol.com
Tue Jan 4 11:41:54 EST 2000

 

The Purpose of Syntactical Categories The Purpose of Syntactical Categories Dear ers,1 John 1:4 reads:KAI TAUTA GRAFOMEN hHMEIS hINA hH XARA hHMWN Hi PEPLHRWMENH.Does John use the epistolary plural (GRAFOMEN, hHMEIS) here?Thanks in advance,Edgar Foster

 

The Purpose of Syntactical CategoriesThe Purpose of Syntactical Categories

The Epistolary Plural in 1 John 1:4? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Jan 4 12:09:54 EST 2000

 

Ign. Eph. 15:3 Ign. Eph. 15:3 At 11:41 AM -0500 1/4/00, Ilvgrammta at aol.com wrote:>Dear ers,> >1 John 1:4 reads:> >KAI TAUTA GRAFOMEN hHMEIS hINA hH XARA hHMWN Hi PEPLHRWMENH.> >Does John use the epistolary plural (GRAFOMEN, hHMEIS) here?> >Thanks in advance,I would think so and in fact I can’t imagine an alternative to this view;certainly he does not list at the outset additional senders (as Paulfrequently does, even when Paul writes in the first person singular). Ofcourse 1 John is a treatise or sermon rather than a real letter, but ituses the literary form of the letter as was commonly done in antiquity forshort treatises, and the first-plural or “editorial” we is pretty common.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.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Ign. Eph. 15:3Ign. Eph. 15:3

The Epistolary Plural in 1 John 1:4? Ilvgrammta at aol.com Ilvgrammta at aol.com
Tue Jan 4 17:37:51 EST 2000

 

Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures? The Epistolary Plural in 1 John 1:4? In a message dated 00-01-04 12:10:11 EST, cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu writes:<< I would think so and in fact I can’t imagine an alternative to this view; certainly he does not list at the outset additional senders (as Paul frequently does, even when Paul writes in the first person singular). Of course 1 John is a treatise or sermon rather than a real letter, but it uses the literary form of the letter as was commonly done in antiquity for short treatises, and the first-plural or “editorial” we is pretty common.>>I asked this question because (1) I did not know if this use was prevalent in the first century (2) The usage in 1 John 1:4 has been debated.Young indicates that the plural in 1 John 1:4 is a literary plural. Smalley, in his Word Series Commentary, interprets the plural as “we (the writer, in solidarity with all the representatives of orthodoxy in the church) are writing this.” Brown feels that what John writes “bears more than personal authorization–it is Community tradition from the Community tradition-bearers” (Young 73-74). Here is what Wallace writes:”Is the Elder writing alone or in association with others? Complicating the issue is the fact that in vv 5 and 6 the plural continues, but each time with a different force: In v 5 it seems to refer to the author and other ministers; in v 6, it is an inclusive WE (the author and audience together). The author uses GRAFW another dozen times in this letter, but each time in the singular” (Wallace 396).Hope this adds to the discussion,Edgar Foster

 

Temple and New world translation of holy scriptures?The Epistolary Plural in 1 John 1:4?

The Epistolary Plural in 1 John 1:4? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Jan 4 17:55:04 EST 2000

 

