Talk:John 1-7 (Translated)

Truth or word

While I agree "truth" has too narrow a meaning, at first glance, it may serve the purpose well when explained properly. Sadly, many Christians believe that "word" refers to the Bible itself, rather than the deep concept of logos. Is there a better term than either? Message? DouglasA 22:12, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

I'm not a Greek scholar, but λογος, as I understand it, had an enormous range of implications in first century Greek, deeply rooted in a Greek culture which held all reality to be logical and ordered, and flowing from logic and order. While truth is being used now, I think we would be hard pressed to find a single word which encompasses all the meaning and implications of λογος. The question we must ask ourselves, is how much of the beauty of the first passage(s) of John are we willing sacrifice to give a completely accurate translation? If we don't care at all for the prose, perhaps John 1:1 might better read, "In the beginning was truth, reason, wisdom, and harmony, and all this was with God for this is what God is." A suggestion. JacobB 17:10, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

Whoops, sorry for putting the comment Re 1:9 in the wrong place. Feel free to just delete it if you want. --MarkGall 17:28, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

The more foundational question that needs to be decided here is whether this is going to be a dynamic paraphrase, or a strict translation. In other words, are we attempting to relate what the Greek actually SAYS, or are we attempting to explain what we believe it MEANS? If this is a strict translation, then using "truth" in John 1:1 is not an option, as the word "aletheia" does not appear in that verse. Like it or not, we are stuck with legitimate translations of logos: "word, message, reason, communication, thought, etc." If, however, this is more of a dynamic paraphrase, then we are not restricted by what the Greek actually says, and are free to use whatever words we need to "explain" what the Greek means. In that case, we can describe the force and meaning of logos in our "translation." As it stands right now, this is something of an odd cross between a translation and a paraphrase. So we need a philosophy of translation that goes beyond "conservative" and guides us in how strict or loose we are allowed to be in this re-translation. That alone would settle many of these translation disputes. Mback

We're doing a "thought-for-thought" translation. That's not a paraphrase, but that's not tied down by literalism either.

That said, I'm not entirely comfortable with "truth", as it has harsh connotations that are contrary to forgiveness. "Word" does have advantages, but it is so diluted. This debate may continue on.--Andy Schlafly 22:06, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

1:2

The entire purpose of verse two is emphasis, and some of that is lost in this translation. "All this" is not the best translation to relate the force of "houtos" in this construction. In verse 2 "houtos" is serving as an emphatic form of "autos," placing extra emphasis on "this SAME individual..." The purpose here is to emphasize the personal nature of the logos in verse one. "This same one," or even "this very same one" or something like that would be better. As it stands now, "all this" does exactly the opposite of what the Greek is attempting to relate: it DE-PERSONALIZES the logos from verse one, which is actually a more "liberal" approach to this verse. Mback 12:08, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

You're a genius, Mback! Changed as suggested.--Andy Schlafly 22:09, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

1:3

P66 has "outen" (nothing) in this verse while P75 has "oute hen" (not one thing), which is simply a more emphatic form of "outen." Our translation suggests we are going with the Greek in P75 (wise choice, given that p66 has 5 times as many copy errors as p75), and if that is the case, we should keep the emphatic nature of the words found there. "Not one thing" or "not one single thing" relates the emphatic force of the Greek much better than "no thing." The repetition of "ginomai" is also a function of emphasis, but, again, depending on how strict we are going to be, we probably can get away with dropping the last "that has been made" in this verse, as this translation does. Mback 12:21, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

Mback, you're obviously brilliant, knowledgeable and meticulous. I made your change here but please feel free to edit any of the translations directly yourself, along with your highly informative comments!--Andy Schlafly 22:13, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

1:4

I guess I need to know if we are doing a paraphrase or a strict translation, because this verse as it stands is a paraphrase. "He was the source of life" works in terms of relating what the Greek means (paraphrase), but that is NOT what the Greek actually says (strict translation). As a paraphrase, I don't see any reason why we can't do a better job of distinguishing between "dzoe" and "bios." How about something like, "He was the source of real life..." or "Real life was found only in Him, and ..."? Mback 12:43, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

