[B-Greek] John3 3,7 revisited ?born again?

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Tue Apr 21 03:35:07 EDT 2009


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "frank boumphrey" <koinebible at gmail.com>
To: "B-Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: 21. april 2009 04:54
Subject: [B-Greek] John3 3,7 revisited ?born again?


> My question is how did γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν - GENNHQHi ANWQEN get its translation
> in the KJV and its immitators of 'born again'?
>
> In several translations γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν - GENNHQHi ANWQEN is translated as
> 'born again'' rather than 'born from above'. My (Intermediate) Liddel and
> Scott also gives this tanslation for NT. More recent translations that I
> checked give the (?correct)translation 'from above'.
>
> ἀπεκρίθη ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ
> ἄνωθεν, οὐ δύναται ἰδεῖν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ.
> APEKRIQH IHSOUS KAI EIPEN AUTWi, AMHN AMHN LEGW SOI, EAN MH TIS GENNHQHi
> ANWQEN, OU DUNATAI IDEIN THN BASILEIAN TOU QEOU.
>
> Of the other ?13 occurences in the NT only John 3,3 and John 7
> μὴ θαυμάσῃς ὅτι εἶπόν σοι, δεῖ ὑμᾶς γεννηθῆναι ἄνωθεν.
> MH QAUMASHiS hOTI EIPON SOI, DEI UMAS GENNHQHNAI ANWQEN.
>
> are given this translation by the KJV and immitators. I havn't checked out
> the LXX
>
> and Galatians 4 9 KJV translates it as 'anew'
> νῦν δὲ γνόντες θεόν, μᾶλλον δὲ γνωσθέντες ὑπὸ θεοῦ, πῶς ἐπιστρέφετε πάλιν
> ἐπὶ τὰ ἀσθενῆ καὶ πτωχὰ στοιχεῖα, οἷς πάλιν ἄνωθεν δουλεύειν θέλετε;
> NUN DE GNONTES QEON, MALLON DE GNWSQENTES UPO QEOU, PWS EPISTREFETE PALIN
> EPI TA ASQENH KAI PTWXA STOIXEIA, hOIS PALIN ANWQEN DOULEUEIN QELETE;
>
> although here the more usual sense of 'from the begining' would fit
> perfectly well.
>
> Is this just a case of copying from older Translations or am I missing
> something?
>
> Frank Boumphrey

The way I see it, you are missing two things:

1. The range of meanings of this word in Hellenistic Greek is expanded compared to earlier Greek.

2. The conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus most likely did not take place in Greek but in
Hebrew, since rabbis at that time normally discussed religious matters in Hebrew.

On another list for Bible translators we recently had a long discussion about this, since it is
important for professional translators of the Bible. Let me paste and edit 2 sections from that
discussion. The first section deals mainly with 1 above, the second mainly with 2.

Section 1:
ANWQEN occurs 24 times in the LXX, but only in the Wisdom passage does it have the sense of "anew,
afresh". Looking at my various Classical Greek dictionaries, they do not cite this sense. So, my
tentative conclusion is that in earlier Greek the word had only two senses:
1. from above (locative)
2. from the beginning (temporal)

It is not surprising to me that the same word can embrace both senses. The concept of "topmost" in
Greek may include both foremost in position and foremost in time. We find something similar in
the words ARCH and PRWTOS, although not in ANW itself.

There are two passages cited by Thayer in Josephus and Martyrdom of Polycarp, and in both
cases the sense intended is "afresh, anew".
It seems that in later Greek a third sense had developed, that of "afresh, anew, all over
again." It is a natural extension of "from the beginning" in that one has to make "a fresh start" in
some area.

ANWQEN occurs 13 times in the NT.

Sense 1 (from above) is the most common. It is found in Matt 27:51 (Mark 15:38), John 3:31,
19:11,23, James 1:17, 3:15,17. In all cases the locative sense is clear from context, often from a
verb of motion.

Sense 2 (from the beginning) is less common. As far as I can tell it is found in Luke 1:3 and Acts
26:5.

Sense 3 (afresh, anew, all over again) is also not common. It seems to be found only in John 3:3,7
and Gal 4:9. One might consider Luke 1:3 to belong here, too, but most people don't. Did Luke
investigate it all from the beginning or afresh?

