[B-Greek] Jn 1:18b EIS TON KOLPON
Iver Larsen
iver_larsen at sil.org
Fri Aug 18 14:48:10 EDT 2006
[OK: ]>> All other translations I know take this to connect hO WN (the one in
>> the Father's bosom). However this traditional rendering would make
>> sense if the text reads 'EN TW KOLPW' (as in Jn 13:23). With the
>> preposition EIS instead, the way she renders the text appears
>> grammatically more acceptable.
>>
>> Can you help me see the basis of one over the other?
>
[CC:]> This is an interesting suggestion; I see nothing amiss in
> understanding EXHGHSATO in the sense of "led the way" EXHGEOMAI can
> certainly have that sense in extra-Biblical literature, although the
> usage within the GNT seems to be limited to the senses, "explain" and
> "report."
I would consider this a strong argument against the innovative suggestion. The verb is reasonably common in the GNT and
always means "explain" or "describe". I don't see any instance of "report" in the GNT, and certainly not "lead".
BAGD says: "'lead', but never so in our lit.; explain, interpret, tell, report, describe....Oft. t.t. for the activity
of priests and soothsayers who impart information or reveal divine secrets.."
L&N suggest two options:
"to provide detailed information in a systematic manner" or
"to make something fully known by careful explanation or by clear revelation."
When the normal sense of "explain" makes perfect sense, it is highly unlikely than an otherwise unattested sense could
be intended.
There are other words for "lead" used in the GNT, e.g. hODHGEW and various compounds with AGW.
>
> Her version in fuller context: "No one has ever seen God at any time.
> The Only Son [reading hUIOS rather than QEOS}, the One who is closest
> to the Father's heart -- he is the one who led the way to the place
> of honor at the Father's side."
>
<snip>
[CC:]> And finally, there's the awkward usage of EIS TON KOLPON with the
> verb EINAI in the nominal phrase hO WN EIS TON KOLPON; normally we
> don't have an EIS + acc. phrase with an existential EINAI but rather
> with verbs of motion. But earlier in the prologue we had something
> similar in HN PROS TON QEON in 1:1 and 2, so I would suppose that
> this particular usage of EIS + acc. with WN is intended to express
> special intimacy, "who has his being deep in the heart of the
> Father."
It is fairly common to have EIS where we might have expected an EN, also with EINAI.
BAGD says: "EIS is freq. used where EN would be expected..." and then goes on to list many examples, including John
1:18.
The parallel usage to HN PROS TON QEON is interesting, because in Hebrew thought pattern you would expect an inclusio,
so that the beginning and the end of the section have overlapping themes. The section starts with the close relationship
between God, the Father, and hO LOGOS. And it ends with the close relationship between the MONOGENHS hUIOS and the
PATHR. It is also fitting that hO LOGOS should be able to explain who the Father is, as the LOGOS was with the Father,
and no one else has ever seen the Father.
[CC:]> You have asked, Oun, for guidance to choose between two alternatives.
> I think I am inclined to prefer the traditional view of the syntactic
> link-ups of John 1:18b, but (a) the text of the verse is loaded with
> problems any way you look at it, and (b) understanding EIS TON KOLPON
> as implicit with EXHGHSATO as "led the way" or "showed the way" is,
> it seems to me, every bit as plausible as the traditional
> understanding. I guess that leaves it a NON LIQUET: it ain't so
> clear, after all.
I find both the unusual meaning of EXHGHSATO and the supplying of EIS TON KOLPON as object highly unlikely.
The verse has two items in focus by virtue of their fronted positions. First QEOS in QEON OUDEIS hEWRAKEN PWPOTE. Then
MONOGENHS hUIOS in MONOGENHS hUIOS hO WN EIS TON KOLPON TOU PATROS, and finally "that one" (Jesus, the one-and-only Son)
in the last clause EKEINOS EXHGHSATO. There is no problem in supplying "him" as object for the verb, since the two items
in focus are the unseen God and the Son. Since the Son is the subject, it is natural to understand the other item in
focus as the object. According to relevance theory, when a straightforward interpretation based on the normal sense of
the words used makes perfect sense in the context, it is very unlikely that a special and convoluted interpretation was
intended.
Iver Larsen
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list