Bible Study The Gospel of John, Greek discussion

[By Grace]

the Hebrew doesn't have the word there in that word. its literally created in the beginning god.
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0101.htm

note the first word in Hebrew and the name of genesis in Hebrew, the beit is the first word

from my tanach that isn't from any Christian source but a consertive jewish temple. ramban says the same. my tanach uses the Masoretic text.

1 Ἐνἀρχῇἐποίησενὁθεὸςτὸνοὐρανὸνκαὶτὴνγῆν.
LXX

בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥תהַשָּׁמַ֖ יִםוְאֵ֥תהָאָֽרֶץ׃
BHS (WTS)

1 בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃

Biblia Hebraica Westmonasteriensis with Westminster Hebrew Morphology 4.18. (2013). (Ge 1). J. Alan Groves Center for Advanced Biblical Research.

‎‎ESV | ‎Ge 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
‎‎

1901 ASV | ‎Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
‎‎

NASB95 | ‎Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
‎‎

NIV | ‎Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
‎‎

NIV84 | ‎Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

What I dug up does not agree with your statement. That proves that you are ugly, and that your mother dresses you funny

That means nothing to me because I had nothing to prove

 

[TimothyW]

I like it here. This place is fun.

 

[TimothyW]

John 1:3
πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν.
panta di autou egeneto, kai choris autou egeneto oude hen ho gegonen.

All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (ESV)

 

[jasoncran]

I will post the jewish meaning of in the beginning and teachings. theres a good reason I will do so. I just have to get a member to sac me the commentary on genesis one.

 

[By Grace]

I will post the jewish meaning of in the beginning and teachings. theres a good reason I will do so. I just have to get a member to sac me the commentary on genesis one.

I am not sure from where you are coming, Jason.

The best way to study the Pentateuch is that is one book with five distinct parts, written by one author, Moses. Therefore, the sections beginning with "beresheith", "dabarim", etc are then Anglicized by taking the meaning of them, "beginning" (Genesis) and "second Law" (Deuteronomy". Of course the books of Numbers and of Leviticus could not be called "Elohim".

Therefore I surely would like to see where you are going with this line of thought, and I do not mean anything negative when I write that, OK?

 

[jasoncran]

I am not sure from where you are coming, Jason.

The best way to study the Pentateuch is that is one book with five distinct parts, written by one author, Moses. Therefore, the sections beginning with "beresheith", "dabarim", etc are then Anglicized by taking the meaning of them, "beginning" (Genesis) and "second Law" (Deuteronomy". Of course the books of Numbers and of Leviticus could not be called "Elohim".

Therefore I surely would like to see where you are going with this line of thought, and I do not mean anything negative when I write that, OK?

the source you said the word there in the beginning is resheyith. ok that word from my knowledge has the beit in it. that means something either its silent when it said or its an error our part. which is likely. ramban mentions something about that. if Im going to quote him on that and why its called that for instance then I want to get it right. the elohim isnt even an Hebrew word. that I know. jews call that a name of God but that its borrowed. I will ask for that source as well. I also notice in that link that resheyith is translatered word meaning either the Hebrew didn't have it and took it from the Syrian tounge(Aramaic) or that its something else. Im not fluent in Hebrew. I would have to ask one that I know that speaks it. she may not have all the answers but she is able to speak it and write it and its her native tounge.

I do know that genesis simply means origins. to a jew beresherit means so much more then just origins. its to them where we got it and where the torah starts. thus very important to know. ie if the literal six day account is off then isreal isnt a nation!

 

[Asyncritus]

I really don't know why we're bothering with all this stuff about the original Hebrew and Greek, since nobody here seems to know either language.

We are all unfortunately dependent on the translators, and they, like everybody else, are full of prejudices and preconceptions.

I don't truly see the need to know the original languages: it might be nice, but if you depend on about 10 different translations as we easily find in the Online Bible (and others) then we shouldn't go too far wrong.

Incidentally there are about 10 or 12 'beginnings' in the OT. This one in Jn 1 is not only an allusion to Gen 1, but also to Mark 1, Luke 1, and many places in the NT as well all of which refer to the beginning of the gospel, and ot Christ's ministry..

 

[TimothyW]

I really don't know why we're bothering with all this stuff about the original Hebrew and Greek, since nobody here seems to know either language.

We are all unfortunately dependent on the translators, and they, like everybody else, are full of prejudices and preconceptions.

I don't truly see the need to know the original languages: it might be nice, but if you depend on about 10 different translations as we easily find in the Online Bible (and others) then we shouldn't go too far wrong.

