Over interpretation vs translational options. Two very different things.
JMNT:-
14. And so The Word (the Idea; the Thought; the Reason; the Discourse; the Message; The Collected Expression of Rational Logic; The Logos; = the meaning, plan and rational purpose of the ordered universe) births Itself flesh (or: became flesh; came to be [in] flesh; came into existence being flesh; = God's thought, the ground of all real existence, became projected into creation as an immanent power within the world of mankind, inhabiting flesh), and lives in a tent, within us (or: set up a tent and tabernacled among us), and we view (attentively gaze at; looked at so as to contemplate) Its (His) glory (Its manifestation which calls forth praise; His manifest presence): a glory (= prestige and importance; reputation and opinion-forming appearance) as of an only-begotten one at a father’s side (or: [the] glory from [the presence of the] Father, as a uniquely-born One), full of grace and truth (filled with favor and reality {genuineness}).
I don't mind translation options and I even like certain parts of the Amplified Bible. But there are times when Wuest becomes highly interpretive (e.g., John 1:1c), and his approach takes away from the likely meaning (or possible meaning) of the text. At the very least, some of these remarks could be put in footnotes or appendices like scholars normally do. That's one reason why we have scholarly apparatuses.
Sad to say, JMNT would be okay as commentary/possible exegesis; however, it it's meant to be translation, I believe that it fails. What you've posted (at least) is overinterpretive and distracting to the most potential readers. Why not relegate most of this stuff to footnotes/appendices?
I appreciate what Mitchell is trying to do, but John 1:1 illustrates the problematic nature of his enterprise:
Within a beginning there was The Word (The Thought; The Collection of Thoughts; The Idea; The Reason; The Discourse; The Communication; The Verbal Expression). And the Word (the thought; the expression) was (and continued being) facing, directed and moving toward (or: with) God. And the Word (the thought; the idea; the reason; the expression) continued being God. [or: Originally the Word was existing and continued to be, and the Word was being {projected} toward God. And the Word, It was existing being God (idiomatically: And the Word was just what God was; And the Expression was {an extension of} Deity).]
If Homer/Hesiod or Thucydides (etc) were being translated, a version like the one above would not get far. I still urge translators to stick with rendering verses, and leave the commentary/exegesis to others or relegate additional comments to notes (etc).
I wanted to comment in the propoer thread for the Jn 1:1 issue. You asked whether my objections to JMNT's treatment of the Johannine verse stems from the koine (purely) or from the Peshitta understanding.
I would just frame my objection to the rendering as being misleading as a translation of the Greek, which I think it's supposed to be, and theology/overinterpretation is salient in 1:1 JMNT.
The translation "a beginning" is hardly possible in the verse since the construction in Greek--while lacking the article--is most assuredly definite in semantic force (i.e., the beginning). See Gen 1:1 LXX
It should also be "in" as opposed to "within" according to the Greek, and the way he's rendering HN is also misleading. The verb is stative, not fientive as Furuli has noted. The suggestion that HN is durative stems from theology, not grammar/semantics.
"The translation "a beginning" is hardly possible in the verse since the construction in Greek--while lacking the article--is most assuredly definite in semantic force (i.e., the beginning). See Gen 1:1 LXX"
Are you making a direct connection between the two?
"Of the 389 examples of the third person imperfect of this verb in the NT, all are compatible with the common definition of stative verbs as "a state that continues." Therefore, the meaning of the first clause of John 1:1 seems to be at the point of time described as "the beginning" the Word existed(or was existing)."
Scholars often do make a connection between John 1:1 and Gen 1:1 (LXX).
If there is a direct connection between Gen 1:1 and John 1:1, then the starting-point would be the same in both cases. Or some have argued that John could be referring to the beginning of the LOGOS which may be a less likely understanding.
The HN explanation made by Trinitarian scholars appears to be contrived. I'll try to post separately on that issue later.
