Reading the Gospel of John.

If anyone is interested in this topic, perhaps we could begin with the first few lines and try to give a literal translation. I'll give my version and would welcome comments, alternative readings and corrections!

εν αρχε ην ο λογοσ, και ο λογοσ ην προσ τον θεον,
και θεοσ ην ο λογοσ.

In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and (lit) God was the word ( usually reversed to "the word was God")

οθτοσ ην εν αρχε προσ τοω θεον.
Ηe (It?) was with God in the beginning.

Not to cause a big Trinitarian discussion, but προς, typically means towards, with a suggestion of movement. The BAGD has one defintion that fits here or, "by, at, near, in company."

θεος ην ο λογος.

Another idea is that θεος as predicate nominative might suggest a descriptive, qualitative, idea, rather than an identy relationship.

Daniel Wallace explains "The force of this construction is most likely to empasize the nature of the Word, not his identity"

A tougher verse for me is 3 and 4.

παντα δι’ αυτου εγενετο και χωρις αυτου εγενετο ουδε εν ο γεγονεν εν αυτω ζωη ην...

The question is how to read the phrase ο γεγονεν.

Without him not one thing was made. What was made in/by him was life.
Without him not one thing was made which was made. In/by him was life.

I don't think there is anyway to decide based on the grammar.

First, let me applaud your efforts. Also, I understand how motivating having a text you want to translate is for language learning, so by all means keep working with the text. (There is a first year Greek textbook that uses John as the text for the lessons Stephen W. Paine's Beginning Greek: A Functional Approach)

However, before you decide to start new sects based on your interpretation of scriptures, please remember that you are years away from subtle grammatical points like how topic and focus works in ancient Greek not to mention having any kind of grasp on the nightmare of Greek prepositions (which is what caused me to throw in the towel). As my sophomore English teacher kept saying to us, "You ain't got there yet."

Keep plugging away!

Please join in here, to prevent me from any attempts to create a new sect. I think the focus is the grammar and not the theology. I know that will be my focus.

Perhaps though you will be able to point out the errors in what I wrote in 2 and 3.

>1 kathymoo: θεος ην ο λογος

Regarding the question which nominative is the subject and which is the predicate nominative, Wallace offers this pecking order:

1. The subject is the pronoun
2. The subject is articular
3. The subject is a proper noun

In English the word order has more force in identifying the subject and the predicate nominative. Putting θεος first in a Greek sentence may show the emphatic point, but not identify the subject vs predicate nominative.

6: Yes, this is the stuff related to topic and focus. I never got that far in Greek, I just know it exists and that when words switch order in a translation from the original, the translator is often trying to render the emphasis the same as it held in the original, which sometimes involves switching word order.

In 2 you say that *pros* often indicates movement, which is perfectly true, but prepositions are extremely variable in Greek (as they are in English) to the point where I got the impression that translating them into English was a really tricky business (my friend who actually had a teacher had extensive tables for the prepositions and they're possible meanings). So I don't know if you're wrong, but if the translator isn't rendering it the way you do, there might be a reason (like they've statistically looked at all the uses of *pros* in the Gospel of John and concluded that it really doesn't have the movement connotation in this construction -- not saying they did, just saying there may be information not available to you at this level to understand their choice.)

As I said, carry on. I'm enjoying trying to remember the little bit I learned, oh, 30 years ago.

Actually, I think "with" is about as good a translation of PROS in this use as is possible. The BAGD definition that I referenced in the comment is by, at, near, in company.

But there is some sense with PROS that is the reason the evangelist did not use META or SUN.

There is a rhythm in verses 15-17 with the repetion of οτι, that is not obvious in translation, and that I had previously missed.

ο οπισω μου ερχομενος εμπροσθεν μου γεγονεν
οτι πρωτος μου ην
οτι εκ του πληρωματος αυτου ημεις παντες ελαβομεν χαριν αντι χαριτος
οτι ο νομος δια Μωυσεως εδοθη, η χαρις
και η αληθεια δια Ιησου Χριστου

The one coming after me, was ranked ahead of me
Because he was first before me
Because we all have received from his fulness, grace upon grace
Because the law was given through Moses, grace and truth through Jesus the Christ

Translations may give a more accurate meaning in translation, but I like when possible to see the rhythms in the writing.

verse 21 ο προφητης ει συ;

This is a good comparison, I think, to the subject/predicate nominative issue in 1:1.

