Wed Mar 24 11:56:24 EST 1999 New World Translation New World Translation Weren't "antiphonal hymns" were men that used to boycott outside AlexanderGraham Bell's laboratory? :-]But seriously, folks...Mounce quotes something in his grammar from Daniel B Wallace who quotesLuther about the 3rd phrase. See page 28. New World TranslationNew World Translation
John 1:1-2 Bill Ross wross at farmerstel.com
Wed Mar 24 11:56:24 EST 1999 New World Translation New World Translation Weren't "antiphonal hymns" were men that used to boycott outside AlexanderGraham Bell's laboratory? :-]But seriously, folks...Mounce quotes something in his grammar from Daniel B Wallace who quotesLuther about the 3rd phrase. See page 28. New World TranslationNew World Translation
[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? mike.murphy at pb.com mike.murphy at pb.com Wed Oct 4 16:12:13 EDT 2006 [] Help needed? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Hi. I am going to ask a controversial question, and I am hopingfor a simple, COMMON SENSE answer rather than necessarily a"doctrine safe" traditional answer.In short, I am asking you all to consider this with a "fresh setof eyes" as it were. In many cases, valuable -- even fundamental-- doctrines such as immersion baptism and spiritual gifts havebeen recovered by the rejection of long estabish academictradition in favor of a simple literal reading of the NewTestament without bias of creed.In that spirit, I am curious if an alternate reading of John 1:1is possible using "theos" as an adjective at the end of thesentence.(Joh 1:1) In(1722) the beginning(746) was(2258) the(3588)Word,(3056) and(2532) the(3588) Word(3056) was(2258) with(4314)God,(2316) and(2532) the(3588) Word(3056) was(2258) God.(2316)The word "theos" is translated as "godly" in the King JamesVersion at least 5 times, (1 Tim 1:4, 2 Cor 1:12, 7:9, 7:11, and11:2). The possible alternate reading would be, "In beginning wasthe Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was godly. Thesame was in the beginning with God."In the case of 1 Timothy 1:4 using "theos" as an ajdective, theKing James Version does so clearly. (1Ti 1:4) Neither3366 giveheed4337 to fables3454 and2532 endless562 genealogies,1076which3748 minister3930 questions,2214 rather3123 than2228godly2316 edifying3622 which3588 is in1722 faith:4102 so do.*2316=theos as in John 1:1As you can see, this does not violate "common sense" as it is amore natural reading that does not require the substance of Godto be strangely divided among several persons, most likely acompletely foreign doctrine to the monotheistic Jewish author.The use of "theos" as an adjective -- without the definitearticle -- might explain the need for the clarification on thefollowing line: "The same was in the beginning with God", so asto render the meaning of the previous verse more clearly. (SeeMoffat, '...the word was divine').In fact, if John did not use "theos" as an adjective in ending1:1, what then does verse 1:2 clarify at all? The lack of thedefinite article on the last "theos" in John 1:1, taking incombination with the presence of verse 1:2, seem to possiblystrengthen this alternative reading.The only confession of the New Testament is that Jesus Christ wasthe SON OF GOD. It is never clearly and umambiguously stated thathe was personally GOD except in controversial passages withalternate readings, such as Acts 20:28 and 1 Timothy 3:16. Whatthe Bible does teach is that "God was in Christ", because God hadpoured his spirit on him without measure and raised him from thedead. What is certain is that corruption of the text is known tohave taken a Nicene form, e.g. 1 Jn 5:7-9That the confession, "Jesus is the Son of God" alone isconsidered orthodox by John:(1Jo 4:14) And we have seen and testify that the Father sent theSon to be the Savior of the world. (1Jo 4:15) Whoever shallconfess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwells in him and he inGod.(1Jo 5:5) Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believesthat Jesus is the Son of God?Therefore, it seems that John considered Jesus to be God's Sonprior to coming into the world, perhaps in a literal sense, andthat he was not considered to be the same person as God theFather whatsoever.(Joh 8:16) And yet if I do judge, My judgment is true; for I amnot alone, but I and the Father who sent Me. (Joh 8:17) It isalso written in your Law that the testimony of two men is true.This fits other creeds outlined the APostolic teaching:(Act 2:32) God raised up this Jesus, of which we all arewitnesses. (Act 3:26) Having raised up His son Jesus, God sentHim to you first, to bless you in turning every one of you awayfrom his iniquities.(Heb 5:7) For Jesus, in the days of His flesh, when He hadoffered up prayers and supplications with strong cryings andtears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heardin that He feared, (Heb 5:8) though being a Son, yet He learnedobedience by the things which He suffered.What is required for a Christian to belief? That Jesus is God?No...(Joh 20:31) But these are written so that you might believe thatJesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you mighthave life in His name.If the early fathers did not consider any Trinity Creed needfulfor salvation, perhaps they also did not prefer a Nicene readingof John 1:1. [] Help needed?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Harold Holmyard hholmyard at ont.com Wed Oct 4 17:14:50 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Dear Mike,> The word "theos" is translated as "godly" in the King James> Version at least 5 times, (1 Tim 1:4, 2 Cor 1:12, 7:9, 7:11, and> 11:2). The possible alternate reading would be, "In beginning was> the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was godly. The> same was in the beginning with God."HH: Three examples you give involve "theos" as a genitive, not a nominative as in John 1:1. The genitive can be used to make nouns function like an adjective. Two of your examples (2 Cor 7:9, 11) involves a prepositional phrase which the translators of the KJV simplified into an adjective. In technical terms, the word means "God" in all these examples.Yours,Harold Holmyard [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? David Lang dlang at accordancebible.com Wed Oct 4 18:38:47 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Getting a Little Doctrinal, but Anyway... Re: Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? On Oct 4, 2006, at 4:12 PM, mike.murphy at pb.com wrote:> The word "theos" is translated as "godly" in the King James> Version at least 5 times, (1 Tim 1:4, 2 Cor 1:12, 7:9, 7:11, and> 11:2). The possible alternate reading would be, "In beginning was> the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was godly. The> same was in the beginning with God."Strong's numbers are a helpful tool for getting at the Greek words behind an English translation, but this is an excellent example of how looking at Strong's numbers alone can be misleading.When I searched the KJV for cases where the word "godly" is tagged with the Strong number for "theos," I found seven occurrences (2Cor 1:12; 7:9, 10, 11; 11:2; 1Tim 1:4; 3John 1:6). If you look at the actual Greek text, however, you find that in all of these cases, the word "theos" is either in the genitive case or it is the object of the preposition "kata" (according to). The KJV translators used the adjective "godly" rather than more wooden renderings like "jealously of God" or "the sorrow which is after the manner of God." But as someone else has pointed out, in all of these cases the noun "theos" technically refers to "God."Sincerely,David Lang [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Getting a Little Doctrinal, but Anyway... Re: Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Revdpickrel at wmconnect.com Revdpickrel at wmconnect.com Wed Oct 4 19:08:14 EDT 2006 [] Knowing Greek [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? In a message dated 10/4/2006 3:12:37 PM Central Daylight Time, mike.murphy at pb.com writes:> The word "theos" is translated as "godly" in the King James> Version at least 5 times, (1 Tim 1:4, 2 Cor 1:12, 7:9, 7:11, and> 11:2). The possible alternate reading would be, "In beginning was> the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was godly. The> same was in the beginning with God."Howdy Mike,To me, "theos" with a small "t" means god as in false gods, Satan, the god of this earth. I believe "theos" used as "godly" is inappropriate and incorrect. It also would be out of context with OT Theophanies.Doug.Rev. Doug Pickrel, Litt.D.Tejas ValleySan Antonio, Texas [] Knowing Greek[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu Wed Oct 4 19:54:08 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? On Oct 4, 2006, at 7:08 PM, Revdpickrel at wmconnect.com wrote:> In a message dated 10/4/2006 3:12:37 PM Central Daylight Time,> mike.murphy at pb.com writes:> > >> The word "theos" is translated as "godly" in the King James>> Version at least 5 times, (1 Tim 1:4, 2 Cor 1:12, 7:9, 7:11, and>> 11:2). The possible alternate reading would be, "In beginning was>> the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was godly. The>> same was in the beginning with God."> > Howdy Mike,> > To me, "theos" with a small "t" means god as in false gods, Satan, > the god of> this earth. I believe "theos" used as "godly" is inappropriate and> incorrect. It also would be out of context with OT Theophanies.But there was no upper-case or lower-case Theta involved in thecomposition of the GNT texts.Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/ [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Revdpickrel at wmconnect.com Revdpickrel at wmconnect.com Wed Oct 4 20:49:49 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Acts 2:47 In a message dated 10/4/2006 6:54:43 PM Central Daylight Time, cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu writes:> But there was no upper-case or lower-case Theta involved in the> composition of the GNT texts.> I know you're correct here. I am studying from the Septuagint and the type setter has used upper case Q for Theos and q for lower case. I know better, but I am a creature of habit.Doug.Rev. Doug Pickrel, Litt.D.Tejas ValleySan Antonio, Texas [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Acts 2:47 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org Thu Oct 5 03:00:25 EDT 2006 [] Getting a Little Doctrinal, but Anyway... Re: Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Acts 2:47 > Hi. I am going to ask a controversial question, and I am hoping> for a simple, COMMON SENSE answer rather than necessarily a> "doctrine safe" traditional answer.Mike, have you studied all the previous discussions of John 1:1 on this list?A common sense answer for you as an English speaker has to include how you interpret the English word God (as well as god). Let me use God1 to refer to God the Father and God2 to refer to God in a broader sense of the trinity, including reference to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.When John 1:1 says that "the Word was QEOS", the word QEOS obviously cannot refer to God1, because Jesus and God1 are two different entities. However, QEOS here can refer to the concept of God2 or to the characteristics that are special to the three persons in God2.The main problem is one of interpretation by the reader. This interpretation is complicated by the previous sentence which says "the Word was in company with/at/near/besides TON QEON". In this sentence TON QEON probably refers to God1, and the reader might then expect the following QEOS also to refer to God1. However, the grammar of the Greek sentences indicates that TON QEON is used in a definite referential sense to refer to God the Father, while QEOS in the last sentence is used in a descriptive sense, talking about the Word as being either "Godly" or "like God1" or being part of God2.Iver Larsen [] Getting a Little Doctrinal, but Anyway... Re: Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Acts 2:47 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? winsco at hotmail.co.uk winsco at hotmail.co.uk Thu Oct 5 02:53:11 EDT 2006 [] Acts 2:47 [] New Ancient Greek lexicon from Cambridge UP On 5th October 2006 Iver Larsen wrote<This interpretation iscomplicated by the previous sentencewhich says "the Word was in company with/at/near/besides TON QEON". In thissentence TON QEON probably refers to God1,and the reader might then expect the following QEOS also to refer to God1.However, the grammar of the Greek sentencesindicates that TON QEON is used in a definite referential sense to refer to Godthe Father, while QEOS in the lastsentence is used in a descriptive sense, talking about the Word as being either"Godly" or "like God1" or being part ofGod2.)>In the light of John's use of TON QEON as above, would not a correct and understandable translation be"In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with (at/near/besides) THE God and the Word was God." (?)By the use of TON QEON, John was obviously trying to convey soemthing. In the latter translation, the Word is still portrayed as fully God yet a separate person from God the Father. Could not that be what John was trying to convey? Is this translation allowable in the Greek (and perhaps just that little bit more accutare than only saying "was with God")? Just a thought.Walter Schofield, (student)_________________________________________________________________Download the new Windows Live Toolbar, including Desktop search! http://toolbar.live.com/?mkt=en-gb [] Acts 2:47[] New Ancient Greek lexicon from Cambridge UP [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? mike.murphy at pb.com mike.murphy at pb.com Thu Oct 5 10:11:52 EDT 2006 [] Getting a Little Doctrinal,but Anyway... Re: Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? > But each of the pre-Nikaian local statements of Christianbelief included an expression of being baptized EIS TO ONOMA TOUPATROS KAI TOU hUIOU KAI TOU hAGIOU PNEUMATOS -- a reflection notonly of the Gospel but also of the most ancient rites ofChristian baptism, preserved to this day.The New Testament itself makes clear that this baptismal formulawas never recited at the time of baptism. Acts 2:38-41, 8:12-16,10:47-48. Instead converts were baptized into name 'IesousKhristos.Nobody can deny that God the Father, his Son Jesus Christ, andthe Holy Spirit are essential components of the Christianreligion. I am alluding to ONLY a possibility, that in JesusChrist dwells all of God, while they are two in person, Jesus wasthe pre-existant Son prior to leaving heaven, the Word, the Lightcreated first in Genesis 1 and described in Revelation 3:14.Since he is the image of God and now is his right hand, (Psalm110:1 the most quoted prophecy concerning him), all people whoviolate the Law (even in spirit) must confess their sins to him,repent, and be baptized in water and Spirit.In short, Jesus isn't God, but he God's image or idol -- not adumb idol which can't see or hear or taste, but a living man, thesecond Adam, raised from the dead into God's presence.Therefore, since the Son is charge of creation now 1 Co 15:27, itis right to worship him (Jn 9:37-39, Hb 1:6, Lk 24:51-53, Mk5:5-7, Mt 15:22-28, 20:19-21, 28:8-10,16-18) and even to pray tohim (Jn 14:12-14, 1 Jn 5:13-15, Ac 7:59).In other words, the Son isn't WHO God is, it is WHERE God is.Christ means anointed and implies Spirit in a Body. That body ispermanent and exalted.That doesn't mean John thought of Jesus as being God, he was thefigure who was WITH God in the beginning (Jn 17:3) and came intothe world to save it. Therefore the reading of Jn 1:1 "..and theWord was godly, the same was in the beginning was with God" isnot heretical but possibly orthodox.The good news is that it is still correct to worship and pray tothe Son in any case. [] Getting a Little Doctrinal,but Anyway... Re: Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Brian Abasciano bvabasciano at gmail.com Thu Oct 5 12:25:57 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Dear Mike,Your suggestion is simply impossible from a grammatical point of view for reasons given by others on this list. The text really identifies the Word as God in the text. However, it is then the task of interpretation to articulate what it means to say that the Word is God. That is where your view could then be argued, but I would think, not in the parameters of this list.God bless,Brian AbascianoResponding to:<But each of the pre-Nikaian local statements of Christianbelief included an expression of being baptized EIS TO ONOMA TOUPATROS KAI TOU hUIOU KAI TOU hAGIOU PNEUMATOS -- a reflection notonly of the Gospel but also of the most ancient rites ofChristian baptism, preserved to this day.The New Testament itself makes clear that this baptismal formulawas never recited at the time of baptism. Acts 2:38-41, 8:12-16,10:47-48. Instead converts were baptized into name 'IesousKhristos.Nobody can deny that God the Father, his Son Jesus Christ, andthe Holy Spirit are essential components of the Christianreligion. I am alluding to ONLY a possibility, that in JesusChrist dwells all of God, while they are two in person, Jesus wasthe pre-existant Son prior to leaving heaven, the Word, the Lightcreated first in Genesis 1 and described in Revelation 3:14.Since he is the image of God and now is his right hand, (Psalm110:1 the most quoted prophecy concerning him), all people whoviolate the Law (even in spirit) must confess their sins to him,repent, and be baptized in water and Spirit.In short, Jesus isn't God, but he God's image or idol -- not adumb idol which can't see or hear or taste, but a living man, thesecond Adam, raised from the dead into God's presence.Therefore, since the Son is charge of creation now 1 Co 15:27, itis right to worship him (Jn 9:37-39, Hb 1:6, Lk 24:51-53, Mk5:5-7, Mt 15:22-28, 20:19-21, 28:8-10,16-18) and even to pray tohim (Jn 14:12-14, 1 Jn 5:13-15, Ac 7:59).In other words, the Son isn't WHO God is, it is WHERE God is.Christ means anointed and implies Spirit in a Body. That body ispermanent and exalted.That doesn't mean John thought of Jesus as being God, he was thefigure who was WITH God in the beginning (Jn 17:3) and came intothe world to save it. Therefore the reading of Jn 1:1 "..and theWord was godly, the same was in the beginning was with God" isnot heretical but possibly orthodox.The good news is that it is still correct to worship and pray tothe Son in any case.> [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Awohili at aol.com Awohili at aol.com Thu Oct 5 12:37:43 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? In a message dated 10/05/2006 9:29:35 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, bvabasciano at gmail.com writes:Dear Mike,Your suggestion is simply impossible from a grammatical point of view for reasons given by others on this listImpossible? This from a fairly knowledgeable and "orthodox" scholar: _http://catholic-resources.org/John/Outlines-Prologue.htm_ (http://catholic-resources.org/John/Outlines-Prologue.htm) Dr. Felix Just translates "the Word was godly/godlike." Solomon Landers [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Brian Abasciano bvabasciano at gmail.com Thu Oct 5 13:10:20 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? William,I should not have used the terminolgy of "identification" given the grammatical discussion. We do most likely have a qualitative predicate nominative in John 1:1. But Mike's suggestion of taking QEOS as an adjective is impossible. It may be able to be translated along those lines in the sennse of saying, "the word was divine", but not along the lines he is suggesting. The Greek construction does indicate that the Word has the attributes and qualities of God, whereas Mike's use of "godly" is far from this. This does happen to fit into the traditionally orthodox belief of the Word (i.e., Jesus unquestionably in context) as sharing the divinity of the Father but existing as a distinct person. The theological mileage Mike is trying to get out of the possibility (which again, grammatically is not really a possibility I think) of taking QEOS as an adjective does not seem justified in any degree.God bless,Brian Abasciano----- Original Message ----- From: "William Ross" <woundedegomusic at gmail.com>To: "Brian Abasciano" <bvabasciano at gmail.com>Cc: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 12:32 PMSubject: Re: [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?> Brian, the construction of the Greek sentence is not providing> identity: "...the identity of the word is the god" but rather quality:> "...the quality of the utterance is god-quality" - or as I prefer to> render it:> > "the word was god-utterance."> > or perhaps:> > "the word was divine utterance."> > William Ross> VGB, Argentina> > > > On 10/5/06, Brian Abasciano <bvabasciano at gmail.com> wrote:>> Dear Mike,>> >> Your suggestion is simply impossible from a grammatical point of view for >> reasons given by others on this list. The text really identifies the Word >> as God in the text. However, it is then the task of interpretation to >> articulate what it means to say that the Word is God. That is where your >> view could then be argued, but I would think, not in the parameters of >> this list.>> >> God bless,>> >> Brian Abasciano>> >> Responding to:>> <But each of the pre-Nikaian local statements of Christian>> belief included an expression of being baptized EIS TO ONOMA TOU>> PATROS KAI TOU hUIOU KAI TOU hAGIOU PNEUMATOS -- a reflection not>> only of the Gospel but also of the most ancient rites of>> Christian baptism, preserved to this day.>> >> The New Testament itself makes clear that this baptismal formula>> was never recited at the time of baptism. Acts 2:38-41, 8:12-16,>> 10:47-48. Instead converts were baptized into name 'Iesous>> Khristos.>> >> Nobody can deny that God the Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and>> the Holy Spirit are essential components of the Christian>> religion. I am alluding to ONLY a possibility, that in Jesus>> Christ dwells all of God, while they are two in person, Jesus was>> the pre-existant Son prior to leaving heaven, the Word, the Light>> created first in Genesis 1 and described in Revelation 3:14.>> >> Since he is the image of God and now is his right hand, (Psalm>> 110:1 the most quoted prophecy concerning him), all people who>> violate the Law (even in spirit) must confess their sins to him,>> repent, and be baptized in water and Spirit.>> >> In short, Jesus isn't God, but he God's image or idol -- not a>> dumb idol which can't see or hear or taste, but a living man, the>> second Adam, raised from the dead into God's presence.>> >> Therefore, since the Son is charge of creation now 1 Co 15:27, it>> is right to worship him (Jn 9:37-39, Hb 1:6, Lk 24:51-53, Mk>> 5:5-7, Mt 15:22-28, 20:19-21, 28:8-10,16-18) and even to pray to>> him (Jn 14:12-14, 1 Jn 5:13-15, Ac 7:59).>> >> In other words, the Son isn't WHO God is, it is WHERE God is.>> Christ means anointed and implies Spirit in a Body. That body is>> permanent and exalted.>> >> That doesn't mean John thought of Jesus as being God, he was the>> figure who was WITH God in the beginning (Jn 17:3) and came into>> the world to save it. Therefore the reading of Jn 1:1 "..and the>> Word was godly, the same was in the beginning was with God" is>> not heretical but possibly orthodox.>> >> The good news is that it is still correct to worship and pray to>> the Son in any case.>>> --->> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/>> mailing list>> at lists.ibiblio.org>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>> > > > -- [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com Thu Oct 5 16:13:00 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? More . . . Eusebius _Ecclesiastical History_, i.2_________ 3 For alone who beside the Father could clearly understand the Light which was before the world, the intellectual and essential Wisdom which existed before the ages, the living Word which was in the beginning with the Father and which was God, the first and only begotten of God which was before every creature and creation visible and invisible, the commander-in-chief of the rational and immortal host of heaven, the messenger of the great counsel, the executor of the Father’s unspoken will, the creator, with the Father, of all things, the second cause of the universe after the Father, the true and only-begotten Son of God, the Lord and God and King of all created things, the one who has received dominion and power, with divinity itself, and with might and honor from the Father; as it is said in regard to him in the mystical passages of Scripture which speak of his divinity: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. I. Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine. (82). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.__________I might note that there is some question regarding Eusebius' orthodoxy in that he sometimes appeared to support the Arian party, but here he seems fairly clear when he speak of the "Word . . . which was God." georgegfsomsel_________----- Original Message ----From: James Spinti <JSpinti at Eisenbrauns.com>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Thursday, October 5, 2006 3:27:28 PMSubject: Re: [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?As I asked the last time this whole thing came up--maybe 3 weeks ago?Why does no one who is arguing for the "a god" translation go back tothe early church fathers who knew Greek? Is this verse ever used as anargument in any of their treatises (both for and against Arianism)? TheyKNEW Greek, they spoke it, thought in it, breathed it-if you will. Asfar as I can tell from my somewhat limited reading (but more than thelast time the question came up!), neither side used John 1 as anargument. It was a non-starter, grammatically. I am open to being shown wrong, but in view of our more limitedknowledge of Greek, we should show a bit of humility before theirsilence in using the supposed "indefiniteness" of QEOS as an argument.Maybe we should concentrate on reading Greek, and not trying to prooftext our own theological viewpoint, especially if our knowledge of Greekis limited to a year or three of college/seminary Greek (and only NTKoine at that!). Frustratedly,James(yes, I have an advanced degree in Classics...)________________________________James SpintiMarketing Director, Book Sales DivisionEisenbrauns, Good books for over 30 yearsSpecializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studiesjspinti at eisenbrauns dot comWeb: http://www.eisenbrauns.comPhone: 574-269-2011 ext 226Fax: 574-269-6788 > -----Original Message-----> From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org > [mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of > Awohili at aol.com> Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 2:22 PM> To: at lists.ibiblio.org> Subject: Re: [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?> > > OK, so forget the theology and get back to the grammar. Is > QEOS at John > 1:1c definite, indefinite, or qualitative?> > Solomon Landers> ---> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> --- home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Awohili at aol.com Awohili at aol.com Thu Oct 5 16:12:54 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Well, there you go quoting from Wallace again. For what it's worth, grammarian Wallace doesn't totally agree with Colwell. Among other things, Dr. Daniel Wallace says: If we check the rule to see if it applies here, we would say that the previous mention of QEOS (in 1:1b) is articular. Therefore, if the same person being referred to there is called QEOS in 1:1c, then in both places it is definite. Although certainly possible grammatically (though not nearly as likely as qualitative), the evidence is not very compelling. The vast majority of definite anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives are monadic, in genitive constructions, or are proper names, none of which is true here, diminishing the likelihood of a definite QEOS in John 1:1c. Further, calling QEOS in 1:1c definite is the same as saying that if it had followed the verb it would have had the article. Thus it would be a convertible proposition with LOGOS (i.e., "the Word " = "God" and "God" = "The Word"). The problem of this argument is that the QEOS in 1:1b is the Father. Thus to say that the QEOS in 1:1c is the same person is to say that "the Word was the Father." This, as older grammarians and exegetes pointed out, is embryonic Sabellianism or modalism. -- Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, page 268. I'm not saying that Dr. Daniel Wallace is right or wrong, but if you're going to quote from his book, you bring him into the discussion. Solomon Landers -----------------------------------------------You are correct. I was saying Granville Sharp and quoting Granville Sharp but was thinking of Colwell. I guess I have been operating "with half my brain tied behind my back." Here is Colwell_____________Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article … a predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a ‘qualitative’ noun solely because of the absence of the article; if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun… .” Daniel B. Wallace. (1999; 2002). Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (257). Zondervan Publishing House and Galaxie Software. [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Eric Weiss papaweiss1 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 5 16:16:52 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? It looks to me like Irenaeus seems to be arguing against the gnostics, not the Arians (the point James Spinti was making, I think). Also, the gnostics (or whomever Irenaeus is discussing) don't seem to be claiming an "a god" meaning for John 1:1 - at least not in the excerpt you cite. The statement "'and the Word was God,' of course, for that which is begotten of God is God" does seem to support a default understanding by Irenaeus that "a god" was never intended by St. John - which, I think, does not conflict with James Spinti's point. Isn't Logos great for this stuff? ;^) George Somsel wrote:> Ask and you shall receive. Unfortunately, I only have an English translation to offer > (Well, no matter since most of Irenaeus is a translation in any case). Irenaeus, > _Against Heresies_, i.8> > 5. Further, they teach that John, the disciple of the Lord, indicated the first Ogdoad, > expressing themselves in these words: John, the disciple of the Lord, wishing to set > forth the origin of all things, so as to explain how the Father produced the whole, > lays down a certain principle,that, namely, which was first-begotten by God, > which Being he has termed both the only-begotten Son and God, in whom the > Father, after a seminal manner, brought forth all things. By him the Word was > produced, and in him the whole substance of the Aeons, to which the Word himself > afterwards imparted form. Since, therefore, he treats of the first origin of things, he > rightly proceeds in his teaching from the beginning, that is, from God and the Word. > And he expresses himself thus: 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. Having > first of all distinguished these threeGod, the Beginning, and the Wordhe again > unites them, that he may exhibit the production of each of them, that is, of the Son > and of the Word, and may at the same time show their union with one another, and > with the Father. For the beginning is in the Father, and of the Father, while the > Word is in the beginning, and of the beginning. Very properly, then, did he say, In > the beginning was the Word, for He was in the Son; and the Word was with God, > for He was the beginning; and the Word was God, of course, for that which is > begotten of God is God. The same was in the beginning with Godthis clause > discloses the order of production. All things were made by Him, and without Him > was nothing made;  for the Word was the author of form and beginning to all the > Aeons that came into existence . . . > > Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, A. C. (1997). The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol.I : > Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. The apostolic fathers > with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. (328). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems. > > george > gfsomsel> _________>> ----- Original Message ---- >> From: James Spinti <JSpinti at Eisenbrauns.com> >> To: at lists.ibiblio.org >> Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2006 3:27:28 PM >> Subject: Re: [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? >> >> As I asked the last time this whole thing came up--maybe 3 weeks ago? >> Why does no one who is arguing for the "a god" translation go back to >> the early church fathers who knew Greek? Is this verse ever used as an >> argument in any of their treatises (both for and against Arianism)? <snip> Eric S. Weiss ---------------------------------Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min. [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Awohili at aol.com Awohili at aol.com Thu Oct 5 16:25:50 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? That's what that English translation of the ANF says, but if Eusebius and Irenaeus are quoting the Greek of John's Gospel, then the same question arises with respect to Greek John 1:1c: Is it definite, indefinite, or qualitative? And obviously, respected grammarians do not agree on this matter. And I think that in quoting the philosophy of the ANF's, we are letting the theological horse ride out of the stall again.... Solomon Landers____________________________In a message dated 10/05/2006 1:14:30 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, gfsomsel at yahoo.com writes:might note that there is some question regarding Eusebius' orthodoxy in that he sometimes appeared to support the Arian party, but here he seems fairly clear when he speak of the "Word . . . which was God."georgegfsomsel_________ [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com Thu Oct 5 16:29:49 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? If I want to quote scripture and the devil himself gives the quote, I will use it (not to compare Wallace with the devil). That it is in Wallace's book has nothing to do with the issue. Leave him out of it unless I quote him directly -- unless, of course, you wish to quote him on your own. georgegfsomsel_________----- Original Message ----From: "Awohili at aol.com" <Awohili at aol.com>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Thursday, October 5, 2006 4:12:54 PMSubject: Re: [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?Well, there you go quoting from Wallace again. For what it's worth, grammarian Wallace doesn't totally agree with Colwell.Among other things, Dr. Daniel Wallace says: If we check the rule to see if it applies here, we would say that the previous mention of QEOS (in 1:1b) is articular. Therefore, if the same person being referred to there is called QEOS in 1:1c, then in both places it is definite. Although certainly possible grammatically (though not nearly as likely as qualitative), the evidence is not very compelling. The vast majority of definite anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives are monadic, in genitive constructions, or are proper names, none of which is true here, diminishing the likelihood of a definite QEOS in John 1:1c. Further, calling QEOS in 1:1c definite is the same as saying that if it had followed the verb it would have had the article. Thus it would be a convertible proposition with LOGOS (i.e., "the Word " = "God" and "God" = "The Word"). The problem of this argument is that the QEOS in 1:1b is the Father. Thus to say that the QEOS in 1:1c is the same person is to say that "the Word was the Father." This, as older grammarians and exegetes pointed out, is embryonic Sabellianism or modalism. -- Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, page 268.I'm not saying that Dr. Daniel Wallace is right or wrong, but if you're going to quote from his book, you bring him into the discussion.Solomon Landers-----------------------------------------------You are correct. I was saying Granville Sharp and quoting Granville Sharp but was thinking of Colwell. I guess I have been operating "with half my brain tied behind my back." Here is Colwell_____________Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article … a predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a ‘qualitative’ noun solely because of the absence of the article; if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun… .” Daniel B. Wallace. (1999; 2002). Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (257). Zondervan Publishing House and Galaxie Software.--- home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? James Spinti JSpinti at Eisenbrauns.com Thu Oct 5 16:35:07 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? That is why I asked for a grammatical argument. Both of George'sexamples were pro-Nicene, but they were not based on the grammar. So, Iwould say that my challenge still holds. Do the pro-Nicene fathers or the pro-Arian fathers use the grammar as anargument? That seems to be the foundation of all modern Arian arguments,but the silence in the Greek speaking fathers is deafening... I stillcontend that grammatically (and that is what we are supposed to bediscussing on ), Arianism was a non-starter in the 4th century.It was a philosophical/theological argument--"there was a time when theson was not." Not, the first verse (anachronistic, I know) of John isgrammatically indefinite, therefore the son is not God.James________________________________James SpintiMarketing Director, Book Sales DivisionEisenbrauns, Good books for over 30 yearsSpecializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studiesjspinti at eisenbrauns dot comWeb: http://www.eisenbrauns.comPhone: 574-269-2011 ext 226Fax: 574-269-6788 > -----Original Message-----> From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org > [mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of > Awohili at aol.com> Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 4:26 PM> To: at lists.ibiblio.org> Subject: Re: [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?> > > > That's what that English translation of the ANF says, but if > Eusebius and > Irenaeus are quoting the Greek of John's Gospel, then the > same question arises > with respect to Greek John 1:1c:> > Is it definite, indefinite, or qualitative?> > And obviously, respected grammarians do not agree on this matter.> > And I think that in quoting the philosophy of the ANF's, we > are letting the > theological horse ride out of the stall again....> > Solomon Landers> ____________________________> In a message dated 10/05/2006 1:14:30 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > gfsomsel at yahoo.com writes:> > might note that there is some question regarding Eusebius' > orthodoxy in that > he sometimes appeared to support the Arian party, but here > he seems fairly > clear when he speak of the "Word . . . which was God."> > george> gfsomsel> _________> [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com Thu Oct 5 16:35:47 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? But of course Irenaeus was arguing against the Gnostics and not the Arians -- they hadn't come onto the scene yet. It would be like the clock in Shakespeare's _Julius Caesar_, a total anachronism. georgegfsomsel_________----- Original Message ----From: Eric Weiss <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2006 4:16:52 PMSubject: [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?It looks to me like Irenaeus seems to be arguing against the gnostics, not the Arians (the point James Spinti was making, I think). Also, the gnostics (or whomever Irenaeus is discussing) don't seem to be claiming an "a god" meaning for John 1:1 - at least not in the excerpt you cite. The statement "'and the Word was God,' of course, for that which is begotten of God is God" does seem to support a default understanding by Irenaeus that "a god" was never intended by St. John - which, I think, does not conflict with James Spinti's point. Isn't Logos great for this stuff? ;^) George Somsel wrote:> Ask and you shall receive. Unfortunately, I only have an English translation to offer > (Well, no matter since most of Irenaeus is a translation in any case). Irenaeus, > _Against Heresies_, i.8> > 5. Further, they teach that John, the disciple of the Lord, indicated the first Ogdoad, > expressing themselves in these words: John, the disciple of the Lord, wishing to set > forth the origin of all things, so as to explain how the Father produced the whole, > lays down a certain principle,—that, namely, which was first-begotten by God, > which Being he has termed both the only-begotten Son and God, in whom the > Father, after a seminal manner, brought forth all things. By him the Word was > produced, and in him the whole substance of the Aeons, to which the Word himself > afterwards imparted form. Since, therefore, he treats of the first origin of things, he > rightly proceeds in his teaching from the beginning, that is, from God and the Word. > And he expresses himself thus: “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.” Having > first of all distinguished these three—God, the Beginning, and the Word—he again > unites them, that he may exhibit the production of each of them, that is, of the Son > and of the Word, and may at the same time show their union with one another, and > with the Father. For “the beginning” is in the Father, and of the Father, while “the > Word” is in the beginning, and of the beginning. Very properly, then, did he say, “In > the beginning was the Word,” for He was in the Son; “and the Word was with God,” > for He was the beginning; “and the Word was God,” of course, for that which is > begotten of God is God. “The same was in the beginning with God”—this clause > discloses the order of production. “All things were made by Him, and without Him > was nothing made; ” for the Word was the author of form and beginning to all the > Aeons that came into existence . . . > > Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, A. C. (1997). The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol.I : > Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. The apostolic fathers > with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. (328). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems. > > george > gfsomsel> _________>> ----- Original Message ---- >> From: James Spinti <JSpinti at Eisenbrauns.com> >> To: at lists.ibiblio.org >> Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2006 3:27:28 PM >> Subject: Re: [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? >> >> As I asked the last time this whole thing came up--maybe 3 weeks ago? >> Why does no one who is arguing for the "a god" translation go back to >> the early church fathers who knew Greek? Is this verse ever used as an >> argument in any of their treatises (both for and against Arianism)? <snip> Eric S. Weiss ---------------------------------Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.--- home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Edward Andrews edandrews at adelphia.net Thu Oct 5 16:51:38 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Oun:It is nice to hear from you as well. polytheism: belief in several deities: worshiping of or believing in more than one deity, especially several deities Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.The problem is we create a definition for a word and it begins to contain an absolute rendering, when really there are nuances. To take the above definition, no I would not say I support polytheism in that explicit definition, because I do not worship Jesus Christ or any other god than the creator Himself. I believe THEOS of John 1:1c to represent "a mighty one" or "a powerful one." However, I do believe in many gods. Does the idea that Jesus Christ is "a god" conflict with the Scriptural teaching that there is only one God? (1 Cor. 8:5, 6) Not at all. At times the Hebrew Scriptures employ the term for God, 'elo·him´, with reference to mighty creatures. At Psalm 8:5, for example, we read: "You also proceeded to make him [man] a little less than godlike ones." (Hebrew, 'elohim´; "a god," New English Bible, Jerusalem Bible) The Greek Septuagint Version renders 'elo·him´ here as "angels." The Jewish translators of this version saw no conflict with monotheism in applying the term for God to created spirit persons. (Compare Hebrews 2:7, 9.) Similarly, Jews of the first century C.E. found no conflict with their belief in one God at Psalm 82, though verses 1 and 6 of this psalm utilize the word 'elo·him´ (the·oi´, plural of the·os´, Septuagint) with reference to human judges.---Compare John 10:34-36.Edward Andrews----- Original Message ----- From: "Oun Kwon" <kwonbbl at gmail.com>To: "Edward Andrews" <edandrews at adelphia.net>Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 3:55 PMSubject: Re: [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?> On 10/5/06, Edward Andrews <edandrews at adelphia.net> wrote:> <clipped>>> >> >> In short, (1) its emphatic position of being fronted stresses its>> qualitativeness, not to identify. (2) Its lack of an article keeps us from>> identifying the person of "the Word" (Jesus Christ) with the person of God>> (Jehovah) mentioned in the previous clause. In other words, the word order>> tells us that Jesus "was existing in God's form" (Philip. 2:6), he "is the>> image of the invisible God" (Col 1:15), in fact, he (Jesus) "is the>> reflection of [Jehovah's] glory and the exact representation of His very>> being" (Heb 1:3). However, the lack of the article for the second "god">> tells us, that Jesus Christ, while being "godlike" or "a god" is a>> reflection to the highest degree of his Father, but not to be identified as>> one and the same---Jehovah God himself.>> >> Edward Andrews>> >> > > Hi, Ed.> > Godlike, godly, divine -- these are not appropriate to describe Logos;> disservice to His being fullness of God.> > As to 'a god', pardon if this is going off topic: Throughout the> entirely history, (orthodox) Christianity as such has been> monotheistic. Putting aside the issue concerning the meaning of> English word 'God' 'god', when you label 'a god' for the Son of God as> in this NWT translation of 1Jn 1:1c, you are actually putting yourself> into polytheism. Can you clarify on this for me, either on or off> list?> > Oun Kwon. [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Awohili at aol.com Awohili at aol.com Thu Oct 5 13:56:37 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? In a message dated 10/05/2006 10:17:43 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, gfsomsel at yahoo.com writes:Somehow I would question whether this is a "fairly knowledgeable" scholar (although I know him to be so in certain areas) since the only instance I note in which BDAG cites it as an adjective meaning "divine" is in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians where it appears as a genitive. While LSJ does give instances, I would not rely too heavily on sources outside the Judaeo-Christian circle for such since it may not reflect the usage in the Judaeo-Christian tradition (and I'm not speaking of "Holy Ghost Greek"). So, then, is QEOS at John 1:1c definite, indefinite, or qualitative? And what is the difference between a qualitative rendering and the translation "the Word was divine," as with Moffatt and others? And what is the difference between "the Word was God" and modalism? Thanks, Solomon Landers [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com Thu Oct 5 13:17:20 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Somehow I would question whether this is a "fairly knowledgeable" scholar (although I know him to be so in certain areas) since the only instance I note in which BDAG cites it as an adjective meaning "divine" is in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians where it appears as a genitive. While LSJ does give instances, I would not rely too heavily on sources outside the Judaeo-Christian circle for such since it may not reflect the usage in the Judaeo-Christian tradition (and I'm not speaking of "Holy Ghost Greek"). georgegfsomsel_________ ----- Original Message ----From: "Awohili at aol.com" <Awohili at aol.com>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Thursday, October 5, 2006 12:37:43 PMSubject: Re: [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?In a message dated 10/05/2006 9:29:35 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, bvabasciano at gmail.com writes:Dear Mike,Your suggestion is simply impossible from a grammatical point of view for reasons given by others on this listImpossible? This from a fairly knowledgeable and "orthodox" scholar:_http://catholic-resources.org/John/Outlines-Prologue.htm_ (http://catholic-resources.org/John/Outlines-Prologue.htm) Dr. Felix Just translates "the Word was godly/godlike."Solomon Landers--- home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com Thu Oct 5 14:12:05 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Moffatt's translation was somewhat unorthodox and idiomatic and did not find favor with all sections of the church. I cannot answer as to why any particular translator would choose to translate as he does absent an express statement regarding his intentions, but I refuse to be drawn into discussions of unitarianism, modalism, adoptionism or any other theological viewpoint since that is outside the purview of this list. Suffice it to say that I think Moffatt was mistaken at this point. georgegfsomsel_________----- Original Message ----From: "Awohili at aol.com" <Awohili at aol.com>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Thursday, October 5, 2006 1:56:37 PMSubject: Re: [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?In a message dated 10/05/2006 10:17:43 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, gfsomsel at yahoo.com writes:Somehow I would question whether this is a "fairly knowledgeable" scholar (although I know him to be so in certain areas) since the only instance I note in which BDAG cites it as an adjective meaning "divine" is in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians where it appears as a genitive. While LSJ does give instances, I would not rely too heavily on sources outside the Judaeo-Christian circle for such since it may not reflect the usage in the Judaeo-Christian tradition (and I'm not speaking of "Holy Ghost Greek"). So, then, is QEOS at John 1:1c definite, indefinite, or qualitative? And what is the difference between a qualitative rendering and the translation "the Word was divine," as with Moffatt and others? And what is the difference between "the Word was God" and modalism?Thanks,Solomon Landers--- home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Awohili at aol.com Awohili at aol.com Thu Oct 5 14:16:56 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? In a message dated 10/05/2006 11:12:24 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, gfsomsel at yahoo.com writes:Moffatt's translation was somewhat unorthodox and idiomatic and did not find favor with all sections of the church. I cannot answer as to why any particular translator would choose to translate as he does absent an express statement regarding his intentions, but I refuse to be drawn into discussions of unitarianism, modalism, adoptionism or any other theological viewpoint since that is outside the purview of this list. Suffice it to say that I think Moffatt was mistaken at this point......................................................................... Well, you can certainly put him back in the stall, but I think the theology horse trotted out from this thread several posts back... Solomon Landers [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Awohili at aol.com Awohili at aol.com Thu Oct 5 14:22:22 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? OK, so forget the theology and get back to the grammar. Is QEOS at John 1:1c definite, indefinite, or qualitative? Solomon Landers [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com Thu Oct 5 14:28:36 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Granville Sharp's rule has not been overturned. LOGOS is definite and QEOS is likewise.When the copulative και connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill], if the article hO, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e. it denotes a farther description of the first-named person … . Daniel B. Wallace. (1999; 2002). Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (271). Zondervan Publishing House and Galaxie Software. georgegfsomsel_________----- Original Message ----From: "Awohili at aol.com" <Awohili at aol.com>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Thursday, October 5, 2006 2:22:22 PMSubject: Re: [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?OK, so forget the theology and get back to the grammar. Is QEOS at John 1:1c definite, indefinite, or qualitative?Solomon Landers--- home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Jim West jwest at highland.net Thu Oct 5 14:26:00 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Definite.Best,JimAwohili at aol.com wrote:> OK, so forget the theology and get back to the grammar. Is QEOS at John > 1:1c definite, indefinite, or qualitative?> > Solomon Landers> ---> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> -- Jim West, ThDhttp://web.infoave.net/~jwest -- Biblical Studies Resourceshttp://drjimwest.wordpress.com -- Weblog [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Awohili at aol.com Awohili at aol.com Thu Oct 5 14:44:04 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Yet, that same Daniel B. Wallace, in that same GGBB, page 269, says: "The most likely candidate for QEOS is qualitative. This is true both grammatically (for the largest proportion of pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives fall into this category) and theologically (both the theology of the Fourth Gospel and of the NT as a whole)." So, which Dan Wallace do we listen to? And by the way, since you questioned Dr. Felix Just's bona fides on this matter, surely you must know that Granville Sharp was "untrained theologically"? (GGBE, page 270) Solomon Landers In a message dated 10/05/2006 11:29:04 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, gfsomsel at yahoo.com writes:Granville Sharp's rule has not been overturned. LOGOS is definite and QEOS is likewise. When the copulative êáé connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill], if the article hO, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e. it denotes a farther description of the first-named person … . (http://us.f385.mail.yahoo.com/dc/launch?action=welcome&YY=581576632&.rand=05o65shqnseob#_ftn1) (http://us.f385.mail.yahoo.com/dc/launch?action=welcome&YY=581576632&.rand=05o65shqnseob#_ftnref1) Daniel B. Wallace. (1999; 2002). Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (271). Zondervan Publishing House and Galaxie Software. [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Edward Andrews edandrews at adelphia.net Thu Oct 5 14:48:03 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? George:It is nice that you mention Wallace's book, but then you say: "Granville Sharp's rule has not been overturned. LOGOS is definite and QEOS is likewise." This is a bit ambiguous, because Wallace does not argue for a definite QEOS. In fact, he talks of conservative scholars who have long used this to support their Trinity concept. yes, Wallace goes on to say it does not take away from the Trinity doctrine based on the context of John's gospel, but he lists the same old verses to support his context: John 8:58; 10:30; 20:28. No, Sharp's rule has not been overturned, just misunderstood.Daniel B. Wallace in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (1996; 257,260) tells us that most eminent scholars had long misunderstood this rule: “Almost immediately many scholars (especially of a more conservative stripe) misunderstood Colwell’s rule. They saw the benefit of the rule for affirming the deity of Christ in John 1:1. But what they thought Colwell was articulating was actually the converse of the rule itself. That is, they thought that the rule was: An anarthrous predicate that precedes the verb is usually definite. This is not the rule, nor can it be implied from the rule…..Colwell stated that a definite PN that precedes the verb is usually anarthrous. He did not say the converse, namely, and anarthrous PN that precedes the verb is usually definite. However, this is how the rule has been misunderstood by most scholars (including Colwell) since the article in JBL was written.”Edward Andrews----- Original Message ----- From: "George F Somsel" <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>To: <Awohili at aol.com>; < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 2:28 PMSubject: Re: [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?Granville Sharp's rule has not been overturned. LOGOS is definite and QEOS is likewise.When the copulative και connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill], if the article hO, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e. it denotes a farther description of the first-named person … .Daniel B. Wallace. (1999; 2002). Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (271). Zondervan Publishing House and Galaxie Software.georgegfsomsel_________----- Original Message ----From: "Awohili at aol.com" <Awohili at aol.com>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Thursday, October 5, 2006 2:22:22 PMSubject: Re: [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?OK, so forget the theology and get back to the grammar. Is QEOS at John1:1c definite, indefinite, or qualitative?Solomon Landers--- home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/--------------------------------------------------------------------------------> ---> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Sean Kasabuske alethinon61 at milwpc.com Thu Oct 5 15:02:30 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Hi Solomon,In Paul Dixon's thesis (is he still here?), he notes that any noun that is not definite is indefinite. He says the following:"Technically, any noun which is not definite is indefinite. For expediency, however, we exclude qualitative nouns from the class of indefinite nouns." (The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John [DTS Thesis]), p. 9He made a distinction between "indefinite" and "qualitative" for the sake of expediency, but he clearly recognized that nouns are either definite or indefinite, at least "technically" (=grammatically?). Also, Harner indicated that the qualitative force of QEOS at 1:1c is so prominent that it should not be regarded as definite. In light of this, one wonders in which of the following translations QEOS *looks* like a qualitative noun that is "technically" indefinite:1. "The Word was God"2. "The Word was a god"I think that the answer to that question is fairly obvious, isn't it?Sincerely,Sean Kasabuske----- Original Message ----- From: <Awohili at aol.com>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 1:22 PMSubject: Re: [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?> OK, so forget the theology and get back to the grammar. Is QEOS at John> 1:1c definite, indefinite, or qualitative?> > Solomon Landers> ---> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Awohili at aol.com Awohili at aol.com Thu Oct 5 15:12:05 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? With all due respect, George, you were the one who brought Dan Wallace into this thread, not me. Solomon Landers [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com Thu Oct 5 15:03:54 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? I have previously indicated that I do not always agree with Dan Wallace. I would say that you are barking up the wrong tree in any attempt to assert that Jn 1.1c intends to present the LOGOS as anything less than very God of very God. Unless you can provide evidence to overturn Grnaville Sharp's rule, it stands. One of the weaker points of Wallace's discussion of this matter is when he trots out the bogey-man of Sabellianism. This is a totally non-grammatical argument and will not succeed to prove his point. Furthermore, should someone on this list attempt to tar me with the brush of Sabellianism (which, I trust, will not occur), he would find himself unsuccessful. Perhaps you would be better served were you to attempt to ask whether the use of QEOS throughout the whole verse is entirely univocal.Yes, I am aware that Granville Sharp was untrained theologically. That is, he was formally untrained though his father was trained. I would presume that a man of GS's tendencies would acquire some knowledge from his father. More than that, I am not a degree-snob. That someone does not have a degree does not indicate that he is unknowledgeable in a field. I have seen many fools with degrees. georgegfsomsel_________----- Original Message ----From: "Awohili at aol.com" <Awohili at aol.com>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Thursday, October 5, 2006 2:44:04 PMSubject: Re: [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?Yet, that same Daniel B. Wallace, in that same GGBB, page 269, says:"The most likely candidate for QEOS is qualitative. This is true both grammatically (for the largest proportion of pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives fall into this category) and theologically (both the theology of the Fourth Gospel and of the NT as a whole)."So, which Dan Wallace do we listen to?And by the way, since you questioned Dr. Felix Just's bona fides on this matter, surely you must know that Granville Sharp was "untrained theologically"? (GGBE, page 270) Solomon LandersIn a message dated 10/05/2006 11:29:04 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, gfsomsel at yahoo.com writes:Granville Sharp's rule has not been overturned. LOGOS is definite and QEOS is likewise.When the copulative êáé connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill], if the article hO, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e. it denotes a farther description of the first-named person … . (http://us.f385.mail.yahoo.com/dc/launch?action=welcome&YY=581576632&.rand=05o65shqnseob#_ftn1) (http://us.f385.mail.yahoo.com/dc/launch?action=welcome&YY=581576632&.rand=05o65shqnseob#_ftnref1) Daniel B. Wallace. (1999; 2002). Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (271). Zondervan Publishing House and Galaxie Software.--- home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Eric Weiss papaweiss1 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 5 15:15:35 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Don't confuse Colwell with Sharp. I see both names being used with reference to John 1:1, but John 1:1 has nothing to do with Granville Sharp, IIRC, just Ernest Colwell. Colwell's Rule: http://faculty.bbc.edu/Rdecker/documents/colwell.pdf#search=%22colwell's%20rule%22 Granville Sharp's Rule: http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1496 Please correct me if I'm in error.Eric S. Weiss ---------------------------------Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail. [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Edward Andrews edandrews at adelphia.net Thu Oct 5 15:26:40 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? George:You keep saying Granville Sharp's rule stands, but in what way does it stand?Are you saying the rule is: "An anarthrous predicate that precedes the verb isusually definite."Or, are you saying: "A definite PN that precedes the verb is usually anarthrous."There are two very important questions which resolve the debate on how this clause should be rendered. (1) Why is the qualitative predicate nominative “god” fronted before the copulative verb? (2) Why is the qualitative predicted nominative without the definite article, unlike the previous clause?In short, (1) its emphatic position of being fronted stresses its qualitativeness, not to identify. (2) Its lack of an article keeps us from identifying the person of “the Word” (Jesus Christ) with the person of God (Jehovah) mentioned in the previous clause. In other words, the word order tells us that Jesus “was existing in God’s form” (Philip. 2:6), he “is the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15), in fact, he (Jesus) “is the reflection of [Jehovah’s] glory and the exact representation of His very being” (Heb 1:3). However, the lack of the article for the second “god” tells us, that Jesus Christ, while being “godlike” or “a god” is a reflection to the highest degree of his Father, but not to be identified as one and the same---Jehovah God himself.Edward Andrews----- Original Message ----- From: "George F Somsel" <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>To: <Awohili at aol.com>; < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 3:03 PMSubject: Re: [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?I have previously indicated that I do not always agree with Dan Wallace. I would say that you are barking up the wrong tree in any attempt to assert that Jn 1.1c intends to present the LOGOS as anything less than very God of very God. Unless you can provide evidence to overturn Grnaville Sharp's rule, it stands. One of the weaker points of Wallace's discussion of this matter is when he trots out the bogey-man of Sabellianism. This is a totally non-grammatical argument and will not succeed to prove his point. Furthermore, should someone on this list attempt to tar me with the brush of Sabellianism (which, I trust, will not occur), he would find himself unsuccessful. Perhaps you would be better served were you to attempt to ask whether the use of QEOS throughout the whole verse is entirely univocal.Yes, I am aware that Granville Sharp was untrained theologically. That is, he was formally untrained though his father was trained. I would presume that a man of GS's tendencies would acquire some knowledge from his father. More than that, I am not a degree-snob. That someone does not have a degree does not indicate that he is unknowledgeable in a field. I have seen many fools with degrees.georgegfsomsel_________----- Original Message ----From: "Awohili at aol.com" <Awohili at aol.com>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Thursday, October 5, 2006 2:44:04 PMSubject: Re: [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?Yet, that same Daniel B. Wallace, in that same GGBB, page 269, says:"The most likely candidate for QEOS is qualitative. This is true bothgrammatically (for the largest proportion of pre-verbal anarthrous predicatenominatives fall into this category) and theologically (both the theology of theFourth Gospel and of the NT as a whole)."So, which Dan Wallace do we listen to?And by the way, since you questioned Dr. Felix Just's bona fides on thismatter, surely you must know that Granville Sharp was "untrained theologically"?(GGBE, page 270)Solomon LandersIn a message dated 10/05/2006 11:29:04 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,gfsomsel at yahoo.com writes:Granville Sharp's rule has not been overturned. LOGOS is definite and QEOSis likewise.When the copulative êáé connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns(either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description,respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, orqualities, good or ill], if the article hO, or any of its cases, precedesthe first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before thesecond noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that isexpressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e. it denotes afarther description of the first-named person … .(http://us.f385.mail.yahoo.com/dc/launch?action=welcome&YY=581576632&.rand=05o65shqnseob#_ftn1)(http://us.f385.mail.yahoo.com/dc/launch?action=welcome&YY=581576632&.rand=05o65shqnseob#_ftnref1)Daniel B. Wallace. (1999; 2002). Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics -Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (271). Zondervan Publishing House and GalaxieSoftware.--- home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/--- home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? James Spinti JSpinti at Eisenbrauns.com Thu Oct 5 15:27:28 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? As I asked the last time this whole thing came up--maybe 3 weeks ago?Why does no one who is arguing for the "a god" translation go back tothe early church fathers who knew Greek? Is this verse ever used as anargument in any of their treatises (both for and against Arianism)? TheyKNEW Greek, they spoke it, thought in it, breathed it-if you will. Asfar as I can tell from my somewhat limited reading (but more than thelast time the question came up!), neither side used John 1 as anargument. It was a non-starter, grammatically. I am open to being shown wrong, but in view of our more limitedknowledge of Greek, we should show a bit of humility before theirsilence in using the supposed "indefiniteness" of QEOS as an argument.Maybe we should concentrate on reading Greek, and not trying to prooftext our own theological viewpoint, especially if our knowledge of Greekis limited to a year or three of college/seminary Greek (and only NTKoine at that!). Frustratedly,James(yes, I have an advanced degree in Classics...)________________________________James SpintiMarketing Director, Book Sales DivisionEisenbrauns, Good books for over 30 yearsSpecializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studiesjspinti at eisenbrauns dot comWeb: http://www.eisenbrauns.comPhone: 574-269-2011 ext 226Fax: 574-269-6788 > -----Original Message-----> From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org > [mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of > Awohili at aol.com> Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 2:22 PM> To: at lists.ibiblio.org> Subject: Re: [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?> > > OK, so forget the theology and get back to the grammar. Is > QEOS at John > 1:1c definite, indefinite, or qualitative?> > Solomon Landers> ---> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com Thu Oct 5 15:33:13 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Actually, if you read what I sent, you will note that I nowhere mention Dan Wallace. His name appears only because the quotation of Granville Sharp's rule was lifted from his book. I never endorsed anything he said on the matter. georgegfsomsel_________----- Original Message ----From: "Awohili at aol.com" <Awohili at aol.com>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Thursday, October 5, 2006 3:12:05 PMSubject: Re: [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?With all due respect, George, you were the one who brought Dan Wallace into this thread, not me.Solomon Landers--- home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Eric Weiss papaweiss1 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 5 15:39:53 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Unfortunately, the new Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible, which would specifically approach and comment on John 1:1 from a theological and Nicene- oriented perspective, does not have a volume for John listed on the dustcover of the Acts volume (by Jaroslav Pelikan) for projected volumes in the series, though ones on Matthew and Luke (as well as many Epistles and Revelation) are listed. Also see the repeat of my comment from my earlier post: John 1:1 is a Colwell issue, not a Sharp issue. ;^) James Spinti wrote: > As I asked the last time this whole thing came up--maybe 3 weeks ago? Why does no one who is arguing for the "a god" translation go back to the early church fathers who knew Greek? Is this verse ever used as an argument in any of their treatises (both for and against Arianism)? They KNEW Greek, they spoke it, thought in it, breathed it-if you will. As far as I can tell from my somewhat limited reading (but more than the last time the question came up!), neither side used John 1 as an argument. It was a non-starter, grammatically. > I am open to being shown wrong, but in view of our more limited knowledge of Greek, we should show a bit of humility before their silence in using the supposed "indefiniteness" of QEOS as an argument. Maybe we should concentrate on reading Greek, and not trying to proof text our own theological viewpoint, especially if our knowledge of Greek is limited to a year or three of college/seminary Greek (and only NT Koine at that!). > Frustratedly, James (yes, I have an advanced degree in Classics...) Eric Weiss <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com> wrote: Don't confuse Colwell with Sharp. I see both names being used with reference to John 1:1, but John 1:1 has nothing to do with Granville Sharp, IIRC, just Ernest Colwell. Colwell's Rule: http://faculty.bbc.edu/Rdecker/documents/colwell.pdf#search=%22colwell's%20rule%22 Granville Sharp's Rule: http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1496 Please correct me if I'm in error. Eric S. Weiss --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!?Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail.Eric S. Weiss ---------------------------------Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail. [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com Thu Oct 5 15:52:08 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? You are correct. I was saying Granville Sharp and quoting Granville Sharp but was thinking of Colwell. I guess I have been operating "with half my brain tied behind my back." Here is Colwell_____________Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article … a predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a ‘qualitative’ noun solely because of the absence of the article; if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun… .” Daniel B. Wallace. (1999; 2002). Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (257). Zondervan Publishing House and Galaxie Software._____________Colwell does not maintain that the predicate noun without an article which precedes the verb MUST be definite, but simply that it cannot be maintained that it must thereby be indefinite or qualitative. I think the passage is quite clear so that only someone who is intent on changing the meaning can manage to say otherwise. Add to that Granville Sharp's studies in reference to other passages in the NT, and I think there can be absolutely no doubt regarding what the writers of the NT as a whole thought. As regards the Gospel according to John, the "I am" passages with their clear allusion to Isaiah and the outrage exhibited by the establishment at them leave no doubt that this was the author's intension.georgegfsomsel_________----- Original Message ----From: Eric Weiss <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2006 3:15:35 PMSubject: [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?Don't confuse Colwell with Sharp. I see both names being used with reference to John 1:1, but John 1:1 has nothing to do with Granville Sharp, IIRC, just Ernest Colwell. Colwell's Rule: http://faculty.bbc.edu/Rdecker/documents/colwell.pdf#search=%22colwell's%20rule%22 Granville Sharp's Rule: http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1496 Please correct me if I'm in error.Eric S. Weiss ---------------------------------Do you Yahoo!?Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail.--- home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Edward Andrews edandrews at adelphia.net Thu Oct 5 15:53:26 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? George:[Note] I was referring to E. C. Colwell's information, not Granville Sharp. I do apologize. I simply followed suit on your use of the name. the other poster is quite correct. Sharp's rule is in reference to Titus 2:13.Edward Andrews----- Original Message ----- From: "George F Somsel" <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>To: <Awohili at aol.com>; < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 3:03 PMSubject: Re: [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?I have previously indicated that I do not always agree with Dan Wallace. I would say that you are barking up the wrong tree in any attempt to assert that Jn 1.1c intends to present the LOGOS as anything less than very God of very God. Unless you can provide evidence to overturn Grnaville Sharp's rule, it stands. One of the weaker points of Wallace's discussion of this matter is when he trots out the bogey-man of Sabellianism. This is a totally non-grammatical argument and will not succeed to prove his point. Furthermore, should someone on this list attempt to tar me with the brush of Sabellianism (which, I trust, will not occur), he would find himself unsuccessful. Perhaps you would be better served were you to attempt to ask whether the use of QEOS throughout the whole verse is entirely univocal.Yes, I am aware that Granville Sharp was untrained theologically. That is, he was formally untrained though his father was trained. I would presume that a man of GS's tendencies would acquire some knowledge from his father. More than that, I am not a degree-snob. That someone does not have a degree does not indicate that he is unknowledgeable in a field. I have seen many fools with degrees.georgegfsomsel_________----- Original Message ----From: "Awohili at aol.com" <Awohili at aol.com>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Thursday, October 5, 2006 2:44:04 PMSubject: Re: [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?Yet, that same Daniel B. Wallace, in that same GGBB, page 269, says:"The most likely candidate for QEOS is qualitative. This is true bothgrammatically (for the largest proportion of pre-verbal anarthrous predicatenominatives fall into this category) and theologically (both the theology of theFourth Gospel and of the NT as a whole)."So, which Dan Wallace do we listen to?And by the way, since you questioned Dr. Felix Just's bona fides on thismatter, surely you must know that Granville Sharp was "untrained theologically"?(GGBE, page 270)Solomon LandersIn a message dated 10/05/2006 11:29:04 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,gfsomsel at yahoo.com writes:Granville Sharp's rule has not been overturned. LOGOS is definite and QEOSis likewise.When the copulative êáé connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns(either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description,respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, orqualities, good or ill], if the article hO, or any of its cases, precedesthe first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before thesecond noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that isexpressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e. it denotes afarther description of the first-named person … .(http://us.f385.mail.yahoo.com/dc/launch?action=welcome&YY=581576632&.rand=05o65shqnseob#_ftn1)(http://us.f385.mail.yahoo.com/dc/launch?action=welcome&YY=581576632&.rand=05o65shqnseob#_ftnref1)Daniel B. Wallace. (1999; 2002). Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics -Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (271). Zondervan Publishing House and GalaxieSoftware.--- home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/--- home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com Thu Oct 5 15:59:11 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Ask and you shall receive. Unfortunately, I only have an English translation to offer (Well, no matter since most of Irenaeus is a translation in any case). Irenaeus, _Against Heresies_, i.8___________5. Further, they teach that John, the disciple of the Lord, indicated the first Ogdoad, expressing themselves in these words: John, the disciple of the Lord, wishing to set forth the origin of all things, so as to explain how the Father produced the whole, lays down a certain principle,—that, namely, which was first-begotten by God, which Being he has termed both the only-begotten Son and God, in whom the Father, after a seminal manner, brought forth all things. By him the Word was produced, and in him the whole substance of the Aeons, to which the Word himself afterwards imparted form. Since, therefore, he treats of the first origin of things, he rightly proceeds in his teaching from the beginning, that is, from God and the Word. And he expresses himself thus: “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.” Having first of all distinguished these three—God, the Beginning, and the Word—he again unites them, that he may exhibit the production of each of them, that is, of the Son and of the Word, and may at the same time show their union with one another, and with the Father. For “the beginning” is in the Father, and of the Father, while “the Word” is in the beginning, and of the beginning. Very properly, then, did he say, “In the beginning was the Word,” for He was in the Son; “and the Word was with God,” for He was the beginning; “and the Word was God,” of course, for that which is begotten of God is God. “The same was in the beginning with God”—this clause discloses the order of production. “All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made; ” for the Word was the author of form and beginning to all the Aeons that came into existence . . .Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, A. C. (1997). The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol.I : Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. The apostolic fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. (328). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems. georgegfsomsel_________----- Original Message ----From: James Spinti <JSpinti at Eisenbrauns.com>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Thursday, October 5, 2006 3:27:28 PMSubject: Re: [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?As I asked the last time this whole thing came up--maybe 3 weeks ago?Why does no one who is arguing for the "a god" translation go back tothe early church fathers who knew Greek? Is this verse ever used as anargument in any of their treatises (both for and against Arianism)? TheyKNEW Greek, they spoke it, thought in it, breathed it-if you will. Asfar as I can tell from my somewhat limited reading (but more than thelast time the question came up!), neither side used John 1 as anargument. It was a non-starter, grammatically. I am open to being shown wrong, but in view of our more limitedknowledge of Greek, we should show a bit of humility before theirsilence in using the supposed "indefiniteness" of QEOS as an argument.Maybe we should concentrate on reading Greek, and not trying to prooftext our own theological viewpoint, especially if our knowledge of Greekis limited to a year or three of college/seminary Greek (and only NTKoine at that!). Frustratedly,James(yes, I have an advanced degree in Classics...)________________________________James SpintiMarketing Director, Book Sales DivisionEisenbrauns, Good books for over 30 yearsSpecializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studiesjspinti at eisenbrauns dot comWeb: http://www.eisenbrauns.comPhone: 574-269-2011 ext 226Fax: 574-269-6788 > -----Original Message-----> From: -bounces at lists.ibiblio.org > [mailto:-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of > Awohili at aol.com> Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 2:22 PM> To: at lists.ibiblio.org> Subject: Re: [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?> > > OK, so forget the theology and get back to the grammar. Is > QEOS at John > 1:1c definite, indefinite, or qualitative?> > Solomon Landers> ---> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> --- home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Awohili at aol.com Awohili at aol.com Thu Oct 5 16:52:04 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? So, now Colwell's Rule is "scripture"??? I did quote Wallace on my own, but you have yet to show where he is incorrect. You have only stated that you do not agree with him. But why, grammatically speaking, is Wallace incorrect in arguing for a qualitative usage at John 1:1c? Solomon____________________________In a message dated 10/05/2006 1:30:42 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, gfsomsel at yahoo.com writes:If I want to quote scripture and the devil himself gives the quote, I will use it (not to compare Wallace with the devil). That it is in Wallace's book has nothing to do with the issue. Leave him out of it unless I quote him directly -- unless, of course, you wish to quote him on your own.georgegfsomsel [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Curtis Hinson curtis at curtishinson.com Thu Oct 5 16:53:20 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Normally on here we discuss merely such questions as if a noun is indefinite, and don't even comment on what the theological implications of whatever we perceive to be grammatically true are. This particular discussion was framed from the first as a theological discussion that merely happens to use some Greek now and then. Quoting Greek-speaking gentile early Christian leaders talking about Jewish writers who wrote in Greek doesn't make those discussions about grammar instead of theology.I'll be glad when this discussion is over.Bless the NameCurtis Hinsonhttp://curtishinson.com-- My local weather at the time of this email:84F (28C), Mostly CloudyServer status: 15:39:01 up 33 days, 13:35, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.03, 0.00 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Awohili at aol.com Awohili at aol.com Thu Oct 5 16:57:21 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Hello, Jim. Like many of us here, I'm seeking knowledge. I have seen some strong assertions put forth that have nothing to do with the grammar of John 1:1c. I have yet to see an explanation of why John 1:1c must definitely be one thing or another, or one thing as against another. Maybe no one wants to deal with that? Solomon Landers In a message dated 10/05/2006 1:47:38 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, jwest at highland.net writes:I'm curious. I think by now you've gotten an answer in each direction. I.e., some of us think it's definite, some doubtless think it's indefinite, and others think it qualitative. Are you soliciting opinions or counting votes? