[B-Greek] Jn 12:44
Yancy Smith
Y.W.Smith at tcu.edu
Thu Nov 17 15:17:17 EST 2005
Dear Scott,
In a message dated 11/17/05 1:20:54 PM, webb at selftest.net writes:
Taken by themselves in English, the words, "he does not believe in
me, but in the one who sent me", seem to say that the person doesn't
believe
in Jesus. Jesus' following statement, which parallels this statement (hO
QEWRWN EME QEWREI TON PEMYANTA ME), clearly does not admit of the
understanding that the person doesn't see Jesus. To see me, says
Jesus, is
to see the one who sent me (at the same time, and in the process of
seeing
me).
Notice that a slight change in the English phraseology might solve
the problem of unwanted ambiguity that NIV translators solve by
inserting
"only", but without requiring that expedient.
And Jesus shouted out and said, "When a person believes in me,
they're not
believing in me but in the one who sent me, and the person who sees
me sees
the one who sent me."
The paradox remains, but the ambiguity of a flat contradiction seems
to be
reduced.
This is a good point, but I think we should take seriously the
negation OU PISTEUEI EIS EME as refering to the human agent, Jesus as
a mere human being. See Barrett's and D.A Carson's comment on this
passage. Which brings up the issue, is it a virtue to translate
independently of the writer's theology or try to keep theology out of
translation altogether. That would be like trying to translate a VCR
manual independent of the electonic knowledge assumed by the author.
A perilous endeavor indeed.
Speaking of making translations based on conceptual or theological
bases,
another thread was talking about Jn 8:44: hOTAN LALHi TO YEUDOS, EK TWN
IDIWN LALEI, hOTI YEUSTHS ESTIN KAI hO PATHR AUTOU.
Just taking the Greek by itself, it looks as though Jesus is saying,
"...because he is a liar, and so is his father". In fact, that is how
Lattimore, the expert translator of the Greek classics (and later
works from
the period of the NT and beyond too) translates the verse. He doesn't
have
the same theological lens as most translators, and so he doesn't
conclude,
"Well, we don't have any information from anywhere else in scripture
that
the Devil has a father, so he can't be saying that". But notice what
this
opens up. How can anything surprising to us (as translators) ever get
*into*
scripture, if we stop it at the door on the basis of assumptions
about what
it is possible for the scripture to say? It's a humbling question.
Wouldn't it be better to construe AUTOU with TO YEUDOS in the
previous clause?
Yancy
Yancy Smith
Y.W.Smith at tcu.edu
Brite Divinity School
Texas Christian University
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list