Incidentally there are about 10 or 12 'beginnings' in the OT. This one in Jn 1 is not only an allusion to Gen 1, but also to Mark 1, Luke 1, and many places in the NT as well all of which refer to the beginning of the gospel, and ot Christ's ministry..

I can read Greek, but not Hebrew. I think it is important to go to the original languages. If you don't want to do this, there are other threads you can go to.
Greek is a language and it can be learned, like Spanish or French or any other language. It's easier, really, because you only have to read it, you don't have to speak it.

I would encourage anyone to try to learn the original languages, it is very rewarding. Even though we have many excellent translations.

 

[TimothyW]

John 1:4
ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων.
en auto zoe en, kai he zoe en to phos ton anthropon

In him was life, and the life was the light of men. ESV

 

[Asyncritus]

I wouldn't argue too much with the idea of learning the language.

But learning a language sufficiently well is a serious, time-consuming and effort-demanding endeavour.

I say 'sufficiently well' meaning 'sufficiently well to be able to do better than the translating committees'. It shows you the difficulties translators face - but being able to do better than they did, is another story entirely.

My own way out of that dilemma is to use the Amplified Version, and some of Wuest's expanded translations. Wuest is a rabid trinitarian, and in any passage where the trinity could possibly be supported, he goes wildly overboard.

That aside, he produces some interesting stuff, So too does Message.

Amplified I particularly like, because it indicates when an alternative is cast-iron , and gives you alternatives which are classified according to how uncertain they are, so you're not left high and dry.

The problem, of course, is: When can you rely on these guys, and when can you not rely on them?

At such points I go to the great Revised Version which is the most exact translation in existence.

I avoid the NET Bible like the plague. It's got so many notes in it, you spend far more time reading them, than reading the text itself. Which is idiotic, to say the least.

 

[TimothyW]

I wouldn't argue too much with the idea of learning the language.

But learning a language sufficiently well is a serious, time-consuming and effort-demanding endeavour.

It is serious, time consuming, and effort demanding. And it is well worth the effort, even if a person isn't able to better than the translation committees. It isn't my goal to produce yet another translation. It is my goal to understand the scriptures as well as I possibly can. And when I read technical articles that include sentences like "In the original Greek, this mean that instead of this...", I am able to at least have an informed opinion about it. I don't have to just take the writer's word for it. People write a lot of stuff, and not everything they write is accurate.

 

[chessman]

In him was life, and the life was the light of men. ESV

Isaiah 9:2 (ESV) The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light;
those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shone.

Luke 1:78-79 (ESV) because of the tender mercy of our God, whereby the sunrise shall visit us from on high to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.​

Merry Christmas!

 

[By Grace]

the source you said the word there in the beginning is resheyith. ok that word from my knowledge has the beit in it. that means something either its silent when it said or its an error our part. which is likely. ramban mentions something about that. if Im going to quote him on that and why its called that for instance then I want to get it right. the elohim isnt even an Hebrew word. that I know. jews call that a name of God but that its borrowed. I will ask for that source as well. I also notice in that link that resheyith is translatered word meaning either the Hebrew didn't have it and took it from the Syrian tounge(Aramaic) or that its something else. Im not fluent in Hebrew. I would have to ask one that I know that speaks it. she may not have all the answers but she is able to speak it and write it and its her native tounge.

I do know that genesis simply means origins. to a jew beresherit means so much more then just origins. its to them where we got it and where the torah starts. thus very important to know. ie if the literal six day account is off then isreal isnt a nation!

I posted my sources previously, and I do it again:

בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥תהַשָּׁמַ֖ יִםוְאֵ֥תהָאָֽרֶץ׃
BHS (WTS)

1 בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃

Biblia Hebraica Westmonasteriensis with Westminster Hebrew Morphology 4.18. (2013). (Ge 1). J. Alan Groves Center for Advanced Biblical Research.

Now, you are getting me to go back to when I did study Biblical Hebrew 30+ years ago. The dot in the middle of some Hebrew consonants is called a dagesh, and it "doubles", or "hardens" a consonant so that it sounds differently when it is spoken. Collectively the six Hebrew letters are called the "begedkeophat letters" which is a mnemonic acronym that uses all six of those consonants in one word.

I cannot find a copyable Hebrew alphabet--if I do I will insert them, so I will transliterate them:
beth
gimel
daleth
caf
pey
tav

This is Biblical Hebrew, which is much different than modern