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com Thu Oct 5 17:26:58 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Please go back to school and take a remedial reading course. georgegfsomsel_________----- Original Message ----From: "Awohili at aol.com" <Awohili at aol.com>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Thursday, October 5, 2006 4:52:04 PMSubject: Re: [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?So, now Colwell's Rule is "scripture"???I did quote Wallace on my own, but you have yet to show where he is incorrect. You have only stated that you do not agree with him. But why, grammatically speaking, is Wallace incorrect in arguing for a qualitative usage at John 1:1c?Solomon____________________________In a message dated 10/05/2006 1:30:42 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, gfsomsel at yahoo.com writes:If I want to quote scripture and the devil himself gives the quote, I will use it (not to compare Wallace with the devil). That it is in Wallace's book has nothing to do with the issue. Leave him out of it unless I quote him directly -- unless, of course, you wish to quote him on your own.georgegfsomsel--- home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Awohili at aol.com Awohili at aol.com Thu Oct 5 17:41:55 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Ah, when facts are wanting, we fall back on the old ad hominem approach? Why lower yourself like that? If you have no grammatical answers to my question -- as opposed to theological ones -- just say so. Solomon Landers _______________________________-In a message dated 10/05/2006 2:27:37 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, gfsomsel at yahoo.com writes:Please go back to school and take a remedial reading course.georgegfsomsel [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Edward Andrews edandrews at adelphia.net Thu Oct 5 18:01:34 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Curtis:The rendering of "a god." is due to: (1)An anarticular theos(a theos without the article)which is sandwiched between two articular occurences.(2)Context. The Word was "with" ho theos, the God. (3)What the rest of the Bible says about Jesus.(4) The genitive form of the noun does not require the article to be definite, whereas the nominative form normally does. It's that simple.Edward Andrews----- Original Message ----- From: "Curtis Hinson" <curtis at curtishinson.com>To: "" < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 4:53 PMSubject: Re: [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?> Normally on here we discuss merely such questions as if a noun is > indefinite, and don't even comment on what the theological implications > of whatever we perceive to be grammatically true are. This particular > discussion was framed from the first as a theological discussion that > merely happens to use some Greek now and then. Quoting Greek-speaking > gentile early Christian leaders talking about Jewish writers who wrote > in Greek doesn't make those discussions about grammar instead of theology.> > I'll be glad when this discussion is over.> > Bless the Name> Curtis Hinson> http://curtishinson.com> > -- > My local weather at the time of this email:> 84F (28C), Mostly Cloudy> > Server status:> 15:39:01 up 33 days, 13:35, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.03, 0.00> > > ---> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? George F Somsel gfsomsel at yahoo.com Thu Oct 5 18:03:22 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? I have no intention to answer wilful misunderstandings. You were perfectly well aware of what was being stated yet you chose to misconstrue it. I do think you are trying to bait me. georgegfsomsel_________----- Original Message ----From: "Awohili at aol.com" <Awohili at aol.com>To: at lists.ibiblio.orgSent: Thursday, October 5, 2006 5:41:55 PMSubject: Re: [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?Ah, when facts are wanting, we fall back on the old ad hominem approach?Why lower yourself like that?If you have no grammatical answers to my question -- as opposed to theological ones -- just say so.Solomon Landers_______________________________-In a message dated 10/05/2006 2:27:37 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, gfsomsel at yahoo.com writes:Please go back to school and take a remedial reading course.georgegfsomsel--- home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/ mailing list at lists.ibiblio.orghttp://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Awohili at aol.com Awohili at aol.com Thu Oct 5 18:06:46 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? LOL, Heaven forbid! But if you really feel that way, then don't take the bait. Maybe someone else can give an answer if you are unable. Solomon Landers_______________________________In a message dated 10/05/2006 3:03:43 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, gfsomsel at yahoo.com writes:I have no intention to answer wilful misunderstandings. You were perfectly well aware of what was being stated yet you chose to misconstrue it. I do think you are trying to bait me. georgegfsomsel [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Curtis Hinson curtis at curtishinson.com Thu Oct 5 18:09:54 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Edward, why are you sending this to me? Didn't I make it clear that I don't intend to engage this theological discussion and that I think it's inappropriate?You bet I have an opinion on the subject, but is not the place for it and I'm keeping it to myself. I couldn't and wouldn't defend that idea merely from the basis of Greek grammar and syntax alone, as you demonstrated with your point 3.I also don't delude myself to think my position unassailable if only others understood the basis of my understanding, so I don't feel any need to get into it, certainly not here. Pax.Bless the NameCurtis Hinsonhttp://curtishinson.comEdward Andrews wrote the following on 10/5/2006 5:01 PM:> Curtis:> > > The rendering of "a god." is due to: > > (1)An anarticular theos(a theos without the article)which is sandwiched between two articular occurences.> > (2)Context. The Word was "with" ho theos, the God. > > (3)What the rest of the Bible says about Jesus.> > (4) The genitive form of the noun does not require the article to be definite, whereas the nominative form normally does. It's that simple.> > > Edward Andrews> > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Curtis Hinson" <curtis at curtishinson.com>> To: "" < at lists.ibiblio.org>> Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 4:53 PM> Subject: Re: [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?> > > >> Normally on here we discuss merely such questions as if a noun is >> indefinite, and don't even comment on what the theological implications >> of whatever we perceive to be grammatically true are. This particular >> discussion was framed from the first as a theological discussion that >> merely happens to use some Greek now and then. Quoting Greek-speaking >> gentile early Christian leaders talking about Jewish writers who wrote >> in Greek doesn't make those discussions about grammar instead of theology.>> >> I'll be glad when this discussion is over.>> >> Bless the Name>> Curtis Hinson>> http://curtishinson.com>> >> -- >> My local weather at the time of this email:>> 84F (28C), Mostly Cloudy>> >> Server status:>> 15:39:01 up 33 days, 13:35, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.03, 0.00>> >> >> --->> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/>> mailing list>> at lists.ibiblio.org>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>> > ---> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> > -- My local weather at the time of this email:F (-17C),Server status: 17:00:02 up 33 days, 14:56, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.02, 0.00 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?? wayfaringman at netzero.net wayfaringman at netzero.net Thu Oct 5 18:37:08 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] CEASE AND DESIST: Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...Name: not availableUrl: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/20061005/c9df14bf/attachment.pl [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] CEASE AND DESIST: Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Edward Andrews edandrews at adelphia.net Thu Oct 5 18:41:52 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?? Solomon:The rendering of "a god." is due to:(1)An anarticular theos(a theos without the article)which is sandwiched between two articular occurences.(2)Context. The Word was "with" ho theos, the God.(3)What the rest of the Bible says about Jesus.(4) The genitive form of the noun does not require the article to be definite, whereas the nominative form normally does. It's that simple.Edward Andrews----- Original Message ----- From: <Awohili at aol.com>To: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 6:06 PMSubject: Re: [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?> > LOL, Heaven forbid! But if you really feel that way, then don't take the> bait.> > Maybe someone else can give an answer if you are unable.> > Solomon Landers> _______________________________> In a message dated 10/05/2006 3:03:43 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,> gfsomsel at yahoo.com writes:> > I have no intention to answer wilful misunderstandings. You were > perfectly> well aware of what was being stated yet you chose to misconstrue it. I > do> think you are trying to bait me.> > george> gfsomsel> > > > > ---> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?? [] CEASE AND DESIST: Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu Thu Oct 5 19:29:30 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? As has been well noted, this thread began with a heavy burden of theological cargo.A few of the 52 posts (at my last count) in it have focused on the grammatical issues.It appears that it is almost impossible to have a discussion on John 1:1c withoutbringing forth more heat than light. Stances have been taken, convictions havebeen enunciated, but I see little evidence that arguments have been adduced that havechanged a single mind. Let's call a halt to this now.I've been watching baseball all afternoon, and enjoying it. There's another game tobe played tonight with Maddox pitching for the Dodgers against Glavine for theMets. Some may find that more entertaining than an ongoing give-and- take overJohn 1:1c that seems to be all give and no take (or vice-versa, depending uponyour perspective).Carl W. ConradCo-Chair, ListDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu or cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/ [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading??[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? winsco at hotmail.co.uk winsco at hotmail.co.uk Thu Oct 5 21:01:27 EDT 2006 [] CEASE AND DESIST: Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? En arxh hn o logov, kai o logov hn prov ton qeon, kai qeov hn o logov.It does not seem that anyone responded to my question as to whether TON QEON is better understood the God (John 1:1b with the God) so may I add this to what I have said already (hope this is not too long for the list).When we say person we normally think in terms of an individual. In this (individual) sense we understand God and the Word as being two separate persons (two individuals). This I believe is what John meant when he wrote and the Word was WITH (the) God. Obviously, in this (individual) sense, one person (individual) cannot be the same person (individual) as he is with (another individual).John says though (unequivocally I think) that the Word is God (not a God neither a god). In this particular sense I think that the person is exactly the same in the God and in the Word. Allow me to explain by using Hebrews 1:1-3.As the KJV puts this verse (I use capitals by way of highlighting only)GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us BY HIS SON, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the EXPRESS IMAGE OF HIS PERSON (gr. Hupostasis), and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had BY HIMSELF purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of THE MAJESTY ON HIGH Hebrews 1:1-3Here we have the writer of Hebrews differentiating between God (the majesty on high) and His Son therefore again as in John 1:1 we see two persons as in individuals. Note though the use of the word person in verse 3 (the express image of His [Gods] person). Obviously, the image the Son - is another individual of whom He is an image in this case God (the majesty on high).The word person here though (in verse 3 KJV) is from hupostasis which has the meaning of: - that which is the foundation or under-girding of something, its sub-structure or substance, its very cause of being, its state, its standing (everything that makes it what it is).Thus according to the writer of Hebrews the Son, being the express image of Gods hupostasis, is the very image of the foundation or under-girding of God - Gods sub-structure or substance - His very cause of being, His state, His standing, (everything that makes God what He is) yet He is, as an individual person, separate from God (the majesty on high).As the NEB excellently puts it (I think) and what God was, the word was.Thus we have two usages of the word person.(a) An individual(b) What makes an individual (person) what they are (the sub-structure, substance or very foundation). Perhaps as we might say today a persons genes.As John 1:1 says and the Word was with God (an individual) and the Word was God (Gods sub-structure, foundation, very substance, everything that God is)It is very interesting to note that William Tyndale translated Hebrews 1:3 as saying (using capitals again as highlighting only)Which sonne beynge the brightnes of his glory and VERY IMAGE OF HIS SUBSTANCE bearinge vp all thinges with the worde of his power hath in his AWNE PERSON pourged oure synnes and is sitten on the right honde of the maiestie an hyeTyndale (I believe) captured what the writer of Hebrews was saying (note he said very image of his substance not person as KJV). Not that the Son is an express image of God in person (in outward appearance) but as an express image of Gods inner being - substance, under-girding, foundation, what makes God what He is. Thus we have as in John 1:18, God the only begotten. Both John and the writer of Hebrews say that the Word (the Son who became flesh) was God essentially.Note that Tyndale said in his awne person (KJV himself) thus denoting as John said that the Word became flesh (and bore our sins) and not that the God (the majesty on high) from whom He was a separate person (individual) was made flesh.My apologies for the length of this post but it was the only way to explain what I believe that John (1:1) was saying. I know it bordered very closely on theology but I hope I stayed within the parameters of this list. My apologies if I did not.RegardsWalter Schofield_________________________________________________________________The new Windows Live Toolbar helps you guard against viruses http://toolbar.live.com/?mkt=en-gb [] CEASE AND DESIST: Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? winsco at hotmail.co.uk winsco at hotmail.co.uk Thu Oct 5 21:36:27 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] 1Co 15:10a Grace given to me vs. Grace has not beenwasted on me. My apologies.I have realised that I have sent re this thread after the moderator's call to close it. I will try to make sure that this does not happen again.RegardsW. Schofield_________________________________________________________________Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters! http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] 1Co 15:10a Grace given to me vs. Grace has not beenwasted on me. [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? ronmacy at juno.com ronmacy at juno.com Fri Oct 6 09:04:29 EDT 2006 [] 1Co 7:25 unmarried persons or virgins [] Qualitative Predicate Nominatives An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...Name: not availableUrl: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/20061006/8784b351/attachment.pl [] 1Co 7:25 unmarried persons or virgins[] Qualitative Predicate Nominatives [] RE: Jn 1:1 Ron Geib rongeib at ptd.net Sun Jan 26 22:48:13 EST 2003 [B-greek] test [B-greek] Unsubscribe On 1/23/03 Schmuel wrote, questioning the use of the article with THEOS =in John 1:1.I have found Daniel B. Wallace's exposition on the verse in *Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics* (Zondervan), pp. 266-269, to be quite helpful on thisverse. Identifying this as a construction of a pre-verbal, anarthous,predicate nominative, he demonstrates that there are three choices for its interpretation; indefinite, definite, or qualitative. His deduction is thatitis most likely qualitative (As Does Mr. Greenlee also in an earlier replyto your message).Ron Geib [B-greek] test[B-greek] Unsubscribe [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN Oun Kwon KwonO at upstate.edu Tue May 4 10:59:55 EDT 2004 [] Mounce support materials?? [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN In Jn 1:1 the verb 'was' (HN) is of 'to exist; to be present' (EIMI) whichis different from ESTIN ('to be' a copulative) Thus, the first two phrases are: 'In the beginning the Word was (alreadyexisting) and the Word was (present) (face to face) with God. However, how do I understand 'was' in the last phrase 'and the Word wasGod' (KJV)? I expect here there should be a 'past' tense form of ESTINinstead of HN. Or should I understand this phrase to mean 'the Word wasexisting/present as what God was' (borrowing a little from New English Biblerendering)? Please kindly correct me of my ignorance in Greek. Oun J Kwon, M.D.SUNY Uptate Med UniversitySyracuse, NY [] Mounce support materials??[] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN Raymond Regalado fwgk5942 at mb.infoweb.ne.jp Tue May 4 11:34:19 EDT 2004 [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN On 2004.5.4, at 11:59 PM, Oun Kwon wrote:> In Jn 1:1 the verb 'was' (HN) is of 'to exist; to be present' (EIMI) > which> is different from ESTIN ('to be' a copulative)> > Thus, the first two phrases are: 'In the beginning the Word was > (already> existing) and the Word was (present) (face to face) with God.> > However, how do I understand 'was' in the last phrase 'and the Word was> God' (KJV)? I expect here there should be a 'past' tense form of > ESTIN> instead of HN. Or should I understand this phrase to mean 'the Word was> existing/present as what God was' (borrowing a little from New English > Bible> rendering)?Isn't HN the "past tense" (imperfect indicative 3 singular) of ESTIN?Regards,Raymond RegaladoTokyo, Japan [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN Arie Dirkzwager dirkzwager at pandora.be Tue May 4 11:44:02 EDT 2004 [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN HN and ESTIN are the imperfect and the present of the same verb.Already Aristotle saw that the verb EIMI can be used in connection withseveral kinds of information:about substance (OUSIA, e.g. man, animal),quantity (POSON e.g. length),quality (POION, e.g. white, intelligent),relation (PROS TI, e.g. half, bigger),place (POU, e.g. in the Lyceum),time (POTE, e.g. yesterday),position (KEISQAI, e.g. is sitting),situation (ECEIN, e.g. is wearing shoes),activity (POIEIN, e.g. is cutting),being the object of something (PASCEIN, e.g. is being cut).I would add that EIMI without further information means to exist (a factthat Aristotle knew very well too). But it remains the same verb.So looking from the possibilities of the Greek language you have manypossibilities if you read the verb EIMI. Finding the right possibility istherefore a matter of interpretation.ArieDr. A. DirkzwagerHoeselt, Belgiume-mail dirkzwager at pandora.be----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----Van: "Oun Kwon" <KwonO at upstate.edu>Aan: < at lists.ibiblio.org>Verzonden: dinsdag 4 mei 2004 16:59Onderwerp: [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN> In Jn 1:1 the verb 'was' (HN) is of 'to exist; to be present' (EIMI) which> is different from ESTIN ('to be' a copulative)> > Thus, the first two phrases are: 'In the beginning the Word was (already> existing) and the Word was (present) (face to face) with God.> > However, how do I understand 'was' in the last phrase 'and the Word was> God' (KJV)? I expect here there should be a 'past' tense form of ESTIN> instead of HN. Or should I understand this phrase to mean 'the Word was> existing/present as what God was' (borrowing a little from New EnglishBible> rendering)?> > Please kindly correct me of my ignorance in Greek.> > Oun J Kwon, M.D.> SUNY Uptate Med University> Syracuse, NY> > ---> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN Jeffrey B. Gibson jgibson000 at comcast.net Tue May 4 12:00:20 EDT 2004 [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN Arie Dirkzwager wrote:> HN and ESTIN are the imperfect and the present of the same verb.> Already Aristotle saw that the verb EIMI can be used in connection with> several kinds of information:> about substance (OUSIA, e.g. man, animal),> quantity (POSON e.g. length),> quality (POION, e.g. white, intelligent),> relation (PROS TI, e.g. half, bigger),> place (POU, e.g. in the Lyceum),> time (POTE, e.g. yesterday),> position (KEISQAI, e.g. is sitting),> situation (ECEIN, e.g. is wearing shoes),> activity (POIEIN, e.g. is cutting),> being the object of something (PASCEIN, e.g. is being cut).> > I would add that EIMI without further information means to exist (a fact> that Aristotle knew very well too). But it remains the same verb.> > So looking from the possibilities of the Greek language you have many> possibilities if you read the verb EIMI. Finding the right possibility is> therefore a matter of interpretation.While important to know, it cannot be assumed, given that Aristotle is writing 3centuries before John, and in Attic rather than Koine, that his possibilitiesare the ones that would have been known or current when the author of Johnwrote, can we? Wouldn't it be more sound methodologically to look at the waysESTIN/HN was used at a point in time closer to the end of the first century CErather than the middle or end of the 4th BCE?Jeffrey--Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1Chicago, IL 60626jgibson000 at comcast.net [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN Arie Dirkzwager dirkzwager at pandora.be Tue May 4 12:08:13 EDT 2004 [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN Jeffrey,You are right.ArieEveryone,Ignore my note. Look up the matter in Bauer.ArieDr.A. DirkzwagerHoeselt, Belgiume-mail dirkzwager at pandora.be----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----Van: "Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000 at comcast.net>Aan: "Arie Dirkzwager" <dirkzwager at pandora.be>CC: "Oun Kwon" <KwonO at upstate.edu>; < at lists.ibiblio.org>Verzonden: dinsdag 4 mei 2004 18:00Onderwerp: Re: [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN> > > Arie Dirkzwager wrote:> > > HN and ESTIN are the imperfect and the present of the same verb.> > Already Aristotle saw that the verb EIMI can be used in connection with> > several kinds of information:> > about substance (OUSIA, e.g. man, animal),> > quantity (POSON e.g. length),> > quality (POION, e.g. white, intelligent),> > relation (PROS TI, e.g. half, bigger),> > place (POU, e.g. in the Lyceum),> > time (POTE, e.g. yesterday),> > position (KEISQAI, e.g. is sitting),> > situation (ECEIN, e.g. is wearing shoes),> > activity (POIEIN, e.g. is cutting),> > being the object of something (PASCEIN, e.g. is being cut).> >> > I would add that EIMI without further information means to exist (a fact> > that Aristotle knew very well too). But it remains the same verb.> >> > So looking from the possibilities of the Greek language you have many> > possibilities if you read the verb EIMI. Finding the right possibilityis> > therefore a matter of interpretation.> > While important to know, it cannot be assumed, given that Aristotle iswriting 3> centuries before John, and in Attic rather than Koine, that hispossibilities> are the ones that would have been known or current when the author of John> wrote, can we? Wouldn't it be more sound methodologically to look at theways> ESTIN/HN was used at a point in time closer to the end of the firstcentury CE> rather than the middle or end of the 4th BCE?> > Jeffrey> --> > Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)> > 1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1> Chicago, IL 60626> > jgibson000 at comcast.net> > > [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN[] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu Tue May 4 12:10:34 EDT 2004 [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN At 11:00 AM -0500 5/4/04, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:>Arie Dirkzwager wrote:> >> HN and ESTIN are the imperfect and the present of the same verb.>> Already Aristotle saw that the verb EIMI can be used in connection with>> several kinds of information:>> about substance (OUSIA, e.g. man, animal),>> quantity (POSON e.g. length),>> quality (POION, e.g. white, intelligent),>> relation (PROS TI, e.g. half, bigger),>> place (POU, e.g. in the Lyceum),>> time (POTE, e.g. yesterday),>> position (KEISQAI, e.g. is sitting),>> situation (ECEIN, e.g. is wearing shoes),>> activity (POIEIN, e.g. is cutting),>> being the object of something (PASCEIN, e.g. is being cut).>> >> I would add that EIMI without further information means to exist (a fact>> that Aristotle knew very well too). But it remains the same verb.>> >> So looking from the possibilities of the Greek language you have many>> possibilities if you read the verb EIMI. Finding the right possibility is>> therefore a matter of interpretation.> >While important to know, it cannot be assumed, given that Aristotle is>writing 3>centuries before John, and in Attic rather than Koine, that his possibilities>are the ones that would have been known or current when the author of John>wrote, can we? Wouldn't it be more sound methodologically to look at the ways>ESTIN/HN was used at a point in time closer to the end of the first century CE>rather than the middle or end of the 4th BCE?Some would say that Aristotle writes in Ionic Koine; at any rate, I doubtthat his "Categories" are obsolete in the first c. C.E., or that the usageof Parmenides even earlier has faded into archaic obscurity. My quickperusal of BDAG makes me think these categories are still fundamentallyvalid. I readily grant that the synchronic perspective has its value, but Irather suspect that the range of usage of the verb EIMI is one of the morepersistent features of the Greek language in antiquity. And while there's agreat deal of scholarly speculation regarding the provenance of theJohannine prologue from Hebraic or Greek thinking--or both--, it couldhardly be said that there's a solid consensus regarding the question.-- Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/ [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN[] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN Jeffrey B. Gibson jgibson000 at comcast.net Tue May 4 12:36:07 EDT 2004 [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN "Carl W. Conrad" wrote:> At 11:00 AM -0500 5/4/04, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:> >Arie Dirkzwager wrote:> >> >> HN and ESTIN are the imperfect and the present of the same verb.> >> Already Aristotle saw that the verb EIMI can be used in connection with> >> several kinds of information:> >> about substance (OUSIA, e.g. man, animal),> >> quantity (POSON e.g. length),> >> quality (POION, e.g. white, intelligent),> >> relation (PROS TI, e.g. half, bigger),> >> place (POU, e.g. in the Lyceum),> >> time (POTE, e.g. yesterday),> >> position (KEISQAI, e.g. is sitting),> >> situation (ECEIN, e.g. is wearing shoes),> >> activity (POIEIN, e.g. is cutting),> >> being the object of something (PASCEIN, e.g. is being cut).> >>> >> I would add that EIMI without further information means to exist (a fact> >> that Aristotle knew very well too). But it remains the same verb.> >>> >> So looking from the possibilities of the Greek language you have many> >> possibilities if you read the verb EIMI. Finding the right possibility is> >> therefore a matter of interpretation.> >> >While important to know, it cannot be assumed, given that Aristotle is> >writing 3> >centuries before John, and in Attic rather than Koine, that his possibilities> >are the ones that would have been known or current when the author of John> >wrote, can we? Wouldn't it be more sound methodologically to look at the ways> >ESTIN/HN was used at a point in time closer to the end of the first century CE> >rather than the middle or end of the 4th BCE?