genitive in John 1:3
Eric S. Weiss
eweiss at gte.net
Sat Dec 14 11:11:38 EST 2002
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Dewus" <dewus at bluemarble.net>
> To: "Biblical Greek" <b-greek at franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 8:46 PM
> Subject: [b-greek] genitive in John 1:3
>
> Since the immediate antecedent of the pronoun is LOGOS, I have often wondered if
> translating it with the impersonal pronoun in English would better capture the
> force, as the author builds up to the person of Christ in the incarnation in
> John 1:14ff.
>
> N.E. Barry Hofstetter
> Adjunct Professor, CUTS
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nebarry
> Moderator:
> Reformed Theology Discussion
> rtdisc at yahoogroups.com
> Biblical Exegesis Group
> bibexegesis at yahoogroups.com
Yes, it's a translator's dilemma. To translate the occurrences of these
pronouns as "the logos" or "the word" both results in a clumsy translation
(after all, the purpose of pronouns is to avoid constant repetition of the
antecedent) and obscures the fact that in the Greek these are pronouns,
not nouns.
To translate AUTOU as "it" might in some sense convey the idea that at
this part in the prologue the LOGOS hasn't yet become flesh. How would
English readers view the use of the neuter "it" here? Would they think it
denigrated Christ? After all, the LOGOS has just been equated with God, so
to translate the pronoun(s) as "it" somewhat implies that God is an "it,"
and that would not be acceptable.
The usual decision to translate the pronouns as "he/him" seems to be the
best choice, even though the reason that masculine pronouns are used is
because LOGOS is masculine, not necessarily because the LOGOS is a
masculine being at this point in the narrative.
But what if John had stated that it was hH SOFIA that was in the beginning
with God, equated with God, and became flesh? In that case, would it have
been better English to translate the pronouns as "it", knowing that to
translate them as "she" would be a problem when hH SOFIA took on masculine
flesh in 1:14?
Another point:
It's interesting that in the Prologue John talks about the LOGOS in
1:1-4a, and then says that in this LOGOS was ZWH, and this ZWH was the FWS
of men.
John (the author) then continues speaking solely (1:5-13) about this FWS,
and no longer about the LOGOS. John (the Baptist) testifies about the FWS.
The FWS is what was coming into the world, the FWS FWTIZEI all men, and it
was the FWS that came to men, and some received the FWS and some did not.
Then, in 1:14, where you might have expected John to write KAI TO FWS SARX
EGENETO, he instead writes KAI hO LOGOS SARX EGENETO. Jesus never refers
to himself (or is called by others) hO LOGOS in the Gospel of John, but he
does several times refer to himself as TO FWS (8:12; 9:5; 11:9-10(?);
12:35-36(?), 12:46).
So, does the phrase TO FWS TWN ANQRWPWN in 1:4b possibly mean "the
Illumined One from among men," rather than "that which
illuminates/enlightens men (i.e., inwardly or outwardly, or both)"?
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list