[B-Greek] Clarifying Iver's John 1:18 position

Harold Holmyard hholmyard at ont.com
Mon Aug 14 17:59:54 EDT 2006


Jason Kerrigan wrote:

>Iver Larson previously wrote:
>   
>  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.
>
>  Iver, I am trying to clarify your position so as to 
>  find confirmation regarding the proposed translation:
>   
>  "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."
>   
>  Apart from the fact that you believe that theos was 
>  originally huios in the second clause, and that you
>  disagree with monogenes tranlsated as "only begotten," 
>  could the passage otherwise be translated thus 
>  accurately without violating any grammatical laws?
>

HH: No, it could not be translated in this way accurately because you 
seem to want to make the second "God" an object as you make the first 
"God." But whether you make the second "God"  the object, or "that one" 
the object, both would be incorrect as objects because both are in the 
nominative, and the object needs to be in the accusative.  I have 
already mentioned that there is no basis in the Greek for "except," and 
Iver perhaps was clarifying that a literal translation would not include it.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard

> 
>   
>  
>  
>




More information about the B-Greek mailing list