The Epistolary Plural in 1 John 1:4? temple and NWT of holy scriptures? At 5:37 PM -0500 1/4/00, Ilvgrammta at aol.com wrote:>In a message dated 00-01-04 12:10:11 EST, cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu writes:> ><< I would think so and in fact I can’t imagine an alternative to this view;> certainly he does not list at the outset additional senders (as Paul> frequently does, even when Paul writes in the first person singular). Of> course 1 John is a treatise or sermon rather than a real letter, but it> uses the literary form of the letter as was commonly done in antiquity for> short treatises, and the first-plural or “editorial” we is pretty common.>>> >I asked this question because (1) I did not know if this use was prevalent in>the first century (2) The usage in 1 John 1:4 has been debated.> >Young indicates that the plural in 1 John 1:4 is a literary plural. Smalley,>in his Word Series Commentary, interprets the plural as “we (the writer, in>solidarity with all the representatives of orthodoxy in the church) are>writing this.” Brown feels that what John writes “bears more than personal>authorization–it is Community tradition from the Community>tradition-bearers” (Young 73-74).> >Here is what Wallace writes:> >“Is the Elder writing alone or in association with others? Complicating the>issue is the fact that in vv 5 and 6 the plural continues, but each time with>a different force: In v 5 it seems to refer to the author and other>ministers; in v 6, it is an inclusive WE (the author and audience together).>The author uses GRAFW another dozen times in this letter, but each time in>the singular” (Wallace 396).> >Hope this adds to the discussion,Yes, it adds to the discussion (particularly when nobody on hassignificant input into your question) to “cite the learned authorities” andfind out that they hold to a variety of different views, some of whichoverlap. More voices in the discussion. I would still say what I saidabove. As for what the others say, I think Young is saying pretty much whatI’m saying. Smalley and Brown are interpreting on the basis of how theyfeel the treatise was meant to be interpreted (as an assuring warranty thatthe Johannine tradition is not really out of harmony with apostolicorthodoxy, even if the language of it can be interpreted in gnostic terms.It seems to me that Wallace deals more honestly with the actual evidenceand finds that it is insufficiently conclusive. Wherefore, I still must saythat the use of the plural in this situation is not at all uncommon (evenin alternation with a first-person singular), enough so that one needs toshow some convincing evidence that there’s a different reason for use ofthe first-plural here in 1 John than customary usage.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.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

The Epistolary Plural in 1 John 1:4?temple and NWT of holy scriptures?
Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4 KJohn36574 at aol.com KJohn36574 at aol.com
Wed Dec 22 16:34:58 EST 1999

 

John 13:34 – A hINA Clause with the force of an imperative? Pronouns in John 1:1 and ! John 1-4 To Soloman Landers:I noticed you are writing from the Memra Institute.The Aramaic term “memra” is used in the Targums of John’s day in place of the unmentionable name for the Hebrew G-d, YHVH or YHWH.It is not necessarily a different person than God, and it could have been in the mind of John when he wrote John 1:1-4, since he probably spoke and read Aramaic in his day. Memra is similar to the Greek “Logos”. He probably chose Koine Greek terminology because it was used so much in written correspondence, and he might have been countering allegorical Jewish and incipient Gnosticism tendencies or teachings which were usually written in Hellenistic Greek.However, NT scholar Peter Borgen believes that John’s Prologue is an exposition of Gen. 1:1ff, and written in a manner that reflects Targunic exegesis. In his view certain key words found in Gen 1:1-5 (“in the beginning”, “God”, “life”, “light”) are interpreted in John’s Prologue by means of paraphrasing expansions. The Jerusalem Targum on Gen 3;24 is mentioned as a parallel to the Prologue of John, in an effort to show how each paraphrasing expansion is similar. When comparing John’s Prologue with Jewish thought, Borgen states:”…in Jewish sources there is quite a strong exegetal tradition that interprets Gen. 1:1-ff. as not only referring to the creation of the world, but what preceeded it. The exegetical basis for this is expressed in John 1:1-2 in the light of v. 3: en archee/bereshith in Gen. 1:1 could be developed in Judaism within the thought category of existence at creation, and before, with subsequent revelation.”Peter Borgen, “Observations On the Targumic Character of the Prologue of John,” New Testament Studies, Vol. 16, pp. 288-295.Also, getting back to the term “Memra”…W.F. Albright refers to the ms Targum Neofiti I (a complete Palestinian Targum) in which “the ‘Word’ of God appears as a surrogate for the name of God, Yahweh.”(New Horizons in Biblical Research, London, 1966, p. 45).Memra is used as a name for God himself, especially as God as “self-revealing”. M. McNamara stated, “Johannine tradition may yet well prove to be mainly influenced by liturgical Jewish tradition, particularly of the form found in the Targums.”(“Logos of the Fourth Gospel and Memra of the Palestinian Targum (Ex 1242)”, ExT LXXIX, 1967-68, pp.117.)If John had “the Memra” in mind when he wrote “the Logos” he was probably not thinking of a second person or being as the Jewish literature was strictly monotheistic as was the Shema of Israel in the LXX and in Mark 12:29 “one” = masculine “heis”- the cardinal number in the Greek.Ken JohnsonElk Grove, CAKJohn36574 at aol.com

 

John 13:34 – A hINA Clause with the force of an imperative?Pronouns in John 1:1 and ! John 1-4

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4 KJohn36574 at aol.com KJohn36574 at aol.com
Wed Dec 22 17:47:12 EST 1999

