[B-Greek] 1 John 1:5

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Wed Mar 19 11:17:39 EST 2003


>
> 1. N-A 26 text: KAI /ESTIN hAUTH\ hH AGGELIA hHN AKHKOAMEN AP' AUTOU ...
>
> 2. per N-A 26 critical note: KAI hAUTH ESTIN hH AGGELIA hHN AKHKOAMEN
> AP' AUTOU ... (i.e., switching ESTIN and hAUTH).
>
> Would it be accurate to translate 1. as "And it is this message which we
> have heard from him ..." (i.e., treating hAUTH hH AGGELIA as a
> near-demonstrative-adjective phrase) and translate 2. as "And this is
> the message which we have heard from him ..."? If so, why do most
> translations translate this verse as if the Greek read as in 2., when
> they no doubt use the N-A 26 text and not the critical variant?

Beginning a sentence with a kataphoric hOUTOS/hAUTH/TOUTO ESTIN is
characteristic of John's style. It is found in other books, but not with the
same high frequency as in John and 1 John. This construction occurs no less
than 12 times in the short letter of 1 John. And then there is one time
where the NA order is ESTIN hAUTH, namely 1:5. From internal evidence alone,
it is fairly certain that the NA 26 text is not the original text, but that
the note has the original order. When hOUTOS is used kataphorically as here,
it simply does not make sense to have the order ESTIN hAUTH.
Your alternative translation: "And it IS this message which we have heard
from him and we proclaim to you that God is light..." does not make sense
either when we look at the whole sentence.

Translators tend to translate in such a way that the translation makes
sense, because they assume the original text made sense. Textual critics are
not bound but such a principle. They tend to prefer the readings that make
the least sense. This principle is called "the harder reading principle".
Especially in 1 John, I would quite often choose the alternative reading
rather than the NA reading, simply because I think it is highly unlikely
that John would have written the strange readings the NA chose. The NA text
is based in part on the questionable hypothesis that Aleph and B are the
most reliable manuscripts, but in the case of 1 John at least, this
hypothesis cannot be maintained.

Iver Larsen



More information about the B-Greek mailing list