Wallace explains that the pecking order to determine the PN or the subject is:
1. The subject is the pronoun
2. The subject is articular
3. The subject is a proper noun

In verse 21 there is a pronoun and an articular noun, which happens to be first in the sentence. According to Wallace the subject is the pronoun, and the PN is προφητης .

Though προφητης is articular, which makes it unquestionably a definite predicate nominative. This is different from θεος ην ο λογος, where the PN is likely not definite.

That προφητης is definite suggests to me that it point to a specific prophet, perhaps to Dt 18.15.

Goodness, there's a daunting amount of scholarship on this site - it's fascinating trying to follow the discussion anyway. Is Greek widely taught in the US? In Australia both Greek and Latin are disappearing from schools, but Greek in particular (only 3 schools have it in Sydney I think).

> 12

None in Queensland. A couple in Latin.

I teach in the State system and do my best to teach little bits here and there in English (roots and stuff) I'm probably seen as a bit of a dinosaur.

I personally have no scholarship, just a couple books that I hope to use to help our discussion.

12: I'm old enough that my university (in New York State) had a classics department when I was there. They just forced the last classics teacher to retire last year.

I don't think you see Latin and Greek outside of universities and high schools that a pre-seminaries and seminaries or ones with specializations in Mediterranean archaeology. My brother-in-law, a Lutheran minister, feels that his time learning German and Greek was a complete waste and it's better to rely on trained translators than to do it yourself.

A lot of people study Greek on their own here for religious reasons. I took a correspondence course in the 80s until I gave up. Garp83 took an online course in classical Greek a couple of years ago. The thread for his experience is here

Verse 1.48 has an interesting example of a preposition with an infinitive.

προ του σε Φιλιππον φωνησαι

Because it has a subject and object it is a little more involved.

"Before Phillip called you" - only the context can determine the subject or the object of φωνησαι, and putting the σε first emphasizes Nathaniel as the one being called. It is a nuance that just cannot be conveyed in English.

15

I thought garp83 was still taking that Greek course.

I first took up Greek because of the NT, but I really have come to love the language. The recent increase in activity in this group is stirring up some old enthusiasm.

If we just read in fairly large doses and balance that with some writing in the other thread, I think our Greek competence will increase quickly.

ETA
I have a brother in law who is a preacher. Had an uncle minister also. Neither studied Greek or Hebrew. And conversations with many laypersons who love to study and know quite well the bible - but have no interest in learning the original languages.

That just makes no sense to me. Having just a little Greek makes a big difference in understanding the choices that a translation makes, and in considering different translations. It adds so much insight to biblical studies.

2.24

αυτος δε Ιησους ουκ επιστευεν αυτον αυτοις
δια το αυτον γινωσκειν παντας

A good example of the reflexive use of αυτος.

Jesus himself did entrust himself to them. Here πιστευω has a transitive force, that changes its meaning. δια το γινωσκειν is another preposition with an infinitive.

One of the translation questions in chapter 3, is where to place the quotations to mark Jesus' final words to Nicodemus, from 3.10 to 3.21.

This matter can be evaluated in translation, if you recognize that the quotations are placed based on the translator's interpretation, and are not placed according to any requirements of the Greek grammar.

Where do you put the quotations to mark Jesus' final words here, and why?

A good comparison of the time perspective between the cases:

2.1 και τη ημερα τη τριτη (dative -point of time, time when)

3.2 ουτως ηλθεν προς αυτον νυκτος (genitive, kind of time, time within which)

4.40 και εμεινεν εκει δυο ημερας (the "ας" form can be genitive singular or accusative plural, but here it is accusative plural - not genitive singular - time during which, extent of time)

5.46
Contrary to fact conditional:

ει γαρ επιστευετε Μωυσει, επιστευετε αν εμοι.

Past tense in protasis. Imperfect with αν in apodosis. The implication is that the condition was not met, because the result was not accomplished - they do not believe Moses, because they do not believe Jesus.

12-15

I took Koine Greek at the Whitaker School of Theology in Detroit, MI, when I was bout 38. My nephew took Greek in high school in New Hampshire, and graduated with a major in it (Princeton). I'm not sure where he is going with it. He did write a paper on the influence of Greek language and literature on Ezra Pound. I looked up one of his professors and found a paper by him on the pluperfect that I actually found accessible. I also read a book several years about the decline of classical languge learning in France.