As is always the case with words with several senses, which one to choose depends on context. Since
sense 1 is always clarified by other locative words, and since sense 2 at least at Acts 26:5 is
connected with a temporal prefix in PROGINWSKW, and since there is neither locative or time words in
John 3:3,7, and since as Thayer notes, the locative sense "from above" does not fit the context, my
conclusion is that the word in John 3 does not mean or was intended to mean "from above", but rather
"afresh, anew, all over again".

Section 2:
Although ANWQEN has several senses in Greek, there is no corresponding word in Hebrew (or Aramaic)
with the same range of senses. This means that if you were to back translate the word into Hebrew,
you would have to make a choice between different words depending on the chosen sense of the Greek.

Assuming that Jesus and Nicodemus spoke in Hebrew, then there would be no ambiguity intended in the
original statement by Jesus. It was not easily understandable by Nicodemus, but that is a different
matter. Many of Jesus' sayings were not easily understandable, and John especially likes to document
how people initially misunderstood Jesus, usually because they were thinking literally where he was
speaking spiritually.

A related question is: Did John intend an ambiguity by using this word?

The question is difficult to discuss without also discussing the related question: What did Jesus
intend to communicate and was John faithful in relaying the same intention in his translation?

If Jesus intended to say: "You must be born all over again," would John have had any other choice of
words? He might not want to use PALIN, since that does not quite fit the context. For PALIN, BAGD
says: "again, once more, anew when someone repeats someth. he has already done (Jos., Ant. 12, 109),
or an event takes place in the same (or a similar) manner as before, or a state of being recurs in
the same (or nearly the same) way as at first."

What Jesus - and John - is talking about is not a repetition of the physical birth in the same
manner. This actually seems to be the way Nicodemus misunderstands Jesus, so I assume that the
Hebrew word for "again, anew, afresh" actually covers both PALIN and sense 3 of ANWQEN. Again, I
assume that the Hebrew word Jesus used was 'od. Now this Hebrew word has a much broader range of
senses than PALIN. The LXX translates 'od by PALIN when it is clearly a repetition of the same kind
of event (as e.g. Gen 29:33 where Leah conceived again.) The more common translation of 'od in the
LXX is ETI.
For this word BAGD cites among other senses: "of that which is added to what is already at hand: in
addition, more, also, other...ETI KAI ETI 'again and again'." So this means "again" in the sense of
addition. The more common translation of this word in English is "still, yet".

So, we are actually faced with a common translation problem. You have the original Hebrew word 'od
with a range of meanings. John might have chosen ETI or PALIN, but he chose ANWQEN because the birth
being talked about is not another event of the same kind or manner as the natural birth nor is it
again in the sense of addition, more of the same kind. By choosing ANWQEN he is actually more
precise in Greek that the original was, and on this background Nicodemus appears in Greek to be more
obtuse than he was. It so happens that ANWQEN also has another sense not included in the original
'od. To be born 'od could mean to be born again in the same way. It would be the most natural
understanding, and this is what Nicodemus thinks that Jesus is saying, but he can't mean that, can
he? No, of course not, and that is why Jesus goes ahead to contrast the natural birth with the
spiritual birth which is of a different kind altogether.

To sum up, Jesus probably used a rather common word with a range of senses around the concept of a
"second event". The word does not include the sense "from above" and therefore Jesus could not have
intended a play on words with that sense.
John chose one word among several options, and he chose wisely. By his choice he happened to exclude
some of the senses of the original word, but that is a fact of translation. Choices always have
consequences.
However, since the original sense did not include an ambiguity involving "from above" it is unlikely
that John intended to ADD that kind of ambiguity to the text. Why should he? That sense would not be
included in how he understood the original text. I accept that some might claim that John DID intend
to add an ambiguity which he knew was not in the original nor intended, but I have not seen any
evidence or reasoning for such a claim.

Another question is: How are we to understand the word ANWQEN in this context. Apart from context,
the word has three related senses in Koine Greek. So, we are left to choose the intended sense from
context. As has been argued - to me quite convincingly - the "from above" does not fit the context,
since Nicodemus is not asking "How can one be born from above?" He is asking: "How can one be born a
second time (DEUTERON)?" This leaves us with the third sense (afresh, anew, all over again) which
fits both the Greek context, the logic of the dialogue and the assumed Hebrew word used.

Iver Larsen




More information about the B-Greek mailing list