[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