My approach to this topic is to look at the Greek, rather than any theological or devotional approach that could be done in English. Except of course where the Greek might convey something not clear in translation. Others may want to discuss more about teachings from the gospel itself, rather that just the Greek.

vpfluke, maybe you will join with our reading?

John has several excellent examples of the genitive absolute and the use of rhetorical questions with ου and μη.

6.18 η τε θαλασσα ανεμου μεγαλου πνεοντος διεγειρετο.

7.47 μη και υμεις πεπλανησθε;
7.51 μη ο νομος ημων κρινει τον ανθρωπον εαν μη ακοθση πρωτον παρ' αυτου και γνω τι ποιει;

This is not so much about the Greek; it can certainly be noticed in translation.

The transition in verse 7.53 just seems odd.

8.25
την αρχην ο τι και λαλω θμιν

This is a hard verse. My initial reading is " (I am) the beginning, which even I telling you."

Scholars though take την αρχην to be an adverbial accusative - meaning either from the beginning or entirely, wholly, altogether. And this means that my initial reading is not nuanced enough to pick up on the adverbial accusative.

Some alternatives

"Wholly what I am telling you"
"From the beginning what I am telling"

According to scholars, it is not clear if the sentence should be a question, a statement, or an exclamation.

"Why do I even speak at all?"
οτι here read as "why"

"That I even speak to you at all!"
οτι here read as "that"

Another possibility
"From the beginning, what have I also said to you?"

Actually, I am having a difficult time understanding the sense of the exchange in 25 and 26.

The question is "Who are you?"

The answer is "What am I even saying to you? I have much to say and judge concerning you (not sure who the audience is), but the one who sent me is true.....

What is the semantic force of the "but"

Maybe it means something like, I have much to say and to judge, but the one who sent me is true (therefore I will not say what I have to say and to judge what I have to judge)?

How does that answer "Who are you?"

What sense of the word "true" is being used to describe the one whe sent me?

Don't we have to look at this in light of the exchange in Exodus between Moses and God, when Moses asks what to call God and gets another grammatical hodge-podge? In that context, "From the beginning, what have I said to you?" is an interesting translation.

The adverbial accusative is the difficulty, plus the texts themselves are apparently not clear how to render the οτι . Is the phrase a statement, a question, or an exclamation.

I try to read την αρχην as Jesus is the beginning, but that is not how it should be read. If Jesus said I am the beginning, then it would be a nominative case.

So we are left with a likely adverbial accusative. Perhaps την αρχην is an verbalization of exasperation.

"Who are you?"
"Since the first, what am I saying to you?"

The comparison to the Exodus exchange is an interesting idea.

Taking the entire exchange as a whole, not focusing down on that single difficult verse, I think this interpretation makes the most sense, for me.

The question is "Who are you?"

The answer is given in verse 28, "When you have lifted the son of man, then you will know I am."

The statements between the question in 26 and the answer in 28, express Jesus' frustration. "From the beginning. What am I saying to you? (rhetorical question) Many things I have to tell and to judge concerning you(pl), but the one who sent me is true (therefore I tell things at the pace he sets), and what I have heard from him, these things I speak to the world (not the things I want or have to say). (In other words, Jesus can only say what he has been given to say, but..... You will know I am when you raise the son of man.)

John 9.39
εις κριμα εγω εις τον κοσμον τουτον ηλθον, ινα μη βλεποντες βπεπωσιν και οι βλεποντες τυφλοι γενωνται.

Not especially a question about the Greek, but I think this judgment is the judgement of each individual, not judgment by Jesus.

Jesus came into the world to force people to judge of themselves.

9.40
μη και ημεις τυφλοι εσμεν;

Another example of John using the μη negative question - the asker expecting a negative response.

"We are not blind are we?" is a question expecting a response "No you are not blind."

Jesus gives the Pharisees their expected response, agreeing that they are not blind, but he turns that agreement into unexpected judgement.

The nuance in this exchange is missed, unnecessarily, in many translations. It can be conveyed in translation. I am not sure the reason it is not so translated.

9.41
A good example of a contrary to fact conditional, and its rhetorical force.

10.29
ὁ πατήρ μου ὃ δέδωκέν μοι πάντων μεῖζόν ἐστιν, καὶ οὐδεὶς δύναται ἁρπάζειν ἐκ τῆς χειρὸς τοῦ πατρός.

