Greek (WH): Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν
τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλὰ ἔχῃ
ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
For the grammatical and translational issues at stake, see https://www.billmounce.com/monday-with-mounce/whats-the-proper-way-translate-john-3-16
In footnote 142 on page 85 of her John commentary belonging to the NTL series, Marianne M. Thompson seems to favor translating Οὕτως in John 3:16 as "in this way."
NET Bible: "For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son,
so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal
life."
Friday, November 18, 2022
"God so loved the world" or "God loved the world so much" or "God loved the world in this way?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
"For thus God loved the world, such that..." how I would render it ... probably.
Sounds good to me although I need to contemplate how ὥστε is being used in this verse.
The NET bible renders "τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ" as "one and only Son" - for the trinity (which is what these bibles are written for) that presents a problem... The word (Jesus) is not Gods "One and only" son - Therefore shouldn't they just render it "only begotten son"
In what sense is "Jesus" Gods "one and only son"?
What makes the one and only son wrong is that it just doesn't correctly render the greek, that it is theologically incorrect, or contradicts other parts of the bible, shouldn't play any part in how one translates it. Translators, historians, exegetes, should not do theology, that's for theologians, and for theologians to do their job properly they need those other disciplines (history, exegesis, philology, etc) to do their job properly and without theological bias.
Thanks Roman.
Unknown, the NET Bible has some notes for John 3:16 and reading those will probably help you see why they made the choice not to render monogenes as only begotten son. The note says "one and only Son" is meant to communicate the idea that while God does have other sons (and daughters), Jesus is unique or sui generis. He is God's Son in a special way, a point with which JWs would agree. However, does "one and only Son" capture that idea well? The precise meaning of monogenes is heavily debated in lexical and theological circles.
Edgar and Roman
Thank you for your comments.. I'm not sure what your opinions are on qualifications (and needing them for bible translation) but here is an article written by someone who seems to have extensive knowledge on this subject:
https://en.calameo.com/books/00636219750a04d78c679 (can also be found on other academic websites)
P.S I say about qualifications because Iv had people who don't accept evidence from anyone that hasn't taught Greek or Hebrew in a university
Dear Anonymous, some scholars will not read anything that's not peer-reviewed but I think that's a little extreme. To each his/her own I guess. IMHO, qualifications are important for many things that include Bible translation. Translation is hard work: if someone sets out to do a Bible translation and it's going to be done right, something has to be known about the languages, grammar, syntax, etc. However, from what I saw of the paper you linked, I would read it. The paper looks like a lot of research has been done and the reeasoning is good, far as I can tell. Thanks.
P.S. A scholar doesn't have to teach Greek or Hebrew in a university to know what he/she is talking about. That's just false and extreme in my view. I've seen people who are very conversant with both languages but they're not professors.
Hi Edgar
Thank you for that. sorry for slightly changing the subject..
if you want a specific example of what I was referring just google "Jason Beduhn" (I do not agree with him in all cases, but he clearly knows what he is on about when comparing him to others, even though they don't cite him)
It's okay Anonymous and I am familiar with the criticisms directed toward Beduhn. I think the criticisms are unreasonable, not because I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but because Jason does know Greek well, even if it's not his specialty. I guess these people who level such criticisms don't know the history of classical languages. Think of how many skilled classical scholars (versed in Greek and Latin) did not/do not teach in universities. I think such critics are clueless.
Post a Comment