 

John 8:58 Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1-4 To: Solomon LandersWe do want to keep in mind that John’s Logos is not very Greek. His idea of the Logos is not a God who is detached, but one who is very involved with us and where we are, otherwise he would not have taken on humanity and dwelt with us.It is much more than the Greek logos, just as John’s concept of the spirit of God is much more than Stoic in nature.Barclay stated:”John spoke to a world which thought of the gods in terms of passionless apatheia and serene detachment. He pointed at Jesus Christ and said: ‘Here is the mind of God; here is the expression of the thought of God; here is the logos.’ And men were confronted with a God who cared so passionately and who loved so sacrificially that His expression was Jesus christ and His emblem a cross” (Ext, LXX, 1958-1959, p. 82)”Wisdom” “The Law” “The Word [Memra]” are all related to John’s concept of “The Logos”.You might also want to read,M. McNamara, “The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (Rome, 1966) and G.J. Cowling, “New Light on the New Testament? The Significance of the Palestinian Targum” TSF Bulletin, No. 51 (Summer 1968), pp.6 ff.John Goldingday, Principal of St. John’s College, Nottingham, states,”The gospel…is related to scriptural narrative models and both gospels and epistles include many scriptural quotations and sections of explicit midrash (e.g. Mt. 4:1-11; 2 Cor. 3:7-18; Heb. 7:1-10) or Covert Midrash. (e.g. John, 1:1-18 in relation to Gen. 1:1-5 and Lk. 7: 51ff in relation to Dt. 1-26)…But the NT lacks consequtive commentary work, and its characteristic aim is situational rather than expository; it is concerned to interpret themes arising out of its own questions rather than by directly out of Scripture (see e.g. Rom. 9-11, or Hebrews and Revelation generally). In a sense, therefore, the NT is a midrash on Christ, rather than on the scriptures. The real interest of NT interpretation lies much less in Halakah…and much more in Haggidah.”(“Approaches to Old Testament Interpretation” Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-varsity Press, 1990, p. 152.)Ken JohnsonElk Grove, CAKJohn36574 at aol.com

 

John 8:58Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1-4

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4 Numberup at worldnet.att.net Numberup at worldnet.att.net
Wed Dec 22 19:53:43 EST 1999

 

John 8:58 Jude 9 (Archangel–First in command and/or time?) Thanks for the comments on the Memra. It’s a fascinating concept, the informationon which is continually evolving. I have copies of Targums Neofiti 1 and Onqelos,as well as the treatments by Fitzmyer and others. I consider it, basically, a”bridge concept” and one that, indeed, may have factored in the thinking of thewriter of John.As for the Institute, its purpose is explained on the web page.Solomon LandersMemra Institute for Biblical Researchhttp://www.memrain.orgKJohn36574 at aol.com wrote:> To Soloman Landers:> > I noticed you are writing from the Memra Institute.> > The Aramaic term “memra” is used in the Targums of John’s day in place of the> unmentionable name for the Hebrew G-d, YHVH or YHWH.> > It is not necessarily a different person than God, and it could have been in> the mind of John when he wrote John 1:1-4, since he probably spoke and read> Aramaic in his day. Memra is similar to the Greek “Logos”. He probably chose> Koine Greek terminology because it was used so much in written> correspondence, and he might have been countering allegorical Jewish and> incipient Gnosticism tendencies or teachings which were usually written in> Hellenistic Greek.> > However, NT scholar Peter Borgen believes that John’s Prologue is an> exposition of Gen. 1:1ff, and written in a manner that reflects Targunic> exegesis. In his view certain key words found in Gen 1:1-5 (“in the> beginning”, “God”, “life”, “light”) are interpreted in John’s Prologue by> means of paraphrasing expansions. The Jerusalem Targum on Gen 3;24 is> mentioned as a parallel to the Prologue of John, in an effort to show how> each paraphrasing expansion is similar. When comparing John’s Prologue with> Jewish thought, Borgen states:> > “…in Jewish sources there is quite a strong exegetal tradition that> interprets Gen. 1:1-ff. as not only referring to the creation of the world,> but what preceeded it. The exegetical basis for this is expressed in John> 1:1-2 in the light of v. 3: en archee/bereshith in Gen. 1:1 could be> developed in Judaism within the thought category of existence at creation,> and before, with subsequent revelation.”> <snip>

 

John 8:58Jude 9 (Archangel–First in command and/or time?)