This is a difficult verse because the neuter relative pronoun is placed close to ο πατηρ, where the expected relative pronoun would be nominative ος.

The Father who gave to me is greater than everything. seems to be the natural translation except for the neuter relative which would change the reading to The Father, what he gave to me is greater than everything.

To read the first option, one has to assume the neuter relative is a mistake.
To read the second option, one has to assume that the sheep given to Jesus are greater that everything. Not sure that interpretation fits.

Metzger offers a way out in the Textual Commentary, calling the location of ο δεδωκεν μοι an instance of hypberbaton - unusual location of a phrase or word for effect.

Meaning that ο πατηρ μου is to be read as the subject, within the relative clause, of δεδωκεν. What the Father has given to me is greater than everything.

I like the idea of hyperbaton, but it does not seem correct that "what was given to me is greater than everything."

I think I am leaning towards this rendering, taking the ο δεδωκεν μοι is the object of the infinitive αρπαζειν. This requires the relative clause to be moved across the conjuction και. This amount of dislocation though may not be reasonable.

The Father is greater than all, and what he has given to me, no one is able to seize from the hands of the father.

John 11.4-7
4 ἀκούσας δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· αὕτη ἡ ἀσθένεια οὐκ ἔστιν πρὸς θάνατον ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὲρ τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ,
ἵνα δοξασθῇ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ δι᾽ αὐτῆς. 5 ἠγάπα δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὴν Μάρθαν
καὶ τὴν ἀδελφὴν αὐτῆς καὶ τὸν Λάζαρον. 6 ὡς οὖν ἤκουσεν ὅτι ἀσθενεῖ,
τότε μὲν ἔμεινεν ἐν ᾧ ἦν τόπῳ δύο ἡμέρας,
7 ἔπειτα μετὰ τοῦτο λέγει τοῖς μαθηταῖς· ἄγωμεν εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν πάλιν.

This series of verses seem to present a disconnect between the words and the story.

Verse 5 "But Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus, accordingly then he remained in the place he was."

It would seem that loving Martha, her sister and Lazarus would be a reason to go to Bethany, not a reason to stay in the place he is.

The other minor grammar point is that μεν is usually followed by a δε clause - on the one hand....on the other hand. There is not a following δε clause here.

BAGD in the μεν entry explains that μεν is frequently found in anacolutha, with the contrast either understood from context or actually expressed but without the adversative form.

I think these verses are an example of the second type, with επειτα μετα τουτο expressing the contrasting clause.

As therefore he heard that he was sick, first then Jesus remained in the place he was for two days, but afterwards he said to the discipes, 'Let's go.'

One the one hand (at first) he stayed, on the second hand (after) he went.

The remaining seeming disconnect is that the verses seem to suggest that the reason he remained away, was that he loved Martha, her sister, and Lazarus.

ως ουν would seem to suggest a logical result of the preceding condition. "Jesus loved, therefore when he heard he did not go." The logical flow would seem to be "Jesus loved, therefore when he heard he went."

My thoughts are that verse 6 connects logically, inferentially, to verse 4, and that verse 5 separated by the contrasting δε clause is almost paranthetical. Verse 5 describes the tension that Jesus felt at not being able to leave immediately, because it was necessary to wait so that "the Son might be glorified."

After hearing Jesus said,' This sickness is not to the death, but for the glory of God, so that the Son of God might be glorified through it. (But Jesus continued to love Martha and her sister and Lazarus) When therefore Jesus heard that he was sick, he at first remained in the place he was for 2 days; then after that he said to his disciples, 'Let us go.'

He remained because of the need to glorify the son, despite the desire to leave immediately out of his continuing love that conflicted with his obedience to the instruction from the Father to remain.

John 11.26

25 εἶπεν αὐτῇ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἀνάστασις καὶ ἡ ζωή· ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ κἂν ἀποθάνῃ ζήσεται, 26 καὶ πᾶς ὁ ζῶν καὶ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ οὐ μὴ ἀποθάνῃ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα

When I read this, without comparing with a translation, I read verse 26 as "And each who lives and believes in me will not die forever."

They may die, but they will not die eternally.

Many translations have "will never die."

I do not think that is the best understanding, for many reasons.

John 11.21
ειπεν ουν Μαρθα προς τον Ιησουν, κυριε, ει ης ωδε ουκ αν απεθανεν ο αδελφος μου

translation

Martha then said, "Lord if you were here my brother would not have died."

