[B-Greek] John 1:18 where the argument stands
Jason Kerrigan
jasonandshon at yahoo.com
Sun Aug 13 23:17:56 EDT 2006
I wanted to give a quick overview of some of the points
made thus far regarding John 1:18
In the traditional translation/interpretation of John 1:18 we
are left without a stated object of EXHGHSATO. Elizabeth
Kline asserted that the EXHGHSATO is odd if absolute,
and instead probably has an understood/unstated object
instead.
If John 1:16-18 contains Direct Descourse words of the Baptist
(as Origen believed) then theos in John 1:18b can be the
object of the Son's declaration. Harold Holmyard commented
on the appelations "only-begotten" and "Father" in John 1:18
and said that this better fits the normal terminology of the
Evangelist rather than the Baptist. I said that the Father's
declaration at the subsequent baptism of Christ could account
for the Father/Son terminology. Harold also said that it would
be odd for John to have spoken of the Son having declared God
(past tense) at the time of the Baptist's introduction of Christ.
I conceded the point, but I am second guessing it now based
on John's reference to Christ's pre-existence: "he was before me"
and also based upon the fact that the Son declaring God has
been true of Christ since the beginning... and with a view of
Christ's pre-existence, and because of the subject matter of John
1:18 I think it may actually be the correct interpretation.
I said that perhaps theos declared the one being in the bosom of
the Father (i.e. the Son) at the baptism (John 1:33-34) but I did not
receive any comments on this proposed translation. I think the
interpretation of Christ declaring God fits better.
We also discussed 1John 4:12 and compared it to John 1:18, showing
how the NIV translates both passages with an implied/unstated
contrast. In light of this contrast we discussed the possibilty of
John 1:18 being translated as, "God no man hath seen at any time
except the only begotten. God, the one being in the bosom of the
Father, that one declared." I presented two Ante Nicene quotations in
which John 1:18 was quoted as, "except the only begotten." Iver Larsen
attested to the possiblity of an implied contrast, saying:
Yes, it would be legitimate to make the implied contrast explicit by
adding a "but". NIV, NLT and NCV are some of the English versions
that do exactly that. It is common in Hebrew thought pattern to first
state a general principle and after that list one or more exceptions.
And it is clear from this whole chapter that Jesus, the one-and-only Son
was with God and had obviously seen God in contrast to every human
being. That is why Jesus was able to explain/show/make God known to
humans.
Thus far I do not see anything that rules out translating John 1:18
as:
"God no man hath seen at any time except the only begotten. God
(Direct Descourse object) the one being in the bosom of the Father (the
Son - subject) that one (object pronoun) declared."
Respect and grattitude,
Jason (the foot eating) Kerrigan
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list