1:5

While this verse definitely has many different modern translations, "snuff it out" is an idiom, not a defined "dictionary" word. That phrase gives this a strong "Message paraphrase" feel, as opposed to a more scholarly, exacting translation. Is that what we want? I have no problem with idioms, but in a strict translation, you usually limit the use of idioms in English to places where idioms occur in the Greek (which, admittedly, is fairly common). Mback 12:52, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

Interesting point. Thanks. I'll check out your other suggestions also.--Andy Schlafly 12:34, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

1:7

Note that the use of "houtos" in this verse is similar to how John uses it in verse two. John uses it as a more emphatic form of "autos," emphasizing that "this SAME John who was just mentioned in the previous sentence" is the one being referenced here. Mback 1:16, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

1:9

"Animates" is not a good translation of photidzo, but it is a marginally adequate paraphrase, if we are OK with the fact that it changes the flow of John's argument. Strictly speaking, in modern English "animates" references "giving life to" or "bringing to life." It could be argued that this is the effect of the light of God, making it a VERY loose paraphrase of what this verse is talking about, but it is a very poor word choice if the goal is a strict translation. The problem is that our translation takes the REVERSE meaning of verse four, which tells us that the real life He had within Him gave light to men. The current translation of this verse reverses that, and says the light from Him gives life. We could argue that this is still a true statement, but being a true statement, and being an accurate translation of the verse is not the same thing. Reversing the statement of verse four is NOT what the Greek is intending here. This verse is a follow up to the previous verses contrasting light with darkness, and photidzo specifically is "to enlighten, to bring into the light, to illuminate, to shine a light upon." The point of this verse is supposed to be that the true light brings us out of darkness, NOT that it gives us life. There is a difference between translating a verse into an English statement that just happens to be true, versus translating it into an English statement that actually relates what the verse SAYS, and is also true. Mback 1:55, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

1:1 and 1:14

Using "Truth" for λογος in 1:1 but then "spirit" in 1:14 is not theologically sound. In the KJV, we have "the Word was God ... and the Word was made flesh" which indisputably places Jesus as being God. Changing from "Truth" to "spirit" breaks that link between the two and can mislead readers into a sub-Arian interpretation where Jesus is the son and messenger of God rather than being God Incarnate in human form.

I agree completely. Whatever word we use for "logos" in verse 1 HAS to be used here. John's phrasing in this verse is NOT just to make a vague comment about "the spirit" becoming flesh (which is actually a very liberal, new age way of looking at this verse), but rather, specifically that the logos of verse 1, who is both "with" God and "is" God, became flesh. It is my understanding that a conservative translation would emphasize the "incarnate God" aspect of Jesus' birth, as opposed to de-emphasizing it, which is what this translation currently does. Mback 2:07, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

1:16

Translating "lambano" as "benefited" is certainly unusual, but can only be considered "appropriate" if our translation guidelines are "very, very loose paraphrase." This is, again, a discussion of whether or not our goal is to translate the Greek into something that "kind of relates the force and effect" of the Greek versus coming much closer to what the Greek actually SAYS. Lambano never has the meaning of "benefits" anywhere in the New Testament. Is the EFFECT of "receiving" beneficial? Absolutely. But the "effect" of the word and the "meaning" of the word are not the same thing. Even without having seen it explicitly explained, it is becoming very clear that this is some form of a paraphrase, not a strict translation . . . which is fine, as a good paraphrase does serve a purpose, but we need to be up front and clear about that right at the outset. This translation falls into the category of paraphrases currently occupied by such versions as "The Message" and "Good News for Modern Man" and "Today's New International Version" (we just have a different goal: the Conservative Paraphrase). It seems clear at this point that we are NOT attempting a strict "word for word" or even "phrase for phrase" translation, such as that found in the KJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, or any other version that attempts to stick strictly to what the Greek actually SAYS. Again, that is fine so long as that is what we really WANT. Mback 2:27, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

