Richard A. Young has produced a useful work that certainly provides assistance to students of intermediate NT Greek. Being an intermediate Greek textbook, it predictably deals with syntax and not morphology or phonology. One particularly distinctive feature of Young's work is that he mixes modern linguistic findings and insights based on classical rhetoric with his discussions of syntax. For instance, he supplies brief discussions on metaphors, "kernels," figurative language in general, and speech acts. Moreover, Young has included a helpful chapter on discourse analysis and he also references the prominent theories of aspect formulated by Stanley Porter and Buist Fanning. In many ways, he is also fair with his presentation of syntactical possibilities as illustrated by his approach to 1 Cor 15:29. However, it seems that more than a few of his explanations regarding word order are driven by certain theological preapprehensions. For example, on page 66, he criticizes the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures' rendering of Jn 1:1c as "a god" rather than the traditional "God."
His criticisms are based (in part) on his notion of what constitutes a "monadic noun." Young utterly misunderstands the thrust behind the NWT rendering when he implies that the "a god" translation is polytheistic--which it is not, when rightly understood. Even worse, he depends on the inadequate (often abused) rule of E. C. Colwell to buttress his opposition to the NWT reading. Regardless of whether the NWT is justified in treating the Johannine text as it does, it is clear that Young sometimes allows theology to govern his syntactical judgments. He unfortunately overlooks the possibility that "a god" just might be a very plausible way to translate Jn 1:1c. In the final analysis, there is really no need for him to read polytheistic notions into the NWT rendering. Despite some issues that I have with Young's intermediate text, however, I recommend it and say, caveat emptor!
Sporadic theological and historical musings by Edgar Foster (Ph.D. in Theology and Religious Studies and one of Jehovah's Witnesses).
Edgar, your caveat emptor is well placed here. Young offers a terribly biased and sloppy presentation in reference to John 1:1c. It's a shame that so many professionals find themselves unable or unwilling to discuss this text with the honesty and seriousness that it deserves.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that any first year student of Greek *should* be able to see that, grammatically speaking, "a god" is a most (perhaps THE most) natural reading of the text. If someone who engages in exegesis wants to bring in certain grammatical, contextual or literary factors in an attempt to justify the traditional English rendering, then that's fine, and we can address those arguments as they're offered. However, I don't think it's too much to ask that they present all sides of the issue honestly.
BTW, that Young references Harner's work without interacting with it at all is further evidence that the Q noun hypothesis has never been tested the way that scientific hypotheses typically are through peer review. Harner offered a potential answer to a problem and it was accepted alacritously rather than critically.
~Kaz
I like the use of "alacritously" in your post, Kaz. I believe that you're correct about the Q hypothesis. In this regard, have you read Wallace's treatment of John 1:1c in GGBB? Thanks!
ReplyDeleteAs a fellow logophile, I had a hunch you'd like that use of "alacritously";-)
ReplyDeleteI have read Wallace's treatment, though it was some time ago. I was disappointed to see him offer as support for the Q hypothesis the two articles that haven't been peer reviewed. I guess if they could find supporting articles by bona fide linguists whose arguments have gained wide acceptance after rigorous peer review, then they might reference those as well. Some might also find it noteworthy that one of the two articles referenced was written by a former student of his own seminary, DTS, which, as I understand it, is an institution in which admittance is contingent upon belief in the Trinity!
~Kaz
Edgar;
ReplyDeleteIt seems that no matter what view point you take on Jn.1c. Everyone on both sides of the issue has some preapprehesions, from the others point of view, I often wondered why theologians feel that way about Beduhn view, it was by far the best Greek grammar explanation I've read and I never knew if he was for the trinity or not.
Philip
Kaz: I have trouble with schools that require students to believe any religious dogma/doctrine. Of course, DTS is not a university, so they don't have to espouse open inquiry per se. But starting out with the presupposition of the Trinity doctrine when undertaking a thesis, automatically seems to limit the openendedness of academic inquiry. On a separate but related note, what do you think of Slater's work on qualitative nouns?
ReplyDeletePhilip: Beduhn's view does not harmonize with the orthodox position. What also makes him different is that he tries to be academic when it comes to religion. Beduhn seems to be less ideologically driven than most students of religion.