Saturday, November 29, 2014
A Brief Syntactical Note on John 1:1c
Other considerations factor into the rendering of John 1:1c besides the omitted article for θεός. We also have a preverbal anarthrous predicate nominative in 1:1c along with the expression πρὸς τὸν θεὸν (1:1b). However, there is a different construction in John 13:3--there, we find ἀπὸ + the genitival form θεοῦ which suggests definiteness and in the latter part of 13:3, the accusatival τὸν θεὸν occurs (again indicating definiteness). So how we render a passage involves more than whether or not the Greek article is omitted; other syntactical and contextual factors must also be considered.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Edgar,
Vak:-
"ManjuM: So it is, Rev. Saradvatlputra. The word "self
denotes the same thing which the word "Buddha denotes.
What is here called "the Buddha is synonymous with 'the
trackless' (apada; also: wordless). Because it cannot easily be
intimated by words (vak). It is not easy to define speech (vak),
how much more so the Buddha!"
Pg 199 & Foreward XI.
http://lirs.ru/lib/conze/Thirty_Years_of_Buddhist_studies,Conze,1967,incomplete,300dpi.pdf
Here is a parallel with Gnosis & Sophia.
Hi Edgar,
Did someone attempt to use John 13:3 to support a definite QEOS at John 1:1c?
~Kaz
Hi Duncan: one difficulty is knowing enough Sanskrit or Pali to make adequate judgments about the similarities differences between these concepts.
Hi Kaz: evidently so. A brother emailed me once to ask about the issue. He suggested that some had tried to use John 13:3 to undermine Jn 1:1c NWT. But opponent of the NWT has ever presented the verse to me directly.
All the best,
Edgar
Sounds like the NWT opponent was confused, but that shouldn't surprise us. We can't really blame lay folks for such errors when "scholars" have so horribly misrepresented NWTBTC's reasons for favoring the "a god" rendering.
I've been presenting the list of anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives in John for years, and it usually inspires silence, but in one case it inspired a concession:-)
Once people see for themselves that over 50% of these nouns are appropriately rendered into English with the indefinite article, what's left to argue? Apparently not much.
Edgar,
Yes, getting adequate information on just how close or removed from Hebrew the terms are has been one of the problems.
Nicholas Kazanas (a Greek scholar) seems to be the one who has produced the most recent translations of the texts into English - he has demonstrated the errors in older translations but the problem is his translations are not easily available.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkmLEbsU-9k
I do not know any scholar that has actually done a direct comparison of Hebrew & Sanskrit even though many recognize a connection.
Concerning John 1:1c, I've seen your list, Kaz. It's impressive to me and glad to hear that at least you have one concession. :)
All the best,
Edgar
Duncan,
I don't know about Hebrew/Sanskrit comparisons, but plenty of work has been done on Greek/Sanskrit parallels. I wouldn't be surprised to find that some scholar has done work with both Sanskrit and Hebrew though.
My thoughts on John 1:1 without the article is it contradicts John 1:18, that states no one has ever seen God. But many have seen Jesus. So with the letter (a) it does not contradict vs 18, or the words found at 1 John 4:12. I just see word was God as a full contradiction, and word was a god as harmonizing with 1:18 and 1 John 4:12.
Philip,
I agree with your reasoning, even though I've read Trinitarian approaches to John 1:18 that attempt to explain the verse within that particular framework (i.e., triune thought).
Nevertheless, an important consideration for me is whether the grammar/syntax allows for including the indefinite article in Jn 1:1c. And when it comes to grammar, it cannot be denied that "a god" is a possible reading of the Greek in 1:1c. We then have to ask whether this rendering is faithful to the Johannine Prologue's context and how probabilistic this translation is, statistically.
"Nevertheless, an important consideration for me is whether the grammar/syntax allows for including the indefinite article in Jn 1:1c. And when it comes to grammar, it cannot be denied that "a god" is a possible reading of the Greek in 1:1c. We then have to ask whether this rendering is faithful to the Johannine Prologue's context and how probabilistic this translation is, statistically."
Indeed, and since over 50% of the anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives in John are indefinite, and rendered with the indefinite article, I'd say that statistics alone favor "a god".
IMO, "the Word was a god" and "the Word was God" are both possible, and both theologically acceptable. I was a bit disappointed that the NWT offered "divine", which isn't really appropriate for a literal translation, but didn't list the traditional rendering as a possibility, which it clearly is. All they would have had to do would be to clarify that such a rendering should be understood representationally, again, IMO.
~Kaz
Hi Kaz,
A much different approach is taken in the revised NWT. I think the footnotes reflect this different translational philosophy of the NWT committee.
I can understand why they did not give the traditional rendering as a possibility. That would be scholarly and informative, but the rendering is so theologically loaded that I'm not sure if they'll ever offer the rendering as a translational or theological possibility. Then again, we've been surprised a lot in the last few years. :)
Post a Comment