John 12.20
ουτοι ουν προσηλθον Φιλιππω...και ηρωτων αυτον λεγοντες, κυριε, θελομεν τον Ιησουν ιδειν

translation

These then came to Philip...and asked him, "Sir, we would like to see Jesus."

What is the reason to translate κυριε as Lord in 11.21 and as sir in 12.20? When we read in English "lord" are we reading more into the sense than is actually there?

The first κυριε refers to Jesus, the second to Philip. I don't think we ever refer to Jesus as sir in English. So, in English we apply more hierarchy to this exchange. Maybe Philip could be referred to as Lord, but then it sounds like we are ascribing a title to someone that isn't quite right. So we do our best approximation.

I agree.

But how much of that distinction is being read into the text from our theology, and how much is being read out of the text by its context. Of course in translation it is not apparent that the same word is used in reference to Jesus as to Philip.

It stood out to me last night in my readings, and the question seemed worthwhile to consider, especially as we are discussing the Greek writing in John's gospel.

It struck me that perhaps κυριε might be very appropriate when initiating a conversation with someone with whom you are not familiar, especially if you want to communicate respect when you initiate a conversation.

κυριε might be less appropriate for someone you are familiar with, unless there is a recognition of a high level of respect that is owed that person, despite their familiarity.

With this consideration, is Jesus being addressed as Lord with the idea of conveying respect, or is the use of Lord by Martha intended to convey her recognition that Jesus is Lord and God?

Martha is giving respect, but we as translators can't help but merge that into our own determination of Jesus as Lord. We can't help bringing who we are into our scripture reading, and that includes our theology.

14.1 πιστυετε εις τον θεον και εις εμε πιστευετε.

There is no way from the Greek or I think from the context to definitively determine whether πιστευετε is imperative or indicative, especially the first verb.

I always read the first as indicative, though I would be hard pressed to give any reason.

14.14,15
εαν τι αιτησητε με εν τω ονοματι μου εγω ποιησω. εαν αγαπατε με, τας εντολας τας εμας τηρησετε.

Two good examples of future more vivid conditional statements. εαν with subjunctive in the protasis (if clause) and a future tense in the apodosis (result clause).

More conditionals in John

14.28
ει ηγαπατε με εχαρητε αν οτι πορευομαι
προς τον πατερα

NRSV
28 If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father
RSV
If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father

I think the NRSV is more correct putting the statement in the present tense, rather than in the past tense, although I think "If you love me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father" might more emphasize the sense of the present tense

I think the past tense is used in 14:28 to bring forth the sense that Jesus had not yet gone to the father, and the proof of the statement is not in what Jesus is saying to those he is speaking, but is to be shown by the events to happen shortly. The English present gives us a greater indicative sense then what Jesus wanted to give forth -- I think Greek is using an imperfect (if you loved me) for the protasis and aorist for the apodasis, so there isn't really a "present" feeling in the Greek.

Perhaps not. I will check some other grammars, but Crosby and Schaeffer has this about contrary to fact conditionals.

"ει with a past tense of the indicative in the protasis and a past tense of the indicative with αν in the apodosis implies the condition is not or was not fulfilled. This is called a contrary to fact condition.

The imperfect tense (in the protasis) indicates present time; the aorist (in the protasis) indicates past time."

John 17.2

ινα παν ο δεδωκας αυτω δωση αυτοις

Robertson explains this verse as a classical Greek idiom, using the collective neuter, either singular or plural. In this case, παν ο, is collective neuter. And also in John 6.37,39.

"Sometimes the neuter singular was used in a collective sense for the sum total."

Robertson explains the αυτοις refers back to the ο παν, with the collective neuter used as a nominative absolute, which describes all the people given to Jesus.

so that, all which you have given to him (to Jesus), to them I will give eternal life.

John 17.11 and 12

ω δεδωκας μοι

This is a texual question as well as a grammatical question. Metzger gives the reading a C possibility with the dative relative neuter singular pronoun. Other versions have ο δεδωκας μοι, replacing the dative with the accusative singular neuter relative pronoun, which has better grammatical sense.

Metzger suggests the original dative was written because of attraction to the case of the antecedent, but the only dative antecedent is τω οναοματι. This would mean that in verse 11 and 12, it is the name of the Father which Jesus is saying has been given to him.

"Holy Father, keep them in your name, which name has been given to me, so that they may be one, as we (are one)."