Re: John 1:5

Date: Thu May 07 1998 - 11:41:33 EDT

Hello Rich ~

I can't offer you a trade, but I can GIVE you my read on this, which
is that this present is the SAME present as EGW EIMI [As in "before
Abraham was...] ~ Which is to say, the omnipresent of the present
tense, and right smack dab in the middle of the ARCH!

Grace to You ~

George Blaisdell

Richard Lindeman wrote:
> Carl Conrad writes:
> >Well, for once we agree on something, George. I think that present FAINEI
> >is indeed important and would even be willing to convey it as "continues to
> >shine" or "goes on shining"--my reading of Johannine theology is that the
> >shining started with the incarnation but really climaxed with the
> >crucifixion/resurrection--which is to say with the
> >exaltation/glorification. Of course this COULD have been expressed with an
> >imperfect (or "past imperfect" as you call it above), but I would translate
> >an imperfect (if it were EFAINEN) as "the light began to shine ..."-- the
> >built-in imperfective aspect here is the emphasis upon the uncompleted,
> >i.e. ongoing, process of shining.
> I am fairly certain that Carl will agree that the *time* of FAINEI in John
> 1:5 depends upon whether whether we read this verse as an independent clause
> or a dependent clause within the paragraph. In the former case we must
> translate it with absolute time(present - ongoing). In the latter case we
> must translate it as relative time(past - ongoing). I read this clause as
> being strongly dependent and yet at the same time introducing an independent
> thought.
> I appeal to SMYTH grammar... paragraph #2388 which states that "the time
> denoted by a temporal clause is not always solely contemporaneous,
> antecedent, or subsequent to that of the principle clause, but may overlap
> with the time of the principle clause (before and at the same time, at the
> same time and after, until and after)
> Therefore I offer Carl the following barter: I will concede that FAINEI is
> not exclusively past time if he will concede that it is not exclusively
> present time. The paraphrase of the verse (not its translation) might be as
> follows... ""The light has been and continues shining now in the the
> darkness yet the darkness did not overcome it."
> Richards Translation Rule #1: Barter makes for good translations. If one
> can trade or barter with another small insights together with large portions
> of one's own ego then the translation will be better.
> Rich Lindeman

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:42 EDT