1. Within a beginning (or: In union with Headship and Sovereignty) there was the Logos (the Word; the Thought; the collection of thoughts; the Idea; the Reason; the discourse; the communication; the verbal expression). And the Logos (the idea; the thought; the expression; the Word) was facing, [directed, and moving] toward, (or: continued being face to face with) God. And the Logos (the Word; the thought; the idea; the reason; the expression) continued being God. (or: Originally, within the midst of the first principle, the Word was existing and continued to be, and the Word was being [projected] toward God. And this Word, It was existing actually being God; or: In command was Reason, and Reason was staying with God, for Reason was just what God was; or: The Thought was in the midst of [the] Source, the Thought was oriented toward Deity, and the Thought was [an extension of] Deity; or: In beginning, the collected and put side by side Thoughts continued in progressive existence, and the collected and put side by side Thoughts continued being a progression to God, and God {“the Divine Mystery” – Paul Tillich's definition of theos} was in continued existence being those collected and put side by side Thoughts; or: In union with [the] beginning there was the continued existence of the Idea, and the Idea was continued existence face to face with God, and the Idea continued in existence being “the Divine Mystery;” or: In beginning, the Word continued Being. Then the Word was Being directed toward God. And yet the Word was Being God; or: Within the power of beginning – which is the controlling principle and power of the entire process – there existed the Idea, and the Idea was aimed at and moving toward God. Also, the Idea existed being God).
I hate to quibble with JMNT, because translation is hard work. But the lack of a definite article in Greek does not always mean a noun is indefinite; the noun could still be definite, qualitativeness could be emphasized or the noun might be indefinite. But Jn 1:1a most probably should not be rendered "in a beginning." I also continue not to like how HN is being treated with the notion of continuing action.
I need to correct something I posted earlier. Rev 1:18 does not have HN, but EGENOMHN. My fault.
I was editing a post on 1:18 and got mixed up. So please disregard my earlier remarks about HN.
JMT renders 1:18: "even The LIVING ONE (or: the One continuously living), I also brought Myself to be (birthed Myself) a dead one [or: I also came by Myself to be dead], and Behold! I am living into the ages of the ages, and I constantly hold (have) the keys of Death and of the Unseen (Hades)."
Other translations have:
"I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever!" (NIV)
"and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore" (ESV)
"and the living one: and I became dead, and behold, I am living to the ages of ages" (Darby)
"He that liveth, and was dead" (People's NT of 1891)
14 comments:
Over interpretation vs translational options. Two very different things.
JMNT:-
14. And so The Word (the Idea; the Thought; the Reason; the Discourse; the Message; The Collected Expression of Rational Logic; The Logos; = the meaning, plan and rational purpose of the ordered universe) births Itself flesh (or: became flesh; came to be [in] flesh; came into existence being flesh; = God's thought, the ground of all real existence, became projected into creation as an immanent power within the world of mankind, inhabiting flesh), and lives in a tent, within us (or: set up a tent and tabernacled among us), and we view (attentively gaze at; looked at so as to contemplate) Its (His) glory (Its manifestation which calls forth praise; His manifest presence): a glory (= prestige and importance; reputation and opinion-forming appearance) as of an only-begotten one at a father’s side (or: [the] glory from [the presence of the] Father, as a uniquely-born One), full of grace and truth (filled with favor and reality {genuineness}).
Duncan,
I don't mind translation options and I even like certain parts of the Amplified Bible. But there are times when Wuest becomes highly interpretive (e.g., John 1:1c), and his approach takes away from the likely meaning (or possible meaning) of the text. At the very least, some of these remarks could be put in footnotes or appendices like scholars normally do. That's one reason why we have scholarly apparatuses.
Sad to say, JMNT would be okay as commentary/possible exegesis; however, it it's meant to be translation, I believe that it fails. What you've posted (at least) is overinterpretive and distracting to the most potential readers. Why not relegate most of this stuff to footnotes/appendices?
I appreciate what Mitchell is trying to do, but John 1:1 illustrates the problematic nature of his enterprise:
Within a beginning there was The Word (The Thought; The Collection of Thoughts; The Idea; The Reason; The Discourse; The Communication; The Verbal Expression). And the Word (the thought; the expression) was (and continued being) facing, directed and moving toward (or: with) God. And the Word (the thought; the idea; the reason; the expression) continued being God. [or: Originally the Word was existing and continued to be, and the Word was being {projected} toward God. And the Word, It was existing being God (idiomatically: And the Word was just what God was; And the Expression was {an extension of} Deity).]
If Homer/Hesiod or Thucydides (etc) were being translated, a version like the one above would not get far. I still urge translators to stick with rendering verses, and leave the commentary/exegesis to others or relegate additional comments to notes (etc).
Thanks,
Edgar
Duncan,
I wanted to comment in the propoer thread for the Jn 1:1 issue. You asked whether my objections to JMNT's treatment of the Johannine verse stems from the koine (purely) or from the Peshitta understanding.
I would just frame my objection to the rendering as being misleading as a translation of the Greek, which I think it's supposed to be, and theology/overinterpretation is salient in 1:1 JMNT.