> > Some would say that Aristotle writes in Ionic Koine; at any rate, I doubt> that his "Categories" are obsolete in the first c. C.E., or that the usage> of Parmenides even earlier has faded into archaic obscurity. My quick> perusal of BDAG makes me think these categories are still fundamentally> valid. I readily grant that the synchronic perspective has its value, but I> rather suspect that the range of usage of the verb EIMI is one of the more> persistent features of the Greek language in antiquity. And while there's a> great deal of scholarly speculation regarding the provenance of the> Johannine prologue from Hebraic or Greek thinking--or both--, it could> hardly be said that there's a solid consensus regarding the question.Quite so. And that's what I posed what I wrote as a question. In any case, what Ishould have said was "it cannot be automatically assumed".Jeffrey--Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1Chicago, IL 60626jgibson000 at comcast.net [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN[] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN Arie Dirkzwager dirkzwager at pandora.be Tue May 4 13:19:11 EDT 2004 [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN I allways feel unhappy if I have to defend myself against a person who has apoint, even if I am partly or nearly right. Probably there is still someinfluence of a church where Mat 5: 39 and meekness got too much importance.I was thinking myself in the line of Professor Conrad and I saw as well thatBauer has nearly the same commentary on EIMI as you can find in theCategories of Aristotle.So I overreacted. My apologies.ArieDr. A. DirkzwagerHoeselt, Belgiume-mail dirkzwager at pandora.be----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----Van: "Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000 at comcast.net>Aan: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>CC: "Arie Dirkzwager" <dirkzwager at pandora.be>; "Oun Kwon"<KwonO at upstate.edu>; < at lists.ibiblio.org>Verzonden: dinsdag 4 mei 2004 18:36Onderwerp: Re: [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN> > > "Carl W. Conrad" wrote:> > > At 11:00 AM -0500 5/4/04, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:> > >Arie Dirkzwager wrote:> > >> > >> HN and ESTIN are the imperfect and the present of the same verb.> > >> Already Aristotle saw that the verb EIMI can be used in connectionwith> > >> several kinds of information:> > >> about substance (OUSIA, e.g. man, animal),> > >> quantity (POSON e.g. length),> > >> quality (POION, e.g. white, intelligent),> > >> relation (PROS TI, e.g. half, bigger),> > >> place (POU, e.g. in the Lyceum),> > >> time (POTE, e.g. yesterday),> > >> position (KEISQAI, e.g. is sitting),> > >> situation (ECEIN, e.g. is wearing shoes),> > >> activity (POIEIN, e.g. is cutting),> > >> being the object of something (PASCEIN, e.g. is being cut).> > >>> > >> I would add that EIMI without further information means to exist (afact> > >> that Aristotle knew very well too). But it remains the same verb.> > >>> > >> So looking from the possibilities of the Greek language you have many> > >> possibilities if you read the verb EIMI. Finding the rightpossibility is> > >> therefore a matter of interpretation.> > >> > >While important to know, it cannot be assumed, given that Aristotle is> > >writing 3> > >centuries before John, and in Attic rather than Koine, that hispossibilities> > >are the ones that would have been known or current when the author ofJohn> > >wrote, can we? Wouldn't it be more sound methodologically to look atthe ways> > >ESTIN/HN was used at a point in time closer to the end of the firstcentury CE> > >rather than the middle or end of the 4th BCE?> >> > Some would say that Aristotle writes in Ionic Koine; at any rate, Idoubt> > that his "Categories" are obsolete in the first c. C.E., or that theusage> > of Parmenides even earlier has faded into archaic obscurity. My quick> > perusal of BDAG makes me think these categories are still fundamentally> > valid. I readily grant that the synchronic perspective has its value,but I> > rather suspect that the range of usage of the verb EIMI is one of themore> > persistent features of the Greek language in antiquity. And whilethere's a> > great deal of scholarly speculation regarding the provenance of the> > Johannine prologue from Hebraic or Greek thinking--or both--, it could> > hardly be said that there's a solid consensus regarding the question.> > Quite so. And that's what I posed what I wrote as a question. In anycase, what I> should have said was "it cannot be automatically assumed".> > Jeffrey> --> > Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)> > 1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1> Chicago, IL 60626> > jgibson000 at comcast.net> > > [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN[] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN Jeffrey B. Gibson jgibson000 at comcast.net Tue May 4 13:28:30 EDT 2004 [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN [] meaning of DAIMONIZOMENOS Arie Dirkzwager wrote:> I allways feel unhappy if I have to defend myself against a person who has a> point, even if I am partly or nearly right. Probably there is still some> influence of a church where Mat 5: 39 and meekness got too much importance.> I was thinking myself in the line of Professor Conrad and I saw as well that> Bauer has nearly the same commentary on EIMI as you can find in the> Categories of Aristotle.> So I overreacted. My apologies.FWIW, I did not feel you over reacted. No apologies necessary!Jeffrey--Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1Chicago, IL 60626jgibson000 at comcast.net [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN[] meaning of DAIMONIZOMENOS [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN Oun Kwon KwonO at upstate.edu Tue May 4 16:22:21 EDT 2004 [] MH FOBOUMENAI MHDEMIAN PTOHSIN. [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN Do I understand from the responses that: HN is 'past' tense of ESTIN; while one of my resource (Interlinear Scripture Analyzer which was fromhttp://www.concordant.info/ ) says HN is 'past' tense (imperfect) of EIMI. thus ESTIN and EIMI are essentially same meaning? I thought the two are different words (one of being about 'existing' andanother one being about 'being' (copulative). Sorry for keep asking; my electronic resources (Gk dictionaries etc) areout of reach once my computer had conked out. Oun J Kwon, M.D.SUNY Uptate Med UniversitySyracuse, NY [] MH FOBOUMENAI MHDEMIAN PTOHSIN.[] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN DJNordlund at aol.com DJNordlund at aol.com Tue May 4 16:44:34 EDT 2004 [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN In a message dated 5/4/2004 1:23:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time, KwonO at upstate.edu writes:Do I understand from the responses that: HN is 'past' tense of ESTIN; while one of my resource (Interlinear Scripture Analyzer which was fromhttp://www.concordant.info/ ) says HN is 'past' tense (imperfect) of EIMI.thus ESTIN and EIMI are essentially same meaning? I thought the two are different words (one of being about 'existing' andanother one being about 'being' (copulative).Sorry for keep asking; my electronic resources (Gk dictionaries etc) areout of reach once my computer had conked out.Oun J Kwon, M.D.SUNY Uptate Med UniversitySyracuse, NY------------Reply-------------EIMI is the lexical form of the verb, which is usually the 1st person, singular, present, active, indicative form (I have been told). I has a number of shades of meaning including (but not limited to) :I am, exist, live, am present.ESTIN is the 3rd person, singular, present, active, indicative form of EIMI, while HN is the 3rd person, singular, imperfect, active, indicative form of EIMI. They are both just different conjugations of the same verb, EIMI, and hence share the same core meaning but with different aspect.Being a rank amateur, I have probably said more than I know. But that is my understanding of this question.Dan Nordlund [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN[] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com Tue May 4 16:55:38 EDT 2004 [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN On May 4, 2004, at 3:22 PM, Oun Kwon wrote:> Do I understand from the responses that:> > HN is 'past' tense of ESTIN;> > while one of my resource (Interlinear Scripture Analyzer which was from> http://www.concordant.info/ ) says> > HN is 'past' tense (imperfect) of EIMI.> > thus ESTIN and EIMI are essentially same meaning?> > I thought the two are different words (one of being about 'existing' > and> another one being about 'being' (copulative).You're Getting there. EIMI is first person singular present, ESTIN is third person singular present, and HN is third person singular imperfect. All are forms of the same word, EIMI being the "dictionary form" of the word, i.e., the form one would look up in a lexicon.============Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN[] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN Oun Kwon KwonO at upstate.edu Tue May 4 17:11:35 EDT 2004 [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN Thanks to you all for putting up with me in teaching. When I retire from the work coming July, I should be picking up beginners'Greek. Thanks again. Oun J Kwon, M.D.SUNY Uptate Med UniversitySyracuse, NY [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN[] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com Tue May 4 17:23:34 EDT 2004 [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN On May 4, 2004, at 3:44 PM, DJNordlund at aol.com wrote:> EIMI is the lexical form of the verb, which is usually the 1st person,> singular, present, active, indicative form (I have been told). I has > a number of> shades of meaning including (but not limited to) :> > I am, exist, live, am present.> > ESTIN is the 3rd person, singular, present, active, indicative form of > EIMI,> while HN is the 3rd person, singular, imperfect, active, indicative > form of> EIMI. They are both just different conjugations of the same verb, > EIMI, and> hence share the same core meaning but with different aspect.Yes, EIMI is the lexical form of the verb. But ESTIN and HN are not different conjugations, but rather different forms *within* the respective conjugation. "Conjugation" is defined thus in the Handbook of Biblical Greek:"The inflectional pattern of a word (especially verbs); or, likewise, a class of verbs with similarly inflected forms. The term can also refer to the presentation of such a set of words in a table or a list."So "conjugation" refers to pattern or class rather than to forms within the pattern or class.Also, the difference in these forms' person, number, and tense doesn't have anything to do with aspect (as the word is commonly understood).============Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN[] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com Tue May 4 17:27:44 EDT 2004 [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN On May 4, 2004, at 4:23 PM, Steven Lo Vullo wrote:> Yes, EIMI is the lexical form of the verb. But ESTIN and HN are not > different conjugations, but rather different forms *within* the > respective conjugation. "Conjugation" is defined thus in the Handbook > of Biblical Greek:> > "The inflectional pattern of a word (especially verbs); or, likewise, > a class of verbs with similarly inflected forms. The term can also > refer to the presentation of such a set of words in a table or a > list."Sorry, that should have read the Pocket Dictionary for the Study of New Testament Greek.============Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN[] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN DJNordlund at aol.com DJNordlund at aol.com Tue May 4 17:44:53 EDT 2004 [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN [] Mounce quicktime Lesson 6 In a message dated 5/4/2004 2:24:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time, slovullo at mac.com writes:On May 4, 2004, at 3:44 PM, DJNordlund at aol.com wrote:>> EIMI is the lexical form of the verb, which is usually the 1st person,<<snip>>>> EIMI. They are both just different conjugations of the same verb, >> EIMI, and> hence share the same core meaning but with different aspect.> >Yes, EIMI is the lexical form of the verb. But ESTIN and HN are not >different conjugations, but rather different forms *within* the >respective conjugation. "Conjugation" is defined thus in the Handbook >of Biblical Greek:> >"The inflectional pattern of a word (especially verbs); or, likewise, a >class of verbs with similarly inflected forms. The term can also refer >to the presentation of such a set of words in a table or a list."> >So "conjugation" refers to pattern or class rather than to forms within >the pattern or class.> >Also, the difference in these forms' person, number, and tense doesn't >have anything to do with aspect (as the word is commonly understood).>============> >Steven Lo Vullo>Madison, WI----------Reply----------Thanks for the correction Steve, I am always in danger of using terminology loosely/incorrectly, and I don't want others to be misinformed.Dan Nordlund [] Jn 1:1 HN (was) cf. ESTIN[] Mounce quicktime Lesson 6 [] Getting a Little Doctrinal, but Anyway... Re: Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? frjsilver at optonline.net frjsilver at optonline.net Wed Oct 4 20:12:09 EDT 2006 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Dear Friends --The examples adduced here employ QEOS in oblique cases as qualifiers, but in no sense can the word QEOS itself ever be considered an adjective, _a fortiori_ in JN 1:1.The cognate adjective is QEIOS, which even before the first Christian century was pronounced *very* differently from QEOS, so scribal error, at least by people who spoke Greek then, is not an issue.Although it's a fact that no creed (SUMBOLON PISTEOS) was accepted by all Christians prior to AD 325, it's also a fact that all Christians before then were required to make a profession of faith before being baptized. Elements of local practice in this regard were considered by the first ecumenical synod at Nikaia: the 'Nicene Creed' didn't appear from nowhere, nor was it composed from scratch, since it's attestable that the 'baptismal creed of Rufinus' and the baptismal creed proposed by Eusebios of Caesarea contributed whole phrases to the version adopted for the Church at Nikaia in 325. An additional final coda was added by the second ecumenical synod at Constantinople in 387, and that's all there is. Later local creeds are unhelpful.But each of the pre-Nikaian local statements of Christian belief included an expression of being baptized EIS TO ONOMA TOU PATROS KAI TOU hUIOU KAI TOU hAGIOU PNEUMATOS -- a reflection not only of the Gospel but also of the most ancient rites of Christian baptism, preserved to this day.Not a single one of the early Fathers of the Church believed anything different. In fact, anyone who taught that there were NOT three divine Persons in one God, and that Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God and Son of the virgin Mary, was one of those three Persons, and _ipso facto_ divine, would not be considered a 'Father of the Church', but a heretic, as was Areios, whose then widely believed theories caused the crisis which resulted in the synod at Nikaia which once and for all refuted them and established the Church's triadic understanding of God. This includes a _sine qua non_ that, in order to be Christians, people must believe that Jesus is indeed God, and become a human being for our sake, joining our human nature to His own divine nature. The Greek text of the Scriptures amply attests this, and patristic writings and the liturgy confirm it.I hope this helps a little, and isn't offensive or TOO beyond this most helpful group's parameters. (I know I'm skating on thin ice, but the ice was thinned by someone else before I got my skates on.)Peace and blessings to all.Father James SilverMonk JamesOrthodox Church in America----- Original Message -----From: mike.murphy at pb.comDate: Wednesday, October 4, 2006 4:12 pmSubject: [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?To: at lists.ibiblio.org> Hi. I am going to ask a controversial question, and I am hoping> for a simple, COMMON SENSE answer rather than necessarily a> "doctrine safe" traditional answer.> > In short, I am asking you all to consider this with a "fresh set> of eyes" as it were. In many cases, valuable -- even fundamental> -- doctrines such as immersion baptism and spiritual gifts have> been recovered by the rejection of long estabish academic> tradition in favor of a simple literal reading of the New> Testament without bias of creed.> > In that spirit, I am curious if an alternate reading of John 1:1> is possible using "theos" as an adjective at the end of the> sentence.> > (Joh 1:1) In(1722) the beginning(746) was(2258) the(3588)> Word,(3056)> and(2532) the(3588) Word(3056) was(2258) with(4314)> God,(2316)> and(2532) the(3588) Word(3056) was(2258) God.(2316)> > The word "theos" is translated as "godly" in the King James> Version at least 5 times, (1 Tim 1:4, 2 Cor 1:12, 7:9, 7:11, and> 11:2). The possible alternate reading would be, "In beginning was> the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was godly. The> same was in the beginning with God."> > In the case of 1 Timothy 1:4 using "theos" as an ajdective, the> King James Version does so clearly. (1Ti 1:4) Neither3366 give> heed4337 to fables3454 and2532 endless562 genealogies,1076> which3748 minister3930 questions,2214 rather3123 than2228> godly2316 edifying3622 which3588 is in1722 faith:4102 so do.> *2316=theos as in John 1:1> > As you can see, this does not violate "common sense" as it is a> more natural reading that does not require the substance of God> to be strangely divided among several persons, most likely a> completely foreign doctrine to the monotheistic Jewish author.> > The use of "theos" as an adjective -- without the definite> article -- might explain the need for the clarification on the> following line: "The same was in the beginning with God", so as> to render the meaning of the previous verse more clearly. (See> Moffat, '...the word was divine').> > In fact, if John did not use "theos" as an adjective in ending> 1:1, what then does verse 1:2 clarify at all? The lack of the> definite article on the last "theos" in John 1:1, taking in> combination with the presence of verse 1:2, seem to possibly> strengthen this alternative reading.> > The only confession of the New Testament is that Jesus Christ was> the SON OF GOD. It is never clearly and umambiguously stated that> he was personally GOD except in controversial passages with> alternate readings, such as Acts 20:28 and 1 Timothy 3:16. What> the Bible does teach is that "God was in Christ", because God had> poured his spirit on him without measure and raised him from the> dead. What is certain is that corruption of the text is known to> have taken a Nicene form, e.g. 1 Jn 5:7-9> > That the confession, "Jesus is the Son of God" alone is> considered orthodox by John:> > (1Jo 4:14) And we have seen and testify that the Father sent the> Son to be the Savior of the world. (1Jo 4:15) Whoever shall> confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwells in him and he in> God.> > (1Jo 5:5) Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes> that Jesus is the Son of God?> > Therefore, it seems that John considered Jesus to be God's Son> prior to coming into the world, perhaps in a literal sense, and> that he was not considered to be the same person as God the> Father whatsoever.> > (Joh 8:16) And yet if I do judge, My judgment is true; for I am> not alone, but I and the Father who sent Me. (Joh 8:17) It is> also written in your Law that the testimony of two men is true.> > This fits other creeds outlined the APostolic teaching:> > (Act 2:32) God raised up this Jesus, of which we all are> witnesses. (Act 3:26) Having raised up His son Jesus, God sent> Him to you first, to bless you in turning every one of you away> from his iniquities.> > (Heb 5:7) For Jesus, in the days of His flesh, when He had> offered up prayers and supplications with strong cryings and> tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard> in that He feared, (Heb 5:8) though being a Son, yet He learned> obedience by the things which He suffered.> > What is required for a Christian to belief? That Jesus is God?> No...> > (Joh 20:31) But these are written so that you might believe that> Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you might> have life in His name.> > If the early fathers did not consider any Trinity Creed needful> for salvation, perhaps they also did not prefer a Nicene reading> of John 1:1. [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? [] Getting a Little Doctrinal,but Anyway... Re: Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Eric Weiss papaweiss1 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 5 09:58:15 EDT 2006 [] John 3:31 [] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? Monk James wrote: > Not a single one of the early Fathers of the Church believed anything different. In > fact, anyone who taught that there were NOT three divine Persons in one God, and > that Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God and Son of the virgin Mary, was one of > those three Persons, and _ipso facto_ divine, would not be considered a 'Father of > the Church', but a heretic, as was Areios, whose then widely believed theories > caused the crisis which resulted in the synod at Nikaia which once and for all > refuted them and established the Church's triadic understanding of God. I think you meant (or meant to write): ... In fact, anyone who taught that there were NOT three divine Persons in one God, and that Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God and Son of the virgin Mary, was NOT one of those three Persons, and _ipso facto_ divine, would not be considered a 'Father of the Church', but a heretic, <snip> (i.e., a second "NOT" after the "was" in "... and that Jesus Christ ... was") Eric S. Weiss ---------------------------------How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messengers low PC-to-Phone call rates. [] John 3:31[] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading? A different look at John 1:1c Steve Long steve at allegrographics.com Thu Jun 11 09:38:22 EDT 1998 Traveling Greeks (was SBL in Poland) HDH + Perfect = Pluperfect? A non-text attachment was scrubbed...Name: not availableType: text/enrichedSize: 1962 bytesDesc: not availableUrl : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//attachments/19980611/a66eb589/attachment.bin Traveling Greeks (was SBL in Poland)HDH + Perfect = Pluperfect? A different look at John 1:1c Paul S. Dixon dixonps at juno.com Fri Jun 12 00:58:33 EDT 1998 How to study, what to use.... A different look at John 1:1c On Thu, 11 Jun 1998 13:38:22 +0000 Steve Long <steve at allegrographics.com>writes:>I searched the archives and found a vast amount of information>concerning John 1:1c, and it is not my intention to restart a thread>that has been successfully concluded, but I have found something in the>Septuagint which gave rise to another question, that I didn't see>addressed in the former thread. If it was dealt with, please forgive my>lack of thoroughness.> > ><bigger>Ruth 4:21 KAI SALMAN EGENNHSEN TON BOOZ KAI BOOZ >EGENNESEN TONWBED> > ></bigger>Here we see Boaz taking the definite article as the subject of>the first phrase in the accusative, but the second phrase which is>joined by KAI, the definite article is dropped in the nominative. I am>assuming it is because the words are joined by KAI that the definite>article not needed. We know Boaz in the second phrase, is clearly the>same as in the first phrase. Is the same grammatic format as John 1:1?Boaz is taking the definite article as the object of the first phrase intheaccusative, not "as the subject of the first phrase," but I don't thinkthisas any bearing on what you're saying.> >Is this a valid comparison verse grammatically? John seemed to phrase>his Greek by from the Septuagint in several places, at least in my very>humble opinion: [EN ARCH Gen 1, EGW EIMI Ex 3:14]). Could it be that>John 1:1 is sort of an anti-geneology, ie. the LOGOS was not born or>never did not exist, so John explains his preexistence in a geneologic>phrase, in an allusion perhaps to Matthew beginning with Jesus' legal>geneology?> >I could be way off-base, since I am mostly self-taught, but if the>comparison holds up, the correct translation would then be "The Word>was with God and God was the Word." Does that violate some other rule>of grammar?> Yes, the general rule (which we have gone over) is that when two nounsare the subject and predicate nominative respectively in a sentence, andone is articular and the other is anarthrous, then the subject is almostalways identified by the articular construction.This means, of course, that in Jn 1:1c hO LOGOS is the subject andQEOS is the predicate nominative.Paul Dixon_____________________________________________________________________You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.comOr call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] How to study, what to use....A different look at John 1:1c A different look at John 1:1c Paul S. Dixon dixonps at juno.com Fri Jun 12 00:58:33 EDT 1998 How to study, what to use.... A different look at John 1:1c On Thu, 11 Jun 1998 13:38:22 +0000 Steve Long <steve at allegrographics.com>writes:>I searched the archives and found a vast amount of information>concerning John 1:1c, and it is not my intention to restart a thread>that has been successfully concluded, but I have found something in the>Septuagint which gave rise to another question, that I didn't see>addressed in the former thread. If it was dealt with, please forgive my>lack of thoroughness.> > ><bigger>Ruth 4:21 KAI SALMAN EGENNHSEN TON BOOZ KAI BOOZ >EGENNESEN TONWBED> > ></bigger>Here we see Boaz taking the definite article as the subject of>the first phrase in the accusative, but the second phrase which is>joined by KAI, the definite article is dropped in the nominative. I am>assuming it is because the words are joined by KAI that the definite>article not needed. We know Boaz in the second phrase, is clearly the>same as in the first phrase. Is the same grammatic format as John 1:1?Boaz is taking the definite article as the object of the first phrase intheaccusative, not "as the subject of the first phrase," but I don't thinkthisas any bearing on what you're saying.> >Is this a valid comparison verse grammatically? John seemed to phrase>his Greek by from the Septuagint in several places, at least in my very>humble opinion: [EN ARCH Gen 1, EGW EIMI Ex 3:14]). Could it be that>John 1:1 is sort of an anti-geneology, ie. the LOGOS was not born or>never did not exist, so John explains his preexistence in a geneologic>phrase, in an allusion perhaps to Matthew beginning with Jesus' legal>geneology?> >I could be way off-base, since I am mostly self-taught, but if the>comparison holds up, the correct translation would then be "The Word>was with God and God was the Word." Does that violate some other rule>of grammar?> Yes, the general rule (which we have gone over) is that when two nounsare the subject and predicate nominative respectively in a sentence, andone is articular and the other is anarthrous, then the subject is almostalways identified by the articular construction.This means, of course, that in Jn 1:1c hO LOGOS is the subject andQEOS is the predicate nominative.Paul Dixon_____________________________________________________________________You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.comOr call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] How to study, what to use....A different look at John 1:1c A different look at John 1:1c Steve Long steve at allegrographics.com Fri Jun 12 04:19:59 EDT 1998 A different look at John 1:1c A different look at John 1:1c > >Steve,> >Actually the LXX here reflects the grammatical structure of the hebrew,>right down conjunctions without the definite articles and objects with>the definite form. I don't see this as being any support for a>permissible interpretation of a form in a purely greek document. It>looks like apples and oranges to me.