[B-Greek] Can QEOS be used in apposition to MONOGENHS in John1:18-revised

Yancy W Smith yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
Thu Nov 5 23:45:51 EST 2009


Translators are laoth to leave a translation unmeaningful in the  
reader's text line. They/we would rather conjecture a meaningful  
reading for the text line. The more honest ones put the nonsensical  
text the nonsensical text in a footnote. There are about 60  
untranslatable passages in the OT. Where the original text is  
defective, for the sake of stake holders (translation sponsors) and  
audiences, we fear readers  will be scandalized by something like  
"Saul was .... year[s] old when he began to reign and he reigned  
for ... years." Unfortunately the text as it stands in John 1:18 may  
not mean exactly what author intended it to mean. Or, more likely, it  
is a puzzle the author intended the audience to figure out upon re- 
reading. So it shall remain.


Yancy Smith

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 5, 2009, at 5:11 PM, Blue Meeksbay <bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com>  
wrote:

>  To all on the list -
>
> Harold Holmyard wrote:
> HH: An "over-literal translation" would be a wrong translation,  
> wouldn't
> it? How is it an "elegant solution" to suggest that the Greek is a
> mistranslation from the Aramaic?
>
> Perhaps, considering all the dialogue this question has  
> "engendered," an "over-literal translation" would be good! At least,  
> in problem verses as this! If there can be so much disagreement over  
> a few Greek words, how can anyone give an "elegant" translation! I  
> forget who it was, but someone on the list said it bothers him when  
> people say the Greek language is such a precise language; he then  
> says it is not precise. Assuming that is true, on problematic verses  
> like this, should we not give a "over-literal translation" and let  
> fellow Christians, or whoever might read the passage, the text in  
> its basal state so they can  decide for themselves? I believe  
> people, who cannot read Greek, should have the ability to decide for  
> themselves what John may mean, or Paul or Peter may mean. I know  
> that can lead to another danger of misunderstanding the nuances of  
> the language, but at least, on difficult verses like this, why not  
> cover those dangers in glosses, and
> try to leave the text as literal as possible, (that is without  
> losing all sense of meaning), because from a purely linguistic point  
> of view you will always have someone who will disagree. Be elegant  
> on the many other portions of the Bible. Just a thought!
>
> Best regards,
> B.Harris
>
> P.S. After all, how many difficult passages are their?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 at earthlink.net>
> To: B-Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Thu, November 5, 2009 2:38:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Can QEOS be used in apposition to MONOGENHS  
> in John1:18-revised
>
> Hi, Yancy,
>> It is right to wonder to what extent the author of GJohn 1 was  
>> thinking with Hebrew or Syriac-Aramaic, or whether the Greek text  
>> represents an over-literal translation of a Semitic original text.  
>> Matthew Black gives a nod to Burney's elegant solution to the  
>> problem of this text (Aramaic Approach, 11). He suggests that an  
>> Aramaic YeCHiDh 'eLaHa "the only begotten of God" was translated  
>> MONOGENHS QEOS. And, of course, that could also be "only begotten,  
>> beloved one" of God this would make a good link with the bit about  
>> being in the KOLPON of the Father.
>>
>> GJohn 1:18 is not only text that gives a defective or confusing  
>> sense in Greek because of interference from Semitic background. But  
>> I am intrigued by one of Rolf's comments.
>>
>
>
> HH: An "over-literal translation" would be a wrong translation,  
> wouldn't
> it? How is it an "elegant solution" to suggest that the Greek is a
> mistranslation from the Aramaic?
>
>>
>> Perhaps we should also remember that GJohn is a highly polemical  
>> text in which disciples are also being schooled in crafting, within  
>> first century Judasims, non-standard messages about Jesus in a  
>> highly volatile social situation. Here in John 1:18  
>> "mistranslation" may be a stealthy way to hedge the statement. In  
>> other words, GJohn may be using a cleverness of expression common  
>> in Greco-Roman rhetoric, figured expression with built in plausible  
>> deniability called EMFASIS, used frequently in moments in which the  
>> speaker must speak in a stealthy way. This way of constantly,  
>> carefully parsing one's words to simultaneously hide and reveal  
>> meaning was a characteristic of Jesus and is a characteristic of  
>> oppressed peoples in general, as seen in James Scott, Domination  
>> and the Arts of Resistance. Scott's work is used to great effect by  
>> Warren Carter in John and Empire: Initial Explorations.
>>
>
> HH: Here the suggestion seems to be that it could have been  
> deliberately
> wrong. Where is the cleverness here?
>
> HH: Thanks for all the effort that went into this post, but I must be
> missing something.
>
> Yours,
> Harold Holmyard
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
>
>
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek



More information about the B-Greek mailing list