Classical Koine Greek:
ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 1:1-2
'Εν áρχη 'ην 'o λογος,
καί 'o λογος 'nς πpος τον Θεον,
καί Θεον 'ης 'o λογος.
Ο'υτος 'ην ‘ev áρχη πpος τον Θεον.
'Εν áρχη 'ην 'o λογος,
καί 'o λογος 'nς πpος τον Θεον,
καί Θεον 'ης 'o λογος.
Ο'υτος 'ην ‘ev áρχη πpος τον Θεον.
Literal English Translation:
JOHN 1:1-2
In beginning was the word,
and the word was with the God,
and the Word was a God.
This was in beginning with the God.
In beginning was the word,
and the word was with the God,
and the Word was a God.
This was in beginning with the God.
Modern English Translation (English Standard Version):
John 1:1-2
In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God.
_____
Glory - δοχα - be to God!
In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God.
_____
Here is an example of the importance and difficulty of biblical translation and interpretation. The translation of John 1:1-2 from classical Greek to modern English has a few interesting points.
* and the word was a God (original) --> and the Word was God (modern)
* This was in the beginning with God (original) --> He was in the beginning with God (modern)
The implication of this slight difference in interpretation results in two views: one is that Christ is the Son of God, a created word of God, not divine; the other, that Christ is the Son of God, the uncreated Word, co-equal and co-divine with God the Father.
Orthodox historical Christianity teaches the second view.
Given this slight difference, I could get nervous and wonder whether Scripture as we have it is trustworthy. How do I know that the translation is correct? Were the translators trustworthy?
To me, this slight difference in interpretation from the ancient to the current is an example of how we cannot separate ourselves from our spiritual forefathers, at least as far as orthodoxy is concerned. In addition to my firm belief that the Holy Spirit is presently at work in illuminating our minds when we read Scripture, I also stand on the firm ground of church history and tradition, thanks to the apostles, the early church fathers, and the subsequent believers, who faithfully interpreted and passed on the faith from generation to generation.
I find this to be a beautiful display of God's sovereignty. His Holy Spirit has been present all the way, leading, guiding his church in truth. At the same time, God entrusted his people to pass on the faith, using teachers, parents, and preachers. As the people of God, we get the privilege of being a part of the story that God is unfolding in civilization.
We have been given Truth, and in addition to sharing it with the world, we faithfully pass it on to the next generation, ever vigilant, ever-guarding the integrity of its contents. In this way, we are connected to all generations past, and to all generations future, to all of God's people, at all times – creation to consummation, and in all places – from here to the ends of the earth.
* and the word was a God (original) --> and the Word was God (modern)
* This was in the beginning with God (original) --> He was in the beginning with God (modern)
The implication of this slight difference in interpretation results in two views: one is that Christ is the Son of God, a created word of God, not divine; the other, that Christ is the Son of God, the uncreated Word, co-equal and co-divine with God the Father.
Orthodox historical Christianity teaches the second view.
Given this slight difference, I could get nervous and wonder whether Scripture as we have it is trustworthy. How do I know that the translation is correct? Were the translators trustworthy?
To me, this slight difference in interpretation from the ancient to the current is an example of how we cannot separate ourselves from our spiritual forefathers, at least as far as orthodoxy is concerned. In addition to my firm belief that the Holy Spirit is presently at work in illuminating our minds when we read Scripture, I also stand on the firm ground of church history and tradition, thanks to the apostles, the early church fathers, and the subsequent believers, who faithfully interpreted and passed on the faith from generation to generation.
I find this to be a beautiful display of God's sovereignty. His Holy Spirit has been present all the way, leading, guiding his church in truth. At the same time, God entrusted his people to pass on the faith, using teachers, parents, and preachers. As the people of God, we get the privilege of being a part of the story that God is unfolding in civilization.
We have been given Truth, and in addition to sharing it with the world, we faithfully pass it on to the next generation, ever vigilant, ever-guarding the integrity of its contents. In this way, we are connected to all generations past, and to all generations future, to all of God's people, at all times – creation to consummation, and in all places – from here to the ends of the earth.
Glory - δοχα - be to God!
4 comments:
Hello Cub, I just found your blog through a Technorati search. I just linked to your post on John 1:1-2 on my blog. Best wishes in your intensive Greek class this summer. Will that be at Regent?
Hi Wayne, and thanks for your note. I checked out your blog .. wow, quite amazing! Seems like linguistics is your passion. Thx for the best wishes, and yes, the course is @ Regent. Shalom.
Howdy. I think there is a difference between a gloss (essentially a dictionary definition given for each word in the base language) and a literal translation. What you have provided in the first instance is not a translation but an attempt at a one-for-one gloss of the Greek words used in John 1:1-2. Thus, the first English presentation is not a "literal" translation.
Specifically, the English presented first is made with the assumption that a Greek noun without a definite article automatically makes the noun indefinite. However, Greek grammar dispels such a notion; rather, the absence of the definite article [b]may[/b] indicate that the noun is indefinite. The difference is huge. Thus, it is not just "an interpretation" that translates the text as "and the Word was God"; it is Greek grammar which specifies that. You can consult many reputable grammars (both classical and Koine) to learn more about this.
I encourage you in your pursuit of studying Greek (and maybe Hebrew in the future?). It is a fruitful venture and will serve you well. Keep at it.
Rich
Hi Rich, thanks for your helpful comments. Your comments about a sentence (in Koine Greek) without a definite article NOT automatically making the noun indefinite are excellent and very true.
However, the 'literal' definition I offered is one of the possible options, albeit in my and I assume in your opinion not a very good one. It is an option nonethelss, and many people have chosen to read Scripture from that perspective, whether you and I like it or not.
Having said that, my purpose of writing this particular entry was not to focus on the options of interpretation, but rather, the role of the Holy Spirit, as well as the role of Church tradition in the process of interpretation.
While the Holy Spirit is the primary inspirer (he inspired the author) and illuminator (he illuminates our minds when we read), we do not live in a cultural vaccuum, without any past to go to. God has chosen for his message to be passed down through the ages by human agents. A closer read will make the point I'm trying to make quite evident.
Again, thanks for your helpful comments, and especially for taking such keen interest in Scripture interpretation.
Until next time, may the Peace of Christ be with you.
Post a Comment