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4 Will Wagers hyle at airmail.net
Thu Dec 23 00:04:45 EST 1999

 

Philipians 2:6 Beck’s Translation, Recovery Version Ken Johnson writes:>We do want to keep in mind that John’s Logos is not very Greek. His idea of>the Logos is not a God who is detached, but one who is very involved with us>and where we are, otherwise he would not have taken on humanity and dwelt>with us.Logos is a concept from Greek philosophy, not mythology. The Greek Logosis not “detached”: it is the very stuff of life; in fact, it *is* life, the intersectionof Form and Matter. As such, it enforms not only us but all living (readanimated) things, including “gods”. The only non-Greek thing in the Prologueis the notion that Logos takes the form of an individual man, when itis already necessarily present in all creation, being, in fact, Creation. Thisis the background of Jn 1:1.Will Wagershyle at airmail.net “Reality is the best metaphor.”

 

Philipians 2:6Beck’s Translation, Recovery Version

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Dec 23 08:15:29 EST 1999

 

Some “No-no’s” Some “No-no’s” At 12:04 AM -0500 12/23/99, Will Wagers wrote:>Ken Johnson writes:> >>We do want to keep in mind that John’s Logos is not very Greek. His idea of>>the Logos is not a God who is detached, but one who is very involved with us>>and where we are, otherwise he would not have taken on humanity and dwelt>>with us.> >Logos is a concept from Greek philosophy, not mythology. The Greek Logos>is not “detached”: it is the very stuff of life; in fact, it *is*>life, the intersection>of Form and Matter. As such, it enforms not only us but all living (read>animated) things, including “gods”. The only non-Greek thing in the Prologue>is the notion that Logos takes the form of an individual man, when it>is already necessarily present in all creation, being, in fact, Creation. This>is the background of Jn 1:1.Ken supplied the Hegelian thesis and Will the antithesis; let me supply asynthesis 😉 that is not likely to please either the former nor thelatter but which is held by many besides myself: that the LOGOS notion inthe Johannine prologue has roots BOTH in Greek pre-Socratic Heraclitean andStoic thought AND in Hebraic-Jewish Hokhma-Sophia speculation such as seenin the OT Wisdom literature and in OT prophetic usage of the term DBR-YHWH.I for one, don’t think it’s a matter of either/or but rather of both/and.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.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Some “No-no’s”Some “No-no’s”

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4 KJohn36574 at aol.com KJohn36574 at aol.com
Fri Dec 24 13:49:45 EST 1999

 

John 8:58 (I am; Does the Hebrew reveal?) John’s Logos Carl,I appreciate your “synthesis” however, I presented a synthesis too. I not only discussed Jewish origins of John’s Logos, but quoted Blackwelder’s definition which is part of the essential Grecian meaning, at least it is in my lexicons.Where my new insight rest is not just on the word Logos but on the context of the previous phrase “en archee”, which is a Hebrew “In the Beginning” , not a Greek one. While John may have written his Gospel in Greek, his concept reflects a Hebraic origin. Based upon the assumption that John’s concept of en archee is Jewish, his thoughts about the beginning and creation will be completely foreign to Greek cosmology and, as a result, strike at the very core of the Gnostic heresies that he was probably battling at Ephesus in the late first century A.D.Greek Concept Hebrew Conceptbeginning as a decline beginning as an ascentPessimistic/accidental Optimistic/purposefulMatter eternal Matter had a beginningCreation/gods side by side Creator over creationClaude Tresmontant, “A Study of Hebrew Thought” tr. by Michael Francis Gibson (New York Descies Company, 1960), pp. 4-5.Hope I wasn’t too theological, but I think my viewpoint wasn’t presented accurately or possibly not understood. I possibly did not state it clearly enough.Ken JohnsonElk Grove, CAKJohn36574 at aol.com

 

John 8:58 (I am; Does the Hebrew reveal?)John’s Logos

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4 Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Fri Dec 24 15:00:19 EST 1999

 