1:18

Using "spoken of" for "exegeomai" is a very surface translation of what this word relates, and has the effect of narrowing the force of this verse. Exegeomai is a much stronger word which is more about "unfolding" or "laying out in detail." It actually relates the idea of presenting something with great depth and breadth, a richer, fuller, more detailed explanation; it is not just "speaking about" something, but more carries the idea of "explaining" that thing. "Explained," or "unfolded" or even "thoroughly presented" would related the idea of this word better in this context. Mback 2:38, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

1:19

"Testimony" is a MUCH, MUCH better translation of "marturia" than "record." Excellent choice here. Mback 2:49, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

1:21

Just as a note here, this is one of the verses that Muslims use to claim that the New Testament foretells the coming of Mohamed. They believe that all references to "that prophet" or "the prophet" are prophesies about the expected FINAL prophet who would set everyone straight: Mohamed. The thing to note here is that John was not denying being a specific prophet, he was actually denying being a prophet of any kind. Whether through humility or because he had a different ministry, John chose NOT to classify himself as a prophet, something that is re-enforced in verse 25 where we render the same Greek construction as "another prophet." Since this seems to be more of a paraphrase than a strict translation, it really would relate the meaning of this verse better to say simply "another prophet" here, as we do in verse 25. Mback 2:59, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

1:23

Euthuno means "straight, straightened out", not "clear." The idea is NOT about removing obstacles in the path, but rather, that the path have no turns or side routes. In other words, "there is only ONE path that leads to God, and it has no turns or curves" (which is very much the conservative message, is it not?). While it is true that the Hebrew uses the words "clear" and "smooth" here, this is actually from the Septuagint, which uses "euthus," the substantive form of euthuno, meaning "straight." In other words, John doesn't just quote the OT, by quoting the Septuagint, he uses a quote that actually relates the INTENT or MEANING of the Hebrew. If John believes that was a good choice, I think we should stick with his selection, and translate the Greek found in this verse, NOT the Hebrew found in Isaiah 40:3. This shows that the struggle between "strict translation" and "paraphrase" is a very old one. The translators of the Septuagint actually used a mild Greek paraphrase of the Hebrew in translating Isaiah 40:3, and John gives added authority to the wise choice of that paraphrase by choosing their wording (as opposed to a direct and stricter translation of the Hebrew) for his quotation.

Additionally, I think the ending phrase "just as the prophet Isaiah was" is not quite as clear as it could be. This choice makes the force of the verse be: I am a voice in the wilderness . . . just like Isaiah was. This is true, but it kind of loses the point that this is not just something Isaiah did, but is, in fact, a QUOTATION from Isaiah. Mback 3:22, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

1:24

This is a fairly minor point, but this verse does not say those questioning "were Pharisees," it says, εκ των φαρισαιων; that is, they were "from the Pharisees." The implication is that the pharisees themselves were too cowardly to come in person, so they sent others, probably students or servants, to do the questioning for them. I think that is a point worth preserving here. Mback 7:35, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

1:27

Both this translation and the KJV lose the startling and contrasting points that John is making here. The Greek is closer to "he is the one coming after me who existed prior to me..." (ος εμπροσθεν μου γεγονεν). John was actually pointing toward the eternal nature of the one coming after him, kind of in line with "before Abraham was, I am." While it is obvious that God is above him, the point is that this is not just "some random guy who is above me," but rather, this person is, in fact, the eternal God in physical form. "Existed before me" or some equivalent phrase would be more accurate, and would be more in line with the startling, worldview altering point (at least to Jews) that John is making here. Mback 7:58, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