The translation "a beginning" is hardly possible in the verse since the construction in Greek--while lacking the article--is most assuredly definite in semantic force (i.e., the beginning). See Gen 1:1 LXX
It should also be "in" as opposed to "within" according to the Greek, and the way he's rendering HN is also misleading. The verb is stative, not fientive as Furuli has noted. The suggestion that HN is durative stems from theology, not grammar/semantics.
Only some of the problems I have with 1:1 in JMNT
Edgar,
"The translation "a beginning" is hardly possible in the verse since the construction in Greek--while lacking the article--is most assuredly definite in semantic force (i.e., the beginning). See Gen 1:1 LXX"
Are you making a direct connection between the two?
"Of the 389 examples of the third person imperfect of this verb in the NT, all are compatible with the common definition of stative verbs as "a state that continues." Therefore, the meaning of the first clause of John 1:1 seems to be at the point of time described as "the beginning" the Word existed(or was existing)."
But what beginning?
John 2:11, 6:64, 8:44, 15:27, 16:4
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/39_bereshiyt.html
Edgar,
Just been reading :-
https://www.academia.edu/11305545/The_Septuagint_and_the_Hebrew_Bible_Old_Testament_A_Conversation
Very informative & it has given me pause for thought on a few points.
Not sure where I should post this but since we are looking at the LXX here:-
https://www.academia.edu/4566336/The_Origin_and_Influence_of_the_Septuagint
Duncan,
Scholars often do make a connection between John 1:1 and Gen 1:1 (LXX).
If there is a direct connection between Gen 1:1 and John 1:1, then the starting-point would be the same in both cases. Or some have argued that John could be referring to the beginning of the LOGOS which may be a less likely understanding.
The HN explanation made by Trinitarian scholars appears to be contrived. I'll try to post separately on that issue later.
Thanks for the links, Duncan.
1. Within a beginning (or: In union with Headship and Sovereignty) there was the Logos (the Word; the Thought; the collection of thoughts; the Idea; the Reason; the discourse; the communication; the verbal expression).
And the Logos (the idea; the thought; the expression; the Word) was facing, [directed, and moving] toward, (or: continued being face to face with) God.
And the Logos (the Word; the thought; the idea; the reason; the expression) continued being God.
(or: Originally, within the midst of the first principle, the Word was existing and continued to be, and the Word was being [projected] toward God. And this Word, It was existing actually being God;
or: In command was Reason, and Reason was staying with God, for Reason was just what God was;
or: The Thought was in the midst of [the] Source, the Thought was oriented toward Deity, and the Thought was [an extension of] Deity;
or: In beginning, the collected and put side by side Thoughts continued in progressive existence, and the collected and put side by side Thoughts continued being a progression to God, and God {“the Divine Mystery” – Paul Tillich's definition of theos} was in continued existence being those collected and put side by side Thoughts;
or: In union with [the] beginning there was the continued existence of the Idea, and the Idea was continued existence face to face with God, and the Idea continued in existence being “the Divine Mystery;”
or: In beginning, the Word continued Being. Then the Word was Being directed toward God. And yet the Word was Being God;
or: Within the power of beginning – which is the controlling principle and power of the entire
process – there existed the Idea, and the Idea was aimed at and moving toward God. Also,
the Idea existed being God).
JMNT 2014 edition.
JMNT 2014 available here:-
http://jonathanmitchellnewtestament.com/app/download/7116229887/Jonathan+Mitchell+New+Testament+2014.pdf
Duncan,
I hate to quibble with JMNT, because translation is hard work. But the lack of a definite article in Greek does not always mean a noun is indefinite; the noun could still be definite, qualitativeness could be emphasized or the noun might be indefinite. But Jn 1:1a most probably should not be rendered "in a beginning." I also continue not to like how HN is being treated with the notion of continuing action.
Duncan,
I need to correct something I posted earlier. Rev 1:18 does not have HN, but EGENOMHN. My fault.
I was editing a post on 1:18 and got mixed up. So please disregard my earlier remarks about HN.
JMT renders 1:18: "even The LIVING ONE (or: the One continuously living), I also brought Myself to be (birthed Myself) a dead one [or: I also came by Myself to be dead], and Behold! I am living into the ages of the ages, and I constantly hold (have) the keys of Death and of the Unseen (Hades)."
Other translations have:
"I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever!" (NIV)
"and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore" (ESV)
"and the living one: and I became dead, and behold, I am living to the ages of ages" (Darby)
"He that liveth, and was dead" (People's NT of 1891)
Post a Comment