John’s Logos THEOS HGAPHSEN To: Ken Johnson,<< Where my new insight rest is not just on the word Logos but on the context of the previous phrase “en archee”, which is a Hebrew “In the Beginning” , not a Greek one. While John may have written his Gospel in Greek, his concept reflects a Hebraic origin. Based upon the assumption that John’s concept of en archee is Jewish, his thoughts about the beginning and creation will be completely foreign to Greek cosmology and, as a result, strike at the very core of the Gnostic heresies that he was probably battling at Ephesus in the late first century A.D. >>It is my personal opinion that the notion of a sharp distinction between a “Greek” mode of thinking versus a “Hebraic” mode of thinking is highly suspect, for the simple reason that there was no common “Greek” mode of thought, nor more than there was a common “Hebraic” mode of thought. But instead of going into what I think would probably be a fruitless debate, allow me to switch subjects here.The Jewish Publication society translates the beginning of Genesis differently than most Christian translations, they give:<< When God began to create heaven and earth — the earth being unformed and void … >>Whereas the NRSV has:<< In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void … >>It seems to me that the LXX conforms more to the Christian interpretation of Genesis 1:1. The Jewish position appears to be that there was already an earth before God began to create. In “The Torah: A Modern Commentary” by the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, they note that the JPS translation follows the opinion of Rashi (an “outstanding commentator on the Bible and Talmud,” who lived in the 11th century CE). They go on to write: << Later scholars used the translation “In the beginning” as proof that God created out of nothing (ex nihilo), but it is not likely that the biblical author was concerned with this problem. >>If one were to take the JPS and the commentary by the Union of American Hebrew Congregations as presenting one Jewish POV, then the LXX translation must represent a different Jewish POV.-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)scmiller at www.plantnet.comDisclaimer: “I’m just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree), what do I know?”

 

John’s LogosTHEOS HGAPHSEN

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4 Steve Puluka spuluka at hotmail.com
Sat Dec 25 21:05:45 EST 1999

 

John 14:9 EIMI (was John 8:58) Cases >From: Steven Craig Miller <scmiller at www.plantnet.com>> >The Jewish Publication society translates the beginning of Genesis>differently than most Christian translations, they give:> ><< When God began to create (a) heaven and earth — the earth being>unformed and void … >>In the interest of full disclosure, my 1992 reprint of the 1985 edition of the JPS translation contains the following footnote to this text:a Others “In the beginning God Created”Presumably this refers to other Jewish translations of the Hebrew. I believe that most major Christian translations are also working from the Hebrew text as well.Steve PulukaAdult Education InstructorByzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburghhttp://arrive.at/byzantinecatholic______________________________________________________Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

 

John 14:9 EIMI (was John 8:58)Cases

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4 KJohn36574 at aol.com KJohn36574 at aol.com
Sun Dec 26 19:01:36 EST 1999

 

Septuagint and Greek as a sacred language THEOS HGAPHSEN Interpretation of the Hebrew Tanakh vs the Greek LXX has little to do with the different translations of Gen. 1:1 as the Hebrew has been translated both ways as Steve has correctly pointed out, by Hebrew scholars.Steven is possibly working from the notion of the LXX influence on translating the Hebrew rendering of Gen. 1:1 into English, although I’m not convinced all translators who use, “In the beginning” are necessarily doing it only through consideration of the LXX and its influence on English bible format and translation.What I am saying has alot more going for it than the “timing” of the creation of the earth. It has to do with the facts that John quotes the OT much more than any synoptic writer, and was one of the Sons of Thunder, who suggested the Lord call down fire on the unbelieving Samaritans. He was a radical Palistinian Jew who was a strict monotheist. I just don’t believe, even as a Hellenistic Jew, he thought as much about saving Greek philosophers as Jewish unbelievers in Ephesus, who were everywhere their. But these are authorship and background issues that go even beyond the background of the use of vocabulary in a portion of Scripture.Lets remember Paul was Saul of Tarsus and steeped in Greek philosophy, but spent little time discussion doctrine along the lines of Grecian thought even when writing to Greeks in the Church. Christ came first to the lost sheep of Israel, and so did Paul and the other Apostles.The Jerusalem Church has much more to say on Christian beginnings/thought than the Church in Rome or Athens.But this is history and not grammar studies I’m talking about. But then again, who can study vocabulary usage fully without knowledge of historical/cultural backgrounds of that language’s usage and author? How and why should one feel he/she must do that?Ken JohnsonElk Grove, CAKJohn36574 at aol.com

 