1:29

Excellent point on the meaning of "airo." A possible solution to this would be "takes away the sinful burden..." or "takes away the burden of sin..." or maybe a more subtle "lifts and carries away the sin..." Any of these would capture at least a little of this extra force found in the Greek. Mback 8:16, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

1:30

Again, John's statement here is closer to "after me comes a man who existed prior to me, because he was before me," which is a very emphatic way of pointing to the pre-existence of Christ, particularly as the last phrase uses "protos," which strictly speaking tells us that John is saying Christ "came first, before me." A strong, emphatic statement. Mback 8:28, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

1:31

The tense is wrong here. It is NOT present tense ("I do not know..."), but pluperfect (past completed - "I had not known..."). The construction used here means "I had not (before this very moment) known who He was...". An acceptable translation would be, "I did not know who he was...," but placing this in the present tense completely misses what the Greek is saying. Eido is something of a surface kind of knowing and seeing, thus it is, in this context, about identity, not a deeper kind of "knowing him personally." The point here is that John was preparing the way for one who would take away our sins, but until this very moment, he did not know the exact identity of that man.

Also, in contrast with eido, phaneroo is more "revealed, unveiled, made publicly known," so translating both words with the same English word kind of misses what is going on here. The second half of this sentence is a purpose clause, showing the REASON that John came baptizing. This entire intent of this sentence is more like this: "I did not know who he was, but despite that, I have come to baptize people with water so that He could be revealed to Israel" (and yes, reversing the order of the clauses in this kind of purpose clause for clarity is completely legitimate). Mback 9:59, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

1:33

Same tense and construction as 1:31, but here translated in the correct tense (I did not know...). Eido used in this context really does mean "I did not know who he was..." as opposed to "I did not know him personally...", and that subtle distinction should probably be preserved in the translation. After all, John knew Jesus, His God and creator, in His spirit, which is why he recognized God in the flesh standing before him. What John did not know was the identity of the man who was God in the flesh.

Redefining the Holy Spirit as the Divine Guardian is a questionable move for several reasons. First, the Greek literally says "Holy Spirit," and I find the idea of renaming a member of the Trinity completely distasteful. Second, Holy Spirit is NOT a title that has been largely redefined by our culture, so there is no need to redefine it - everyone knows that one part of the Trinity is called the "Holy Spirit." Third, it places a narrow description (guardian) upon the Holy Spirit that simply fails to even come close to all that the Holy Spirit does. Finally, it is a phrase that sounds VERY new age, and would be gladly and wholeheartedly welcomed by the eastern religion/new age element of our culture. We should not be trying to make Christianity easier to ignore because it uses new age terminology (and thus is just "another" way to god), but rather, more distinct and separate from the ideas and titles of false religions. Calling the Holy Spirit by a different name because we are not happy with what the Bible actually says is NOT a conservative thing to do; that simply smacks of liberalism in the extreme.Mback 10:16, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

1:42

I would like to suggest here that for clarity, we give BOTH the common transliteration and the translation of "petros": "...you shall be called Cephas or Peter (the Rock)." For those who are new to scripture, that would just bring some clarity as to where the name "Peter" came from. Mback 10:31, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

John 2:1

Would 2:1 be a little clearer if it were changed to something along the lines of 'A few days later...'? I took 'third day' to mean either the third day of the week or, possibly, the 3rd day after 1:51.

Your suggestion is a good one, but I'm reluctant to remove information that is in the Greek. But certainly the reference to the third day could be clarified in some way for the reader, and I encourage you to do so by editing it.--Andy Schlafly 11:11, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

I slid this down so it falls under the heading for 2:1, and fits more chronologically. I apologize if this is not allowed by a non-administrator. Mback 2:02, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

Doesn't "the third day" mean "two days later" instead of "three days later" because of the custom of counting inclusively? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting#Inclusive_counting for details.

Your point is an excellent one, not because of your site, but because Christ rose on the "third day" (which was two days after Friday).--Andy Schlafly 22:08, 7 October 2009 (EDT)