> >PaulPaul,I guess that's why a little greek is a dangerous thing (and why I asked thelist). I program computers for a living and when I learn a new computerlanguage I always look for code in the new language that I can borrow tohelp learn the new language. Usually when you learn the syntax you can justsubstitute objects and functions (nouns and verbs) and the programaccomplishes what you intend.It looked to me as if John, not being a native greek speaker, may havereused "code" (as it were) from a familiar source. But see, writingcomputer code will totally warp the way you look at the world. Please warnyour children against a career in computers. ;-)Steve______________________________________________________________________________Steve LongpresidentAllegro Graphics, Inc., Allegro Digital Media, Inc.4132 Industrial Drive, Saint Peters, Missouri 633761-888-819-8166 toll-freesteve at websrv.com, steve at allegrographics.comhttp://www.websrv.com/------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A different look at John 1:1cA different look at John 1:1c A different look at John 1:1c Paul R. Zellmer zellmer at pworld.net.ph Fri Jun 12 07:09:31 EDT 1998 A different look at John 1:1c Clement & Polycarp Steve Long wrote: > Ruth 4:21 KAI SALMAN EGENNHSEN TON BOOZ KAI BOOZ EGENNESEN TON WBED> > Here we see Boaz taking the definite article as the subject of the> first phrase in the accusative, but the second phrase which is joined> by KAI, the definite article is dropped in the nominative. I am> assuming it is because the words are joined by KAI that the definite> article not needed. We know Boaz in the second phrase, is clearly the> same as in the first phrase. Is the same grammatic format as John 1:1?Steve,Actually the LXX here reflects the grammatical structure of the hebrew,right down conjunctions without the definite articles and objects withthe definite form. I don't see this as being any support for apermissible interpretation of a form in a purely greek document. Itlooks like apples and oranges to me.Paul-- Paul and Dee Zellmer, Jimmy Guingab, Geoffrey BeltranIbanag Translation ProjectCabagan, Isabela, Rep. of Philippineszellmer at faith.edu.ph A different look at John 1:1cClement & Polycarp A different look at John 1:1c Paul R. Zellmer zellmer at pworld.net.ph Fri Jun 12 07:09:31 EDT 1998 A different look at John 1:1c Clement & Polycarp Steve Long wrote: > Ruth 4:21 KAI SALMAN EGENNHSEN TON BOOZ KAI BOOZ EGENNESEN TON WBED> > Here we see Boaz taking the definite article as the subject of the> first phrase in the accusative, but the second phrase which is joined> by KAI, the definite article is dropped in the nominative. I am> assuming it is because the words are joined by KAI that the definite> article not needed. We know Boaz in the second phrase, is clearly the> same as in the first phrase. Is the same grammatic format as John 1:1?Steve,Actually the LXX here reflects the grammatical structure of the hebrew,right down conjunctions without the definite articles and objects withthe definite form. I don't see this as being any support for apermissible interpretation of a form in a purely greek document. Itlooks like apples and oranges to me.Paul-- Paul and Dee Zellmer, Jimmy Guingab, Geoffrey BeltranIbanag Translation ProjectCabagan, Isabela, Rep. of Philippineszellmer at faith.edu.ph A different look at John 1:1cClement & Polycarp A different look at John 1:1c Steve Long steve at allegrographics.com Fri Jun 12 04:19:59 EDT 1998 A different look at John 1:1c A different look at John 1:1c > >Steve,> >Actually the LXX here reflects the grammatical structure of the hebrew,>right down conjunctions without the definite articles and objects with>the definite form. I don't see this as being any support for a>permissible interpretation of a form in a purely greek document. It>looks like apples and oranges to me.> >PaulPaul,I guess that's why a little greek is a dangerous thing (and why I asked thelist). I program computers for a living and when I learn a new computerlanguage I always look for code in the new language that I can borrow tohelp learn the new language. Usually when you learn the syntax you can justsubstitute objects and functions (nouns and verbs) and the programaccomplishes what you intend.It looked to me as if John, not being a native greek speaker, may havereused "code" (as it were) from a familiar source. But see, writingcomputer code will totally warp the way you look at the world. Please warnyour children against a career in computers. ;-)Steve______________________________________________________________________________Steve LongpresidentAllegro Graphics, Inc., Allegro Digital Media, Inc.4132 Industrial Drive, Saint Peters, Missouri 633761-888-819-8166 toll-freesteve at websrv.com, steve at allegrographics.comhttp://www.websrv.com/------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A different look at John 1:1cA different look at John 1:1c John 1:1 kmesserschmidt at canberra.com kmesserschmidt at canberra.com Fri Jun 19 12:29:44 EDT 1998 Español John 1:1 SORRY bout this, I know it's a dead issue, but one question:is there any justification for the NWT rendering of "the Word was a god"according to the text itself, theological implications aside? EspañolJohn 1:1 John 1:1 kmesserschmidt at canberra.com kmesserschmidt at canberra.com Fri Jun 19 12:29:44 EDT 1998 Español John 1:1 SORRY bout this, I know it's a dead issue, but one question:is there any justification for the NWT rendering of "the Word was a god"according to the text itself, theological implications aside? EspañolJohn 1:1 John 1:1 kmesserschmidt at canberra.com kmesserschmidt at canberra.com Fri Jun 19 14:15:43 EDT 1998 John 1:1 DANKER 3rd Ed / Alsop Second question, one I couldn't remember with the first post:EN ARCHE - does the word arche denote the absolute beginningof something, or is there something here that could render it as some kind of beginning that happened after the inital creation of space/time? i.e. the word was with God in the beginning of everything, or the beginning of everything ELSE? Referring directlyto ideas of the "creation" of Jesus somewhere in that verse.Do I make any sense?Kevin John 1:1DANKER 3rd Ed / Alsop John 1:1 kmesserschmidt at canberra.com kmesserschmidt at canberra.com Fri Jun 19 14:15:43 EDT 1998 John 1:1 DANKER 3rd Ed / Alsop Second question, one I couldn't remember with the first post:EN ARCHE - does the word arche denote the absolute beginningof something, or is there something here that could render it as some kind of beginning that happened after the inital creation of space/time? i.e. the word was with God in the beginning of everything, or the beginning of everything ELSE? Referring directlyto ideas of the "creation" of Jesus somewhere in that verse.Do I make any sense?Kevin John 1:1DANKER 3rd Ed / Alsop John 1:1 Jonathan Robie jonathan at texcel.no Sat Jun 20 07:25:16 EDT 1998 John 1:1 LXX At 01:15 PM 6/19/98 -0500, kmesserschmidt at canberra.com wrote:>Second question, one I couldn't remember with the first post:>EN ARCHE - does the word arche denote the absolute beginning>of something, or is there something here that could render it as some >kind of beginning that happened after the inital creation of >space/time? i.e. the word was with God in the beginning of >everything, or the beginning of everything ELSE? Referring directly>to ideas of the "creation" of Jesus somewhere in that verse. The Greek certainly can mean the absolute beginning, and the same phrasestarts Genesis 1:1 in the Septuagint: EN ARCH EPOIHSEN hO QEOS TON OURANONKAI THN GHN. Grammatically, it *could* mean "in a beginning", and the samepeople who argue for "in the beginning was a word" sometimes argue for "ina beginning" as an interpretation of this verse.I don't think the grammar prevents either interpretation, but I also don'tthink it supports either interpretation. Again, please browse the archiveson John 1:1 to see how much has been written on this!Jonathan___________________________________________________________________________Jonathan Robiejwrobie at mindspring.comLittle Greek Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koineLittle Greek 101: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koine/greek/lessons Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/ Archives: http://sunsite.unc.edu//archives John 1:1LXX John 1:1 Jonathan Robie jonathan at texcel.no Sat Jun 20 07:21:00 EDT 1998 John 11:35 John 1:1 At 11:29 AM 6/19/98 -0500, kmesserschmidt at canberra.com wrote:>SORRY bout this, I know it's a dead issue, but one question:>is there any justification for the NWT rendering of "the Word was a god">according to the text itself, theological implications aside?This is a Frequently Asked Question, and one that often gets into veryemotional discussion here on the list. The short answer is that the grammarcould be interpreted in three ways:1. The Word was God - definite, showing who the Word was. But it can notmean strict identity, as in "the Word was God and God was the Word", giventhe use of the article.2. The Word was God - qualitative, as in "Caesar was King", where itdescribes the status, qualities, and attributes of The Word. This is theinterpretation I find most likely. (Some have argued for "The Word wasdivine" - I think that this weakens it in English in the same way thatsaying "Caesar was royal" is weaker than "Caesar was King", so I prefer tosay "The Word was God" and explain that this is like saying "Caesar was King".3. The Word was a god - the grammar itself permits this. Those who arguefor this intepretation have slightly different ideas what exactly thephrase would mean, but generally feel that Jesus is not fully God. Thosewho argue against it feel that it is incompatible with John's view of Jesusas expressed in the rest of the Gospel.Please look at the archives if you want a fuller discussion.Jonathan___________________________________________________________________________Jonathan Robiejwrobie at mindspring.comLittle Greek Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koineLittle Greek 101: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koine/greek/lessons Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/ Archives: http://sunsite.unc.edu//archives John 11:35John 1:1 John 1:1 Jonathan Robie jonathan at texcel.no Sat Jun 20 07:25:16 EDT 1998 John 1:1 LXX At 01:15 PM 6/19/98 -0500, kmesserschmidt at canberra.com wrote:>Second question, one I couldn't remember with the first post:>EN ARCHE - does the word arche denote the absolute beginning>of something, or is there something here that could render it as some >kind of beginning that happened after the inital creation of >space/time? i.e. the word was with God in the beginning of >everything, or the beginning of everything ELSE? Referring directly>to ideas of the "creation" of Jesus somewhere in that verse. The Greek certainly can mean the absolute beginning, and the same phrasestarts Genesis 1:1 in the Septuagint: EN ARCH EPOIHSEN hO QEOS TON OURANONKAI THN GHN. Grammatically, it *could* mean "in a beginning", and the samepeople who argue for "in the beginning was a word" sometimes argue for "ina beginning" as an interpretation of this verse.I don't think the grammar prevents either interpretation, but I also don'tthink it supports either interpretation. Again, please browse the archiveson John 1:1 to see how much has been written on this!Jonathan___________________________________________________________________________Jonathan Robiejwrobie at mindspring.comLittle Greek Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koineLittle Greek 101: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koine/greek/lessons Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/ Archives: http://sunsite.unc.edu//archives John 1:1LXX John 1:1 Jonathan Robie jonathan at texcel.no Sat Jun 20 07:21:00 EDT 1998 John 11:35 John 1:1 At 11:29 AM 6/19/98 -0500, kmesserschmidt at canberra.com wrote:>SORRY bout this, I know it's a dead issue, but one question:>is there any justification for the NWT rendering of "the Word was a god">according to the text itself, theological implications aside?This is a Frequently Asked Question, and one that often gets into veryemotional discussion here on the list. The short answer is that the grammarcould be interpreted in three ways:1. The Word was God - definite, showing who the Word was. But it can notmean strict identity, as in "the Word was God and God was the Word", giventhe use of the article.2. The Word was God - qualitative, as in "Caesar was King", where itdescribes the status, qualities, and attributes of The Word. This is theinterpretation I find most likely. (Some have argued for "The Word wasdivine" - I think that this weakens it in English in the same way thatsaying "Caesar was royal" is weaker than "Caesar was King", so I prefer tosay "The Word was God" and explain that this is like saying "Caesar was King".3. The Word was a god - the grammar itself permits this. Those who arguefor this intepretation have slightly different ideas what exactly thephrase would mean, but generally feel that Jesus is not fully God. Thosewho argue against it feel that it is incompatible with John's view of Jesusas expressed in the rest of the Gospel.Please look at the archives if you want a fuller discussion.Jonathan___________________________________________________________________________Jonathan Robiejwrobie at mindspring.comLittle Greek Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koineLittle Greek 101: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koine/greek/lessons Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/ Archives: http://sunsite.unc.edu//archives John 11:35John 1:1 John 1:1 Jim West jwest at Highland.Net Sat Jun 20 09:38:13 EDT 1998 LXX Accents in ancient manuscripts At 11:29 AM 6/19/98 -0500, you wrote:>SORRY bout this, I know it's a dead issue, but one question:>is there any justification for the NWT rendering of "the Word was a god">according to the text itself, theological implications aside?> This has been hashed and rehashed on the list (ad nauseum). Please see thearchives.Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDPastor, Petros Baptist ChurchAdjunct Professor of Bible,Quartz Hill School of Theologyjwest at highland.net LXXAccents in ancient manuscripts John 1:1 Jim West jwest at Highland.Net Sat Jun 20 09:38:13 EDT 1998 LXX Accents in ancient manuscripts At 11:29 AM 6/19/98 -0500, you wrote:>SORRY bout this, I know it's a dead issue, but one question:>is there any justification for the NWT rendering of "the Word was a god">according to the text itself, theological implications aside?> This has been hashed and rehashed on the list (ad nauseum). Please see thearchives.Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDPastor, Petros Baptist ChurchAdjunct Professor of Bible,Quartz Hill School of Theologyjwest at highland.net LXXAccents in ancient manuscripts John 1:1 dalmatia at eburg.com dalmatia at eburg.com Sat Jun 20 13:49:31 EDT 1998 Accents in ancient manuscripts Snorting, sniffing, groaning, bowels, and emotions... kmesserschmidt at canberra.com wrote:SORRY bout this, I know it's a dead issue, but one question:is there any justification for the NWT rendering of "the Word was agod"according to the text itself, theological implications aside?> Second question, one I couldn't remember with the first post:> EN ARCHE - does the word arche denote the absolute beginning> of something, or is there something here that could render it as some> kind of beginning that happened after the inital creation of> space/time? i.e. the word was with God in the beginning of> everything, or the beginning of everything ELSE? Referring directly> to ideas of the "creation" of Jesus somewhere in that verse.> Do I make any sense?> KevinDear Kevin ~These are two of the biggest dead horse issues that exist on thislist, engendering all manner of controversy and conflict amongcompeting and strongly held views by good folks who passionatelyinsist on being right in their understanding. Dig into the archives,spent some time there, in thought and prayer, and if you can come upwith an approach to the issue that might give peaceful resolution, I,for one, will eagerly be attentive.John is utterly enigmatic here ~ The lack of an article with ARQH*seems* to indicate that it is non-ostensive, but many think that it*is* ostensive, and lack of an article with QEOS *seems* to indicatethat John differentiates between it and that which is with an articlein the gospel, but many here, who are better students than I am, readit otherwise. The grammatical does not compel either understanding,and one's theology ends up being determinative of one's grammaticrendering.The archives really are the best place to watch the continued beatingof this dead horse ~ I just don't have the stomach for it...George Blaisdell Accents in ancient manuscriptsSnorting, sniffing, groaning, bowels, and emotions... John 1:1 dalmatia at eburg.com dalmatia at eburg.com Sat Jun 20 13:49:31 EDT 1998 Accents in ancient manuscripts Snorting, sniffing, groaning, bowels, and emotions... kmesserschmidt at canberra.com wrote:SORRY bout this, I know it's a dead issue, but one question:is there any justification for the NWT rendering of "the Word was agod"according to the text itself, theological implications aside?> Second question, one I couldn't remember with the first post:> EN ARCHE - does the word arche denote the absolute beginning> of something, or is there something here that could render it as some> kind of beginning that happened after the inital creation of> space/time? i.e. the word was with God in the beginning of> everything, or the beginning of everything ELSE? Referring directly> to ideas of the "creation" of Jesus somewhere in that verse.> Do I make any sense?> KevinDear Kevin ~These are two of the biggest dead horse issues that exist on thislist, engendering all manner of controversy and conflict amongcompeting and strongly held views by good folks who passionatelyinsist on being right in their understanding. Dig into the archives,spent some time there, in thought and prayer, and if you can come upwith an approach to the issue that might give peaceful resolution, I,for one, will eagerly be attentive.John is utterly enigmatic here ~ The lack of an article with ARQH*seems* to indicate that it is non-ostensive, but many think that it*is* ostensive, and lack of an article with QEOS *seems* to indicatethat John differentiates between it and that which is with an articlein the gospel, but many here, who are better students than I am, readit otherwise. The grammatical does not compel either understanding,and one's theology ends up being determinative of one's grammaticrendering.The archives really are the best place to watch the continued beatingof this dead horse ~ I just don't have the stomach for it...George Blaisdell Accents in ancient manuscriptsSnorting, sniffing, groaning, bowels, and emotions... John 1:1 kmesserschmidt at canberra.com kmesserschmidt at canberra.com Tue Jun 23 08:12:45 EDT 1998 1 Tim 4:10 (was I Cor. 14:18) Couple o' quick questions >These are two of the biggest dead horse issues that exist on thislist, engendering all manner of controversy and conflict amongcompeting and strongly held views by good folks who passionatelyinsist on being right in their understanding.:D Yes I know, I'm sorry! Being new to the list the archives area bit confusing. I would like to post a couple web sites I've foundon the issue, but I really am afraid of opening up festering wounds.>The grammatical does not compel either understanding,and one's theology ends up being determinative of one's grammaticrendering.<As I suspected.It is apparent then that a peaceful resolution is to never bring upthe subject again and next time someone like me asks, say justwhat you've said! :) Please don't bother with it then but if anyextremely patient soul wishes to review the sites and respond tome personally feel free to email me! Not looking for critique, simplythat the reasoning is sound.I enjoy reading the posts.Kevin 1 Tim 4:10 (was I Cor. 14:18)Couple o' quick questions John 1:1 kmesserschmidt at canberra.com kmesserschmidt at canberra.com Tue Jun 23 08:12:45 EDT 1998 1 Tim 4:10 (was I Cor. 14:18) Couple o' quick questions >These are two of the biggest dead horse issues that exist on thislist, engendering all manner of controversy and conflict amongcompeting and strongly held views by good folks who passionatelyinsist on being right in their understanding.:D Yes I know, I'm sorry! Being new to the list the archives area bit confusing. I would like to post a couple web sites I've foundon the issue, but I really am afraid of opening up festering wounds.>The grammatical does not compel either understanding,and one's theology ends up being determinative of one's grammaticrendering.<As I suspected.It is apparent then that a peaceful resolution is to never bring upthe subject again and next time someone like me asks, say justwhat you've said! :) Please don't bother with it then but if anyextremely patient soul wishes to review the sites and respond tome personally feel free to email me! Not looking for critique, simplythat the reasoning is sound.I enjoy reading the posts.Kevin 1 Tim 4:10 (was I Cor. 14:18)Couple o' quick questions John 1:1 EN ARCH Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu Wed Jul 1 07:03:10 EDT 1998 Fw: Concepts and Words KJV on "which" At 8:46 PM -0400 1/24/19, presept (James Stewart) wrote:>Hello, I am brand new to . Before I joined, I went through your>archives and read a lot of the posts. I really enjoyed it and it was very>humbling. I will learn much! This is my first contribution. In one of>the threads on John 1:1, the discussion was on the object (ARCH) of the>preposition EN. The question was: because ARCH is anarthrous, should it be>translated 'a beginning' or 'the beginning?' IMHO it should be 'in the>beginning.' A.T. Robertson in his large grammer on page 791 states that>prepositional phrases are often definite without the article. Blass,>Debrunner, and Funk on page 133 states, "The article can be omitted in>prepositional phrases..." M. Zerwick on page 58 states, "...in Hellenistic>Greek, there is an even stronger tendency to omit the article in>prepositioal phrases." You may also check R.A.Young's grammer on page 67,>Nigel Turner's grammer on page 179, Moule's Idioms on page 114, Porter's>Idioms on page 113, and D.B.Wallace's grammer on page 247.> >-James StewartIt also seems quite probable that EN ARCHi deliberately imitates the LXXopening of Genesis 1:1 as well as the Hebrew text, B'RESHITH.What also interests me about this post is the date: as you may note above,it would appear to have been written January 24, 1919; on the other hand,in my original incoming version as shown in Eudora Pro 4.0 (Mac): that dateshows up as "Sun, 29 Jun 2098 17:46:57 -0700"--it looks like we are runninginto the year MM problem a bit early here! Now, I'm not quite sure what theoriginal Greek of this might be ;-)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/ Fw: Concepts and WordsKJV on "which" John 1:1 EN ARCH Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu Wed Jul 1 07:03:10 EDT 1998 Fw: Concepts and Words KJV on "which" At 8:46 PM -0400 1/24/19, presept (James Stewart) wrote:>Hello, I am brand new to . Before I joined, I went through your>archives and read a lot of the posts. I really enjoyed it and it was very>humbling. I will learn much! This is my first contribution. In one of>the threads on John 1:1, the discussion was on the object (ARCH) of the>preposition EN. The question was: because ARCH is anarthrous, should it be>translated 'a beginning' or 'the beginning?' IMHO it should be 'in the>beginning.' A.T. Robertson in his large grammer on page 791 states that>prepositional phrases are often definite without the article. Blass,>Debrunner, and Funk on page 133 states, "The article can be omitted in>prepositional phrases..." M. Zerwick on page 58 states, "...in Hellenistic>Greek, there is an even stronger tendency to omit the article in>prepositioal phrases." You may also check R.A.Young's grammer on page 67,>Nigel Turner's grammer on page 179, Moule's Idioms on page 114, Porter's>Idioms on page 113, and D.B.Wallace's grammer on page 247.> >-James StewartIt also seems quite probable that EN ARCHi deliberately imitates the LXXopening of Genesis 1:1 as well as the Hebrew text, B'RESHITH.What also interests me about this post is the date: as you may note above,it would appear to have been written January 24, 1919; on the other hand,in my original incoming version as shown in Eudora Pro 4.0 (Mac): that dateshows up as "Sun, 29 Jun 2098 17:46:57 -0700"--it looks like we are runninginto the year MM problem a bit early here! Now, I'm not quite sure what theoriginal Greek of this might be ;-)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/ Fw: Concepts and WordsKJV on "which" John 1:1 EN ARCH Larry Swain swainl at calcite.rocky.edu Tue Jul 7 01:58:29 EDT 1998 John 1:1 EN ARCH Hebrews 11:6b It is rather interesting to me that in one breaath he defends histranslation as "literal" and anyone who disagrees with the translationthen of course isn't being literal. At the seame time is this new "word"or idea deposited "Marshal"....interesting indeed.A lot of consideration goes into a translation, or should, more than justthe literalaness of the language. For example that the first book of theHebrew Bible begins with the words EN ARCH and so does the gospel speakingof beginning things is just too coincidental for words. Further is thefact that creation and new creatoin is such an important theme in Johnthat this certainly must color how we understand the first verse. And ofcourse if John is as late as many believe, could it be that John is usingthe Targumic idea of the Memra of Adonai as the agent of creation?HMMMM....Finally is a difficult one for students of Greek, but because anoun is anarthrous does not necessarily mean that it is anarthrous. That's just a brief outline, but I think there needs to be some prettygood background work to justify a translation here of "In a beginning"The other issue you raise regarding Colwell's rule as applied to thisverse and so on has been dealt with on this list before, so before werecover familiar ground I will check the archives and see what I findthere.Regards, Larry Swain John 1:1 EN ARCHHebrews 11:6b John 1:1 EN ARCH AgapeLove9 at aol.com AgapeLove9 at aol.com Tue Jul 7 00:53:02 EDT 1998 Recognition: 2d Aorist John 1:1 EN ARCH Carl Conrad recently posted that this is undoubtedly a reference to Genesis1:1, and perhaps this is true. Consider the following "Translation Note" onJohn 1:1 in the 21st Century New Testament - The Literal/ Free DualTranslation, Insight Press, Bristol, 1998. The * in the text marks atranslation note where he explains his reasons for an unorthodox translation.The literal translation is "In a beginning" at John 1:1. He explains...beginning - There were many beginnings: the begetting of the Logos; thecreation of the angelic hosts; the creation of the Universe; the preparationof the earth for man; the creation of life on earthl and the creation of man.So which beginning is here meant? As the Logos was used in the creation of'all things' this seems to be the starting point referred to by John, -thebeginning of all creation. Hence it is so specified at John 1:1 in the Freetranslation.god - long comment on the title God/god and Colwell's rule and divine/godlikeand the title god applying to others who are not Almighty God (John 10:33-36).He concludes: "Whatever his creed or belief, a translator of God's Word mustrender the text as accurately as possible according to the text itself, itsgrammatical structure, and the context. Hence the given rendering of John1:1."Marshal - long comment but essentially refers to one who marshalls resources.In this case, 'the one who marshalls all the resources that the Father hadplaced at his disposal.'Here are the translations --Literal Translation - In a beginning* was the [Marshal*] [Word] and the[Marshal]* [Word] was with the God and the [Marshal]* [Word] was a god*.Free Translation - At the beginning of Creation, there dwelt with God a mightyspirit, the Marshal, who produced all things in their order.Mark Johnson> >Subject: John 1:1 EN ARCH>From: "presept" <presept at earthlink.net>>Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2098 17:46:57 -0700>X-Message-Number: 27> >Hello, I am brand new to . Before I joined, I went through your>archives and read a lot of the posts. I really enjoyed it and it was very>humbling. I will learn much! This is my first contribution. In one of>the threads on John 1:1, the discussion was on the object (ARCH) of the>preposition EN. The question was: because ARCH is anarthrous, should it be>translated 'a beginning' or 'the beginning?' IMHO it should be 'in the>beginning.' A.T. Robertson in his large grammer on page 791 states that>prepositional phrases are often definite without the article. Blass,>Debrunner, and Funk on page 133 states, "The article can be omitted in>prepositional phrases..." M. Zerwick on page 58 states, "...in Hellenistic>Greek, there is an even stronger tendency to omit the article in>prepositioal phrases." You may also check R.A.Young's grammer on page 67,>Nigel Turner's grammer on page 179, Moule's Idioms on page 114, Porter's>Idioms on page 113, and D.B.Wallace's grammer on page 247.