Septuagint and Greek as a sacred languageTHEOS HGAPHSEN

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4 Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Dec 27 10:39:38 EST 1999

 

Septuagint and Greek as a sacred language Question on John 17:3 At 7:01 PM -0500 12/26/99, KJohn36574 at aol.com wrote:>Interpretation of the Hebrew Tanakh vs the Greek LXX has little to do with>the different translations of Gen. 1:1 as the Hebrew has been translated both>ways as Steve has correctly pointed out, by Hebrew scholars.> >Steven is possibly working from the notion of the LXX influence on>translating the Hebrew rendering of Gen. 1:1 into English, although I’m not>convinced all translators who use, “In the beginning” are necessarily doing>it only through consideration of the LXX and its influence on English bible>format and translation.> >What I am saying has alot more going for it than the “timing” of the creation>of the earth. It has to do with the facts that John quotes the OT much more>than any synoptic writer, and was one of the Sons of Thunder, who suggested>the Lord call down fire on the unbelieving Samaritans. He was a radical>Palistinian Jew who was a strict monotheist. I just don’t believe, even as a>Hellenistic Jew, he thought as much about saving Greek philosophers as Jewish>unbelievers in Ephesus, who were everywhere their. But these are authorship>and background issues that go even beyond the background of the use of>vocabulary in a portion of Scripture.>Lets remember Paul was Saul of Tarsus and steeped in Greek philosophy, but>spent little time discussion doctrine along the lines of Grecian thought even>when writing to Greeks in the Church. Christ came first to the lost sheep of>Israel, and so did Paul and the other Apostles.>The Jerusalem Church has much more to say on Christian beginnings/thought>than the Church in Rome or Athens.> >But this is history and not grammar studies I’m talking about. But then>again, who can study vocabulary usage fully without knowledge of>historical/cultural backgrounds of that language’s usage and author? How and>why should one feel he/she must do that?I’d be careful about just what we can assume is history and just how surewe may assume these assumptions you’re taking for granted about the authorof the gospel of John. No, this isn’t the place to discuss those questions(there is a list for discussion of gospel of John, and another list fordiscussion of Paul, yet another for discussion of the Synoptic gospels).The only point I’m trying to make here is that when you write, “What I amsaying has a lot more going for it than …,” you need to be aware thatthere may well be challenges to other things that you’re confident are”going for” your perspective. You dare not assume that others will shareyour notions of what is ‘self-evident’ about the “history” underlying thecomposition of the gospels. There is very little in this area that is notsubject to considerable dispute.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.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

 

Septuagint and Greek as a sacred languageQuestion on John 17:3

Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4 Stevens, Charles C Charles.Stevens at unisys.com
Wed Dec 29 12:48:36 EST 1999

 

OIKODOMHQH in John 2:20 Luke 2:2 On 24 December 1999 at 12:00PM, .Steven Craig Miller wrote: << The Jewish Publication society translates the beginning of Genesis differently than most Christian translations, they give:<< When God began to create heaven and earth — the earth being unformed and void … >><snip> If one were to take the JPS and the commentary by the Union of American Hebrew Congregations as presenting one Jewish POV, then the LXX translationmust represent a different Jewish POV.>>”The New Jerome Biblical Commentary” article on Genesis 1:1 takes a similarposition, further commenting that the usual English translation “In thebeginning …” (from memory, now; my printed copy is at home:) was “whiletraditional since at least the 2nd century BC as evidenced in the LXX, isunlikely” based on parallel passages and similar usages elsewhere in the OT.Point being, this is not an exclusively *Jewish* perspective; the NJBC bearsboth imprimatur and nihil obstat. I for one have no doubt whatever that John 1:1ff is a conscious reflectionof LXX Gen 1:1ff, but I don’t hold that that means we should interpret Gen1:1ff in any particular way. <<The Jewish position appears to be that there was already an earth before God began to create. >>No, I don’t see that as being required by the Hebrew. “The earth [whosecreation was being begun] being without form and void [until the details anddifferentiations subsequently described herein were brought into being] “strikes me as supportable. The verb forms in the Hebrew of this portion of Genesis strike me as being aparticularly fascinating study. But that, of course, is off-topic for thislist (except perhaps insofar as the LXX reflects, or fails to reflect, thoseverb forms). -Chuck Stevens

 

OIKODOMHQH in John 2:20Luke 2:2