> >-James Stewart> Recognition: 2d AoristJohn 1:1 EN ARCH John 1:1 EN ARCH AgapeLove9 at aol.com AgapeLove9 at aol.com Tue Jul 7 00:53:02 EDT 1998 Previous message: Recognition: 2d Aorist Next message: John 1:1 EN ARCH Carl Conrad recently posted that this is undoubtedly a reference to Genesis1:1, and perhaps this is true. Consider the following "Translation Note" onJohn 1:1 in the 21st Century New Testament - The Literal/ Free DualTranslation, Insight Press, Bristol, 1998. The * in the text marks atranslation note where he explains his reasons for an unorthodox translation.The literal translation is "In a beginning" at John 1:1. He explains...beginning - There were many beginnings: the begetting of the Logos; thecreation of the angelic hosts; the creation of the Universe; the preparationof the earth for man; the creation of life on earthl and the creation of man.So which beginning is here meant? As the Logos was used in the creation of'all things' this seems to be the starting point referred to by John, -thebeginning of all creation. Hence it is so specified at John 1:1 in the Freetranslation.god - long comment on the title God/god and Colwell's rule and divine/godlikeand the title god applying to others who are not Almighty God (John 10:33-36).He concludes: "Whatever his creed or belief, a translator of God's Word mustrender the text as accurately as possible according to the text itself, itsgrammatical structure, and the context. Hence the given rendering of John1:1."Marshal - long comment but essentially refers to one who marshalls resources.In this case, 'the one who marshalls all the resources that the Father hadplaced at his disposal.'Here are the translations --Literal Translation - In a beginning* was the [Marshal*] [Word] and the[Marshal]* [Word] was with the God and the [Marshal]* [Word] was a god*.Free Translation - At the beginning of Creation, there dwelt with God a mightyspirit, the Marshal, who produced all things in their order.Mark Johnson> >Subject: John 1:1 EN ARCH>From: "presept" <presept at earthlink.net>>Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2098 17:46:57 -0700>X-Message-Number: 27> >Hello, I am brand new to . Before I joined, I went through your>archives and read a lot of the posts. I really enjoyed it and it was very>humbling. I will learn much! This is my first contribution. In one of>the threads on John 1:1, the discussion was on the object (ARCH) of the>preposition EN. The question was: because ARCH is anarthrous, should it be>translated 'a beginning' or 'the beginning?' IMHO it should be 'in the>beginning.' A.T. Robertson in his large grammer on page 791 states that>prepositional phrases are often definite without the article. Blass,>Debrunner, and Funk on page 133 states, "The article can be omitted in>prepositional phrases..." M. Zerwick on page 58 states, "...in Hellenistic>Greek, there is an even stronger tendency to omit the article in>prepositioal phrases." You may also check R.A.Young's grammer on page 67,>Nigel Turner's grammer on page 179, Moule's Idioms on page 114, Porter's>Idioms on page 113, and D.B.Wallace's grammer on page 247.> >-James Stewart> Previous message: Recognition: 2d AoristNext message: John 1:1 EN ARCH John 1:1 EN ARCH Larry Swain swainl at calcite.rocky.edu Tue Jul 7 01:58:29 EDT 1998 Previous message: John 1:1 EN ARCH Next message: Hebrews 11:6b It is rather interesting to me that in one breaath he defends histranslation as "literal" and anyone who disagrees with the translationthen of course isn't being literal. At the seame time is this new "word"or idea deposited "Marshal"....interesting indeed.A lot of consideration goes into a translation, or should, more than justthe literalaness of the language. For example that the first book of theHebrew Bible begins with the words EN ARCH and so does the gospel speakingof beginning things is just too coincidental for words. Further is thefact that creation and new creatoin is such an important theme in Johnthat this certainly must color how we understand the first verse. And ofcourse if John is as late as many believe, could it be that John is usingthe Targumic idea of the Memra of Adonai as the agent of creation?HMMMM....Finally is a difficult one for students of Greek, but because anoun is anarthrous does not necessarily mean that it is anarthrous. That's just a brief outline, but I think there needs to be some prettygood background work to justify a translation here of "In a beginning"The other issue you raise regarding Colwell's rule as applied to thisverse and so on has been dealt with on this list before, so before werecover familiar ground I will check the archives and see what I findthere.Regards, Larry Swain Previous message: John 1:1 EN ARCHNext message: Hebrews 11:6b John 1:1 EN ARCH Jonathan Robie jonathan at texcel.no Tue Jul 7 07:48:50 EDT 1998 Theme/Rheme Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom At 12:53 AM 7/7/98 EDT, AgapeLove9 at aol.com wrote: >The literal translation is "In a beginning" at John 1:1. He explains...I don't understand how this is *the* literal translation, since there is nosuch thing as an indefinite article in Greek, and prepositional phrases areoften definite without the article. I'm afraid that the grammar itself isambiguous here, so you have to turn to the context. In this translation, how is John 3:21 translated? I'm particularly curiousabout the phrase hINA FANERWQHi AUTOU TA ERGA hOTI EN QEWi ESTINEIRGASMENA, which I would translate as "that it may be apparent of hisworks that they were performed in God". Is this translated "performed in*a* God"?Jonathan___________________________________________________________________________Jonathan Robiejwrobie at mindspring.comLittle Greek Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koineLittle Greek 101: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koine/greek/lessons Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/ Archives: http://sunsite.unc.edu//archives Theme/RhemeDivine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom John 1:1 EN ARCH Jonathan Robie jonathan at texcel.no Tue Jul 7 07:48:50 EDT 1998 Previous message: Theme/Rheme Next message: Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom At 12:53 AM 7/7/98 EDT, AgapeLove9 at aol.com wrote: >The literal translation is "In a beginning" at John 1:1. He explains...I don't understand how this is *the* literal translation, since there is nosuch thing as an indefinite article in Greek, and prepositional phrases areoften definite without the article. I'm afraid that the grammar itself isambiguous here, so you have to turn to the context. In this translation, how is John 3:21 translated? I'm particularly curiousabout the phrase hINA FANERWQHi AUTOU TA ERGA hOTI EN QEWi ESTINEIRGASMENA, which I would translate as "that it may be apparent of hisworks that they were performed in God". Is this translated "performed in*a* God"?Jonathan___________________________________________________________________________Jonathan Robiejwrobie at mindspring.comLittle Greek Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koineLittle Greek 101: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koine/greek/lessons Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/ Archives: http://sunsite.unc.edu//archives Previous message: Theme/RhemeNext message: Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom John 1:1 EN ARCH dalmatia at eburg.com dalmatia at eburg.com Tue Jul 7 12:25:40 EDT 1998 Lifestyle Present? John 1:1 EN ARCH At 12:53 AM 7/7/98 EDT, AgapeLove9 at aol.com wrote: > The literal translation is "In a beginning" at John 1:1. The closest I have been able to come with a 'literal' translation ofthis phrase is "In origin...", which feels weak compared to thegrandeur and power of "In the beginning..."The problem with "a beginning" in English is that it implies thatthere are more than one of them. And the problem with "the beginning"in English is that it implies ostensive historical reference.The Greek grammatically allows both, but I do not think that John'sgospel means either one. Its OT reference is clear enough, yet it isa time denotive word, and I have taken it to mean the origin of timewith some success in understanding John's extensive use of the presenttense throughout this gospel. On this approach, the origin of time is omnitemporal, without itselfbeing temporal at all, and events that originate from it are always,of necessity, ongoing in the present.The reason for the absence of an article, on this view, is that ARCHvery literally has no dimension at all, neither geometric nortemporal, yet is the source of both, DI'AUTOU [Logos] in 1:3. Thefact that ARCH is a feminine noun is not lost on this approach aswell.Human memory and anticipation are 'outside' the ARCH, and on thisview, prevent us from 'following' Christ. ["Where I am going you arenot being able to follow."] The gospel of John is here understood tobe very much about the origin of time, and that origin is seen as'within' [EN], wherein abides [MEMEW] the Logos.I hope this helps...George******************************************Lisa Messmer..................ICQ# 5666415George Blaisdell dalmatia at eburg.comHave you seen Dulcie? Look for her Heart!http://www.eburg.com/~dalmatia/dulcie.htmlLast Chance for Animals...Fight Pet Theft!http://www.lcanimal.org Lifestyle Present?John 1:1 EN ARCH John 1:1 EN ARCH dalmatia at eburg.com dalmatia at eburg.com Tue Jul 7 12:25:40 EDT 1998 Previous message: Lifestyle Present? Next message: John 1:1 EN ARCH At 12:53 AM 7/7/98 EDT, AgapeLove9 at aol.com wrote: > The literal translation is "In a beginning" at John 1:1. The closest I have been able to come with a 'literal' translation ofthis phrase is "In origin...", which feels weak compared to thegrandeur and power of "In the beginning..."The problem with "a beginning" in English is that it implies thatthere are more than one of them. And the problem with "the beginning"in English is that it implies ostensive historical reference.The Greek grammatically allows both, but I do not think that John'sgospel means either one. Its OT reference is clear enough, yet it isa time denotive word, and I have taken it to mean the origin of timewith some success in understanding John's extensive use of the presenttense throughout this gospel. On this approach, the origin of time is omnitemporal, without itselfbeing temporal at all, and events that originate from it are always,of necessity, ongoing in the present.The reason for the absence of an article, on this view, is that ARCHvery literally has no dimension at all, neither geometric nortemporal, yet is the source of both, DI'AUTOU [Logos] in 1:3. Thefact that ARCH is a feminine noun is not lost on this approach aswell.Human memory and anticipation are 'outside' the ARCH, and on thisview, prevent us from 'following' Christ. ["Where I am going you arenot being able to follow."] The gospel of John is here understood tobe very much about the origin of time, and that origin is seen as'within' [EN], wherein abides [MEMEW] the Logos.I hope this helps...George******************************************Lisa Messmer..................ICQ# 5666415George Blaisdell dalmatia at eburg.comHave you seen Dulcie? Look for her Heart!http://www.eburg.com/~dalmatia/dulcie.htmlLast Chance for Animals...Fight Pet Theft!http://www.lcanimal.org Previous message: Lifestyle Present?Next message: John 1:1 EN ARCH John 1:1 EN ARCH Larry Swain swainl at calcite.rocky.edu Tue Jul 7 12:51:09 EDT 1998 Previous message: John 1:1 EN ARCH Next message: John 1:1 EN ARCH On Tue, 7 Jul 1998 dalmatia at eburg.com wrote:> The Greek grammatically allows both, but I do not think that John's> gospel means either one. Its OT reference is clear enough, yet it is> a time denotive word, and I have taken it to mean the origin of time> with some success in understanding John's extensive use of the present> tense throughout this gospel. > > On this approach, the origin of time is omnitemporal, without itself> being temporal at all, and events that originate from it are always,> of necessity, ongoing in the present.I agree with everything that came before these paragraphs, but I don'tthink either the ancient Hebrews nor the Hellenistic world had thisphilosophical concept. This is not to say that we understand ARCH as apunctiliar beginning pin pointable to some date and hour and minute, but Idon't think that swinging the other way to an omnitemporal understandingis what John or Hellenistic Greeks had in mind.Larry Swain Previous message: John 1:1 EN ARCHNext message: John 1:1 EN ARCH John 1:1 EN ARCH Larry Swain swainl at calcite.rocky.edu Tue Jul 7 12:51:09 EDT 1998 John 1:1 EN ARCH John 1:1 EN ARCH On Tue, 7 Jul 1998 dalmatia at eburg.com wrote:> The Greek grammatically allows both, but I do not think that John's> gospel means either one. Its OT reference is clear enough, yet it is> a time denotive word, and I have taken it to mean the origin of time> with some success in understanding John's extensive use of the present> tense throughout this gospel. > > On this approach, the origin of time is omnitemporal, without itself> being temporal at all, and events that originate from it are always,> of necessity, ongoing in the present.I agree with everything that came before these paragraphs, but I don'tthink either the ancient Hebrews nor the Hellenistic world had thisphilosophical concept. This is not to say that we understand ARCH as apunctiliar beginning pin pointable to some date and hour and minute, but Idon't think that swinging the other way to an omnitemporal understandingis what John or Hellenistic Greeks had in mind.Larry Swain John 1:1 EN ARCHJohn 1:1 EN ARCH John 1:1 EN ARCH dalmatia at eburg.com dalmatia at eburg.com Tue Jul 7 13:18:27 EDT 1998 John 1:1 EN ARCH Lifestyle Present? Larry Swain wrote:> > I agree with everything that came before these paragraphs, but I don't> think either the ancient Hebrews nor the Hellenistic world had this> philosophical concept. This is not to say that we understand ARCH as a> punctiliar beginning pin pointable to some date and hour and minute, but I> don't think that swinging the other way to an omnitemporal understanding> is what John or Hellenistic Greeks had in mind.Most folks do not approach John as I do. The EGO EIMI usages that argue strongly in its favor, because of theirpower and their omnitemporal denotation. The philosophical implications, of course, are mine. When one is speaking from the ARCH, everything is present tense... Because of its non-temporal/omni-temporal character.Did John have this in mind??....I think yes...Georgeps ~ I noticed the word 'we' in your 2nd sentence ~ And do not knowits referent... Could you help me out? I took it to mean traditionalexegesis, but then realized my presumptiveness in responding with'Most folks...'-- ******************************************Lisa Messmer..................ICQ# 5666415George Blaisdell dalmatia at eburg.comHave you seen Dulcie? Look for her Heart!http://www.eburg.com/~dalmatia/dulcie.htmlLast Chance for Animals...Fight Pet Theft!http://www.lcanimal.org John 1:1 EN ARCHLifestyle Present? John 1:1 EN ARCH dalmatia at eburg.com dalmatia at eburg.com Tue Jul 7 13:18:27 EDT 1998 Previous message: John 1:1 EN ARCH Next message: Lifestyle Present? Larry Swain wrote:> > I agree with everything that came before these paragraphs, but I don't> think either the ancient Hebrews nor the Hellenistic world had this> philosophical concept. This is not to say that we understand ARCH as a> punctiliar beginning pin pointable to some date and hour and minute, but I> don't think that swinging the other way to an omnitemporal understanding> is what John or Hellenistic Greeks had in mind.Most folks do not approach John as I do. The EGO EIMI usages that argue strongly in its favor, because of theirpower and their omnitemporal denotation. The philosophical implications, of course, are mine. When one is speaking from the ARCH, everything is present tense... Because of its non-temporal/omni-temporal character.Did John have this in mind??....I think yes...Georgeps ~ I noticed the word 'we' in your 2nd sentence ~ And do not knowits referent... Could you help me out? I took it to mean traditionalexegesis, but then realized my presumptiveness in responding with'Most folks...'-- ******************************************Lisa Messmer..................ICQ# 5666415George Blaisdell dalmatia at eburg.comHave you seen Dulcie? Look for her Heart!http://www.eburg.com/~dalmatia/dulcie.htmlLast Chance for Animals...Fight Pet Theft!http://www.lcanimal.org Previous message: John 1:1 EN ARCHNext message: Lifestyle Present? John 1:1 EN ARCH Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 7 14:33:35 EDT 1998 Recognition: 2d Aorist John 1:1 EN ARCH ---dalmatia at eburg.com wrote:>Most folks do not approach John as I do. >The EGO EIMI usages that argue strongly in its favor, because oftheir power and their omnitemporal denotation.< Dear George,The use of EGW EIMI _per se_ does not mean that "omnitemporality" or"atemporality" is under discussion. The apostle utilizes EGW EIMI inJohn 1:20:EGW OUK EIMI hO XRISTOSThen in John 9:9, the healed blind man exclaims:EGW EIMIOf course, one might say that the Gospel writer utilized EGW EIMIdifferently when delineating the enfleshed LOGOS. But, could this bean example of a priori thinking?>When one is speaking from the ARCH, everything is present tense...Because of its non-temporal/omni-temporal character.<I wonder about this statement in view of the way John used ARCHelsewhere in his writings. This, coupled with the very lexicology ofARCH makes me doubt that it is either atemporal or omnitemporal (John2:11; 8:44; 1 John 1:1; 2:7; 3:8).Respectfully,Edgar FosterClassics MajorLenoir-Rhyne_________________________________________________________DO YOU YAHOO!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Recognition: 2d AoristJohn 1:1 EN ARCH John 1:1 EN ARCH Edgar Foster questioning1 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 7 14:33:35 EDT 1998 Previous message: Recognition: 2d Aorist Next message: John 1:1 EN ARCH ---dalmatia at eburg.com wrote:>Most folks do not approach John as I do. >The EGO EIMI usages that argue strongly in its favor, because oftheir power and their omnitemporal denotation.< Dear George,The use of EGW EIMI _per se_ does not mean that "omnitemporality" or"atemporality" is under discussion. The apostle utilizes EGW EIMI inJohn 1:20:EGW OUK EIMI hO XRISTOSThen in John 9:9, the healed blind man exclaims:EGW EIMIOf course, one might say that the Gospel writer utilized EGW EIMIdifferently when delineating the enfleshed LOGOS. But, could this bean example of a priori thinking?>When one is speaking from the ARCH, everything is present tense...Because of its non-temporal/omni-temporal character.<I wonder about this statement in view of the way John used ARCHelsewhere in his writings. This, coupled with the very lexicology ofARCH makes me doubt that it is either atemporal or omnitemporal (John2:11; 8:44; 1 John 1:1; 2:7; 3:8).Respectfully,Edgar FosterClassics MajorLenoir-Rhyne_________________________________________________________DO YOU YAHOO!?Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Previous message: Recognition: 2d AoristNext message: John 1:1 EN ARCH John 1:1 EN ARCH dalmatia at eburg.com dalmatia at eburg.com Tue Jul 7 16:23:04 EDT 1998 John 1:1 EN ARCH Hebrews 11:6b Edgar Foster wrote:> > ---dalmatia at eburg.com wrote:> >The EGO EIMI usages that argue strongly in its favor, because of> their power and their omnitemporal denotation.<> > Dear George,> > The use of EGW EIMI _per se_ does not mean that "omnitemporality" or> "atemporality" is under discussion. Hello Edgar ~You are correct, of course. The point of the remark is that taken entoto in John, EGO EIMI covers a whole lot of temporal ground, frombefore Abraham to the ongoing present.>The apostle utilizes EGW EIMI in> John 1:20:> > EGW OUK EIMI hO XRISTOSIndeed he does ~ The 'apostle' John is not hO CRISTOS.> > Then in John 9:9, the healed blind man exclaims:> > EGW EIMIThis one makes for an amazing puzzle ~ Why would he say that?? Couldhe be simply stating the Source of his healing? Did Christ take himinto the ARCH for that healing, and was he speaking from there? Theseare the kinds of questions that arise on my understanding of ARCH...> > Of course, one might say that the Gospel writer utilized EGW EIMI> differently when delineating the enfleshed LOGOS. But, could this be> an example of a priori thinking?It probably is, insofar as I understand that term. The gospel of Johnseems to require a 'backward thinking' approach, where one 'sees' whatis being talked about in fairly normal [fleshy] words, and theninterprets those words in spiritual terms. "Destroy this temple..."for example refers to the temple that is Christ's body, which is inthis case explained in the text. So the a priori assumption of templebeing something other than an earthly temple is provided here. I havetaken this passage as a clue on how to read John.> > >When one is speaking from the ARCH, everything is present tense...> Because of its non-temporal/omni-temporal character.<> > I wonder about this statement in view of the way John used ARCH> elsewhere in his writings. This, coupled with the very lexicology of> ARCH makes me doubt that it is either atemporal or omnitemporal (John> 2:11; 8:44; 1 John 1:1; 2:7; 3:8).Well, it does cover a lot of temporal ground, eh?George-- ******************************************Lisa Messmer..................ICQ# 5666415George Blaisdell dalmatia at eburg.comHave you seen Dulcie? Look for her Heart!http://www.eburg.com/~dalmatia/dulcie.htmlLast Chance for Animals...Fight Pet Theft!http://www.lcanimal.org John 1:1 EN ARCHHebrews 11:6b John 1:1 EN ARCH dalmatia at eburg.com dalmatia at eburg.com Tue Jul 7 16:23:04 EDT 1998 Previous message: John 1:1 EN ARCH Next message: Hebrews 11:6b Edgar Foster wrote:> > ---dalmatia at eburg.com wrote:> >The EGO EIMI usages that argue strongly in its favor, because of> their power and their omnitemporal denotation.<> > Dear George,> > The use of EGW EIMI _per se_ does not mean that "omnitemporality" or> "atemporality" is under discussion. Hello Edgar ~You are correct, of course. The point of the remark is that taken entoto in John, EGO EIMI covers a whole lot of temporal ground, frombefore Abraham to the ongoing present.>The apostle utilizes EGW EIMI in> John 1:20:> > EGW OUK EIMI hO XRISTOSIndeed he does ~ The 'apostle' John is not hO CRISTOS.> > Then in John 9:9, the healed blind man exclaims:> > EGW EIMIThis one makes for an amazing puzzle ~ Why would he say that?? Couldhe be simply stating the Source of his healing? Did Christ take himinto the ARCH for that healing, and was he speaking from there? Theseare the kinds of questions that arise on my understanding of ARCH...> > Of course, one might say that the Gospel writer utilized EGW EIMI> differently when delineating the enfleshed LOGOS. But, could this be> an example of a priori thinking?It probably is, insofar as I understand that term. The gospel of Johnseems to require a 'backward thinking' approach, where one 'sees' whatis being talked about in fairly normal [fleshy] words, and theninterprets those words in spiritual terms. "Destroy this temple..."for example refers to the temple that is Christ's body, which is inthis case explained in the text. So the a priori assumption of templebeing something other than an earthly temple is provided here. I havetaken this passage as a clue on how to read John.> > >When one is speaking from the ARCH, everything is present tense...> Because of its non-temporal/omni-temporal character.<> > I wonder about this statement in view of the way John used ARCH> elsewhere in his writings. This, coupled with the very lexicology of> ARCH makes me doubt that it is either atemporal or omnitemporal (John> 2:11; 8:44; 1 John 1:1; 2:7; 3:8).Well, it does cover a lot of temporal ground, eh?George-- ******************************************Lisa Messmer..................ICQ# 5666415George Blaisdell dalmatia at eburg.comHave you seen Dulcie? Look for her Heart!http://www.eburg.com/~dalmatia/dulcie.htmlLast Chance for Animals...Fight Pet Theft!http://www.lcanimal.org Previous message: John 1:1 EN ARCHNext message: Hebrews 11:6b John 1:1 EN ARCH AgapeLove9 at aol.com AgapeLove9 at aol.com Tue Jul 7 23:28:23 EDT 1998 Recognition: 2nd Aorist follow up In a message dated 98-07-07 07:48:43 EDT, jonathan at texcel.no writes:<< At 12:53 AM 7/7/98 EDT, AgapeLove9 at aol.com wrote: >The literal translation is "In a beginning" at John 1:1. He explains... I don't understand how this is *the* literal translation, since there is no such thing as an indefinite article in Greek, and prepositional phrases are often definite without the article. I'm afraid that the grammar itself is ambiguous here, so you have to turn to the context. >>I agree with you about context. My sentence was misunderstood, perhaps rightlyso due to the ambiguity of reference for "the". When I said that the literaltranslation is "In a beginning," I intended a reference to the 21st CenturyTranslation's Literal Translation, not to a literal translation as if no otherliteral translation could be made, as with Robert Young's Literal Translationin 1862. The 21st Century Translation is actually two translations in one, aliteral and a free translation. I cited them both:Literal Translation - In a beginning* was the [Marshal*] [Word] and the[Marshal]* [Word] was with the God and the [Marshal]* [Word] was a god*.Free Translation - At the beginning of Creation, there dwelt with God a mightyspirit, the Marshal, who produced all things in their order.As for prepositional phrases where the object noun lacks the article, I do notunderstand the Translator's intent to insert the "a" merely because of thelack of the article. Rather, it is the lack of the article coupled with his/their understanding that there are MANY beginnings. Thus, the translationfootnote as I cited:beginning - There were many beginnings: the begetting of the Logos; thecreation of the angelic hosts; the creation of the Universe; the preparationof the earth for man; the creation of life on earthl and the creation of man.So which beginning is here meant? As the Logos was used in the creation of'all things' this seems to be the starting point referred to by John, -thebeginning of all creation. Hence it is so specified at John 1:1 in the Freetranslation.<< In this translation, how is John 3:21 translated? I'm particularly curious about the phrase hINA FANERWQHi AUTOU TA ERGA hOTI EN QEWi ESTIN EIRGASMENA, which I would translate as "that it may be apparent of his works that they were performed in God". Is this translated "performed in *a* God"? >>Literal Translation: in GodFree Translation: by GodThis is no doubt due to the understanding that there are not many Almightygods. However, the translation is fairly consistent in translatingprepositional phrases with "beginning" as "a beginning."1 John 1:1 from a beginningActs 11:15 Literal: in a beginning Free: at the start1 John 3:8 Literal: from a beginning Free: from the startI hope that helps.Mark Johnson Recognition: 2nd Aoristfollow up John 1:1 EN ARCH AgapeLove9 at aol.com AgapeLove9 at aol.com Tue Jul 7 23:28:23 EDT 1998 Previous message: Recognition: 2nd Aorist Next message: follow up In a message dated 98-07-07 07:48:43 EDT, jonathan at texcel.no writes:<< At 12:53 AM 7/7/98 EDT, AgapeLove9 at aol.com wrote: >The literal translation is "In a beginning" at John 1:1. He explains... I don't understand how this is *the* literal translation, since there is no such thing as an indefinite article in Greek, and prepositional phrases are often definite without the article. I'm afraid that the grammar itself is ambiguous here, so you have to turn to the context. >>I agree with you about context. My sentence was misunderstood, perhaps rightlyso due to the ambiguity of reference for "the". When I said that the literaltranslation is "In a beginning," I intended a reference to the 21st CenturyTranslation's Literal Translation, not to a literal translation as if no otherliteral translation could be made, as with Robert Young's Literal Translationin 1862. The 21st Century Translation is actually two translations in one, aliteral and a free translation. I cited them both:Literal Translation - In a beginning* was the [Marshal*] [Word] and the[Marshal]* [Word] was with the God and the [Marshal]* [Word] was a god*.Free Translation - At the beginning of Creation, there dwelt with God a mightyspirit, the Marshal, who produced all things in their order.As for prepositional phrases where the object noun lacks the article, I do notunderstand the Translator's intent to insert the "a" merely because of thelack of the article. Rather, it is the lack of the article coupled with his/their understanding that there are MANY beginnings. Thus, the translationfootnote as I cited:beginning - There were many beginnings: the begetting of the Logos; thecreation of the angelic hosts; the creation of the Universe; the preparationof the earth for man; the creation of life on earthl and the creation of man.So which beginning is here meant? As the Logos was used in the creation of'all things' this seems to be the starting point referred to by John, -thebeginning of all creation. Hence it is so specified at John 1:1 in the Freetranslation.<< In this translation, how is John 3:21 translated? I'm particularly curious about the phrase hINA FANERWQHi AUTOU TA ERGA hOTI EN QEWi ESTIN EIRGASMENA, which I would translate as "that it may be apparent of his works that they were performed in God". Is this translated "performed in *a* God"? >>Literal Translation: in GodFree Translation: by GodThis is no doubt due to the understanding that there are not many Almightygods. However, the translation is fairly consistent in translatingprepositional phrases with "beginning" as "a beginning."1 John 1:1 from a beginningActs 11:15 Literal: in a beginning Free: at the start1 John 3:8 Literal: from a beginning Free: from the startI hope that helps.Mark Johnson Previous message: Recognition: 2nd AoristNext message: follow up
Only if it's prima facie difficult, on a quick reading of the text. The reading still has to fit the author. From my book:Jonathan Robie wrote: I'm not sure I understand that second sentence. Can you say more?
Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — March 9th, 2017, 8:33 pmCarlson 2015:14 wrote: For instance, both authors and scribes attempt to produce a text that makes good sense, but the principle of the harder reading (lectio difficilior potior) assumes that authors and scribes make textual sense in different ways. In particular, a scribe’s correction usually appears smoother on the surface while the author’s form of the text fits better at a deeper level. (n. 55) In other words, the reading that appears harder to a scribe may, in essence, fit the author’s text better than what appears to be the easier reading. As a result, both the intrinsic and the transcriptional probabilities have to be balanced against each other to estimate which reading has priority over the other. By selecting the reading that appears relatively more authorial than scribal, the use of internal evidence attempts to establish an authorial text. n.55: So HORT, 47: “It follows that, with the exception of pure blunders, readings originating with scribes must always at the same time have combined the appearance of improvement with the absence of its reality. If they had not been plausible, they would not have existed: yet their excellence must have been either superficial or partial, and the balance of inward and essential excellence must lie against them.”
I'm not sure I understand that second sentence. Can you say more? Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — March 9th, 2017, 6:18 pmStephen Carlson wrote:I don't think so. To go off on a tangent, it's important to realize that, despite the brevity of the canon, the difficulty is supposed to be only at the superficial level of reading (presumably by a tired or hurried scribe). At a deeper level, the supposedly difficult reading should be better (presumably because the author put some thought into the expression).Jonathan Robie wrote:Is "the most difficult reading" really appropriate here?
I don't think so. To go off on a tangent, it's important to realize that, despite the brevity of the canon, the difficulty is supposed to be only at the superficial level of reading (presumably by a tired or hurried scribe). At a deeper level, the supposedly difficult reading should be better (presumably because the author put some thought into the expression). Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — March 9th, 2017, 5:05 pmJonathan Robie wrote: Is "the most difficult reading" really appropriate here?
Well, I guess I shouldn't have used that term (lectio difficilior) in this instance; what I intended to say was simply that the phrasing is as awkward and less than fully satisfactory no matter which of the alternative punctuations one chooses Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — March 9th, 2017, 6:06 am
Thanks, Carl, I've gone back and read through most of these resources, this was helpful. One thing I'm curious about:
Is "the most difficult reading" really appropriate here? This is a matter of punctuation, not of textual criticism, and punctuation reflects interpretation. For many sentences, I can think of a "most difficult reading" that is most certainly not what the author intended. In fact, that's where a lot of jokes come from - e.g. the more difficult reading of "I knew a man with a wooden leg named Sam" is the one that makes people laugh, but probably not what the original speaker intended. Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — March 8th, 2017, 5:51 pmcwconrad wrote: At any rate, as I see it, it's not so much a matter of one reading being clearly preferable to the other; rather it's a question of which way of reading it turns out to be the lectio difficilior?
I'm not sure whether this question can be resolved without involving issues of theological implications and doctrinal history -- Metzger's note points to that; Raymond Brown's Community of the Beloved Disciple is speculative, but notably suggests three generations of growth of the gospel of John and that the writing of 1 John was intended to counteract some ways of interpreting the gospel. I no longer have a copy of Brown's commentary on John's gospel but that to is worth looking at with regard to where the questionable little clause belongs. Some other points come to my mind: 1) I think the phrasing of both readings is awkward. I always thought, even before I studied Greek, that the phrasing, ".. and without him was not any thing made that was made" seemed somewhat silly. Of course, more accurately it's "and apart from him nothing came into being that has come into being." Even so, the clause seems otiose. 2) ὂ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ construed with ζωὴ ἦν seems awkward phrasing too: is ἐν αὐτῷ adverbial with γέγονεν ("What has come into existence in him was life")? or is it adjectival (oddly positioned?): "What has come into existence is life-in-him")? 3) However awkward the reading with ὅ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῲ construed with what follows, it's not really any more awkward than the phrasing of 1 John 1:1-4 with its successive clauses beginning with the relative pronoun ὃ and a verb, where the antecedent of that ὃ doesn't come until we reach verse 3. In sum, we tend to speak rather glibly about the simplicity and readability of Johannine Greek. While more often than not Johannine Greek is simple and readable, there are some notable exceptions. At any rate, as I see it, it's not so much a matter of one reading being clearly preferable to the other; rather it's a question of which way of reading it turns out to be the lectio difficilior? Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — March 5th, 2017, 10:29 am
Metzger's notes in A Textual Commentary on the New Testament are helpful here. The argument in favor of the NA28 / SBLGNT reading seems to be based on the writings of Ante-Nicene writers, who apparently saw ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν as a unit. He also mentions the "rhythmical balance", which I saw when I lined it out and mentioned previously. Against that, Metzger says that this rhythmic balance is only found in a portion of the prologue, starting sentences with ἐν αὐτῷ is very Johannine, and καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν is more consistent with Johannine doctrine. This is the reading he favors. Apologies if I'm wasting bandwidth thinking out loud ... Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — March 5th, 2017, 9:11 am
I suppose one argument involves line length and the balance of sentences. In this version, the clauses are all of the same length and have the same balance and level of complexity:Jonathan Robie wrote: So why do the modern critical editions take it the other way? Is there a better argument for that approach?
In this version, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν stands out, it's longer and more complex than the other lines, and doesn't balance the same way when read out loud:Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν. πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων· καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν.
I don't see that as a strong argument, though. Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — March 5th, 2017, 8:54 amἘν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν. πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν. ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων· καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν.
NA28 and SBLGNT both place ὃ γέγονεν after the period in verse 3, as did Westcott-Hort:
Na28 wrote: 1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. 2 οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν. 3 πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν 4 ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων· 5 καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν.
SBLGNT wrote: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν. πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων· καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν.
Nestle 1904 and Antoniades1904 put it in the same sentence:WH wrote: πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν ...
Nestle1904 wrote: πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν.
Most translations seem to render it as in Nestle1904 and Antoniades1904. Lumina's notes give this explanation:Antoniades1904 wrote: πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν.
That argument makes sense to me. So why do the modern critical editions take it the other way? Is there a better argument for that approach? Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — March 4th, 2017, 6:20 pmThere is a major punctuation problem here: Should this relative clause go with v. 3 or v. 4? The earliest mss have no punctuation (Ì א* A B Δ al). Many of the later mss which do have punctuation place it before the phrase, thus putting it with v. 4 (Ì C D L W 050* pc). NA placed the phrase in v. 3; NA moved the words to the beginning of v. 4. In a detailed article K. Aland defended the change (“Eine Untersuchung zu Johannes 1, 3-4. Über die Bedeutung eines Punktes,” ZNW 59 [1968]: 174-209). He sought to prove that the attribution of ὃ γέγονεν (}o gegonen) to v. 3 began to be carried out in the 4th century in the Greek church. This came out of the Arian controversy, and was intended as a safeguard for doctrine. The change was unknown in the West. Aland is probably correct in affirming that the phrase was attached to v. 4 by the Gnostics and the Eastern Church; only when the Arians began to use the phrase was it attached to v. 3. But this does not rule out the possibility that, by moving the words from v. 4 to v. 3, one is restoring the original reading. Understanding the words as part of v. 3 is natural and adds to the emphasis which is built up there, while it also gives a terse, forceful statement in v. 4. On the other hand, taking the phrase ὃ γέγονεν with v. 4 gives a complicated expression: C. K. Barrett says that both ways of understanding v. 4 with ὃ γέγονεν included “are almost impossibly clumsy” (St. John, 157): “That which came into being – in it the Word was life”; “That which came into being – in the Word was its life.” The following stylistic points should be noted in the solution of this problem: (1) John frequently starts sentences with ἐν (en); (2) he repeats frequently (“nothing was created that has been created”); (3) 5:26 and 6:53 both give a sense similar to v. 4 if it is understood without the phrase; (4) it makes far better Johannine sense to say that in the Word was life than to say that the created universe (what was made, ὃ γέγονεν) was life in him. In conclusion, the phrase is best taken with v. 3. Schnackenburg, Barrett, Carson, Haenchen, Morris, KJV, and NIV concur (against Brown, Beasley-Murray, and NEB). The arguments of R. Schnackenburg, St. John, 1:239-40, are particularly persuasive.”
NA28 and SBLGNT both place ὃ γέγονεν after the period in verse 3, as did Westcott-Hort:
Na28 wrote: 1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. 2 οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν. 3 πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν 4 ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων· 5 καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν.
SBLGNT wrote: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν. πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων· καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν.
Nestle 1904 and Antoniades1904 put it in the same sentence:WH wrote: πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν ...
Nestle1904 wrote: πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν.
Most translations seem to render it as in Nestle1904 and Antoniades1904. Lumina's notes give this explanation:Antoniades1904 wrote: πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν.
That argument makes sense to me. So why do the modern critical editions take it the other way? Is there a better argument for that approach? Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — March 4th, 2017, 6:20 pmThere is a major punctuation problem here: Should this relative clause go with v. 3 or v. 4? The earliest mss have no punctuation (Ì א* A B Δ al). Many of the later mss which do have punctuation place it before the phrase, thus putting it with v. 4 (Ì C D L W 050* pc). NA placed the phrase in v. 3; NA moved the words to the beginning of v. 4. In a detailed article K. Aland defended the change (“Eine Untersuchung zu Johannes 1, 3-4. Über die Bedeutung eines Punktes,” ZNW 59 [1968]: 174-209). He sought to prove that the attribution of ὃ γέγονεν (}o gegonen) to v. 3 began to be carried out in the 4th century in the Greek church. This came out of the Arian controversy, and was intended as a safeguard for doctrine. The change was unknown in the West. Aland is probably correct in affirming that the phrase was attached to v. 4 by the Gnostics and the Eastern Church; only when the Arians began to use the phrase was it attached to v. 3. But this does not rule out the possibility that, by moving the words from v. 4 to v. 3, one is restoring the original reading. Understanding the words as part of v. 3 is natural and adds to the emphasis which is built up there, while it also gives a terse, forceful statement in v. 4. On the other hand, taking the phrase ὃ γέγονεν with v. 4 gives a complicated expression: C. K. Barrett says that both ways of understanding v. 4 with ὃ γέγονεν included “are almost impossibly clumsy” (St. John, 157): “That which came into being – in it the Word was life”; “That which came into being – in the Word was its life.” The following stylistic points should be noted in the solution of this problem: (1) John frequently starts sentences with ἐν (en); (2) he repeats frequently (“nothing was created that has been created”); (3) 5:26 and 6:53 both give a sense similar to v. 4 if it is understood without the phrase; (4) it makes far better Johannine sense to say that in the Word was life than to say that the created universe (what was made, ὃ γέγονεν) was life in him. In conclusion, the phrase is best taken with v. 3. Schnackenburg, Barrett, Carson, Haenchen, Morris, KJV, and NIV concur (against Brown, Beasley-Murray, and NEB). The arguments of R. Schnackenburg, St. John, 1:239-40, are particularly persuasive.”
Excellent advice, Jonathan (simply making concrete what I said in the abstract above). I really like the way Palmer starts his chapter on the article:Jonathan Robie wrote: Working through a beginning grammar is important if you want to understand the language. This part of Micheal Palmer's grammar may be helpful to you: http://greek-language.com/grammar/07.html. But it's Lesson 7, I suggest you start with Lesson 1.
And then goes on to give specific examples. Of course, even more fun is Latin, which has neither a definite nor an indefinite article...English has two different kinds of articles: a definite article (the word “the”) and an indefinite article (the words “a” and “an”). Greek does not distinguish between these two types of articles. For that reason the usage of the article in Greek has some striking differences from the word “the” in English. While “the” is often the best translation for the Greek article, the Greek article is used in some contexts where we clearly would not use “the” in English. In such cases, the Greek article must be left untranslated.
Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — April 15th, 2014, 8:38 am
I'd like to add a few things: you need a grammar to learn how things like the article work in Greek. If a noun is clearly definite in the given context, Greek does not need the article, and in these cases an English translation will generally use the word "the". Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος does not mean "in a beginning was the Word", it means "in the beginning was the Word". The writer did not feel the need to use the article, because he felt it was sufficiently clear that there was only one beginning. Of course, if we knew that a particular writer believed that there were many beginnings, then we would be justified in translating this as "a" beginning. The grammar does not clear up every possible misunderstanding unambiguously; if there were doubt about John's beliefs here, it might be necessary to read more of John's writings to learn his views. Take a look at the next part of the sentence: καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν. You probably wouldn't translate τὸν θεόν as "the God", we just say "God" in English. Working through a beginning grammar is important if you want to understand the language. This part of Micheal Palmer's grammar may be helpful to you: http://greek-language.com/grammar/07.html. But it's Lesson 7, I suggest you start with Lesson 1. Statistics: Posted by Jonathan Robie — April 15th, 2014, 6:34 am
Danny, in addition to Stephen's excellent comments: 1) Please make every effort to be learning the language. You'll find lots of help hear if that is your approach. 2) Greek is a different language than English. While that sounds like a truism, many people as beginners don't realize that it not only means different vocabulary items, but different ways of expressing meaning, what we call syntax. These are not equivalent to the way we say things in English. One example is the definite article. Greek sometimes uses it when English doesn't (as with proper names, ὁ Ἰησοῦς), and sometimes leaves it out where English would use it (as here). Questions like this are usually easily resolved as you progress in your study of the language. Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — April 15th, 2014, 6:21 am
The "the" is needed in English to make your translation sound like normal English. As you learn a new language, you will also become more aware of some of the rules for the languages you speak natively. Learning to be a professional translator requires that you learn the grammar of both of the languages that you intend to qualify in. To look at it from another point of view for a moment, the phrase "In beginning ..." has a different meaning in English. Look at these examples:
The Greek that you are trying to translate doesn't mean what "In beginning (a verbal form) smth / to + base form of the verb" does in English. The English phrase "In beginning smth / to + verb" could be expressed by a participle (a verbal form) in Greek. It is not common English idiom to use "in" with a point in time. "In" is used with long periods of time like, "In summer" or "In July". The normal English preposition used with an instant is "at", as in "At 5pm...", "At the end of a ..." I think that "At the start ..." is the clearest English that this phrase could be translated as. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — April 15th, 2014, 1:38 amIn beginning to study medicine, she was one step closer to fulfilling her dream of becoming a missionary. In beginning his homework, he showed his resolve to be a good student.
This is always translated as "In the beginning", but from the little I understand of Greek grammar, one shouldn't append the definite article in English if the article is absent in Greek. Is this "hyer-literal" translation accurate:Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος
http://catholic-resources.org/John/Outl ... ologue.htm"In origin was the Word"
The devil has an article, in both Greek and English, but again, beginning has none. Apologies for a simplistic question, I'm only two words into the text and I'm confused. Can someone clear this up for me? Danny Diskin Statistics: Posted by Danny Diskin — April 14th, 2014, 10:40 pmὅτι ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει "For the devil sins from the beginning."
grogers » August 29th, 2013, 1:28 pm
Ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, ὃ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, ὃ ἐθεασάμεθα καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν, περὶ τοῦ Λόγου τῆς ζωῆς,—Since ὃ is neuter gender, what does it refer to in the text. I'm guessing the manifestation itself since that is what John goes on to describe but, I am not sure.
David Lim » August 29th, 2013, 10:48 pm
Here is my loose paraphrase.. "The truth that has always been true, that we have heard and seen and beheld and felt, the truth about the word of the life, ..., now that we have experienced it we announce to you..." I guess the use of "from the beginning" is to recall Gen 1 and Prov 8 on the beginning of creation, among other writings, to say that the beginning did not see only the creation of the heavens and the earth but that with God was also wisdom, life, his words, truth, ...
Well, perhaps a little bit broader than just the manifestation, since it refers to something that was from the beginning, could be heard and seen with eyes, felt with hands, is about the word of the life, and could be announced to the readers (1:3). How about calling it the truth about the word of the life? This truth was from the beginning, but could be experienced by the writer, and could be announced to others.grogers wrote:Since ὃ is neuter gender, what does it refer to in the text. I'm guessing the manifestation itself since that is what John goes on to describe but, I am not sure.
Well, I had in mind "the very beginning", whatever that might mean for truth.Alan Patterson wrote:What beginning do you have in mind, just out of curiosity?
Here is my loose paraphrase.. "The truth that has always been true, that we have heard and seen and beheld and felt, the truth about the word of the life, ..., now that we have experienced it we announce to you..." I guess the use of "from the beginning" is to recall Gen 1 and Prov 8 on the beginning of creation, among other writings, to say that the beginning did not see only the creation of the heavens and the earth but that with God was also wisdom, life, his words, truth, ...
Stephen Carlson » August 31st, 2013, 1:39 am
For 1 John 1:1, I would have thought the beginning of Jesus's ministry. The opening lines are claiming ear- and eyewitness status for the writer.
Here we go Ricky Grimsley Leon Bible A solid one verse Biblical evidence that proves Jesus is the Eternal Son of God
And what verse would that be?
Obviously the verse from OP
Troy Day Would you like to state it so that we might commit on it?
Is it not clearly stated in OP with reference and the original Greek?
Troy Day No problem. Looking for Bible passages that state something and then your agreement or disagreement with the passage. If you don’t want to state the point you are trying to make then that is fine.
Point was clearly stated in OP No need for avoidance Just express your opinion http://probible.net/john-11/
Troy Day No avoidance, Just don’t know what verse you are talking about that states Jesus is the Eternal Son of God. So giving you the benefit of a doubt was hoping you would give the verse and then make your argument. But if you don’t want to that is OK too.
mhm
There is no evidence of eternal sonship
Here we go Ricky Grimsley Leon Bible A solid one verse Biblical evidence that proves Jesus is the Eternal Son of God
And what verse would that be?
Obviously the verse from OP
Troy Day Would you like to state it so that we might commit on it?
Is it not clearly stated in OP with reference and the original Greek?
Troy Day No problem. Looking for Bible passages that state something and then your agreement or disagreement with the passage. If you don’t want to state the point you are trying to make then that is fine.
Point was clearly stated in OP No need for avoidance Just express your opinion http://probible.net/john-11/
Troy Day No avoidance, Just don’t know what verse you are talking about that states Jesus is the Eternal Son of God. So giving you the benefit of a doubt was hoping you would give the verse and then make your argument. But if you don’t want to that is OK too.
mhm
There is no evidence of eternal sonship
There’s plenty of evidence and theological teachings of such substance should not be easily discarded with mediocre arguments or the lack of such thereof.
Johns prologue is a great Biblical example of the Eternal Sonship of Christ The Bible plainly says
HE was
He cannot be just the Word. He is the Son of God, not simply the Logos Word but the eternal Son of God – plain and simple
There’s plenty of evidence and theological teachings of such substance should not be easily discarded with mediocre arguments or the lack of such thereof.
Johns prologue is a great Biblical example of the Eternal Sonship of Christ The Bible plainly says
HE was
He cannot be just the Word. He is the Son of God, not simply the Logos Word but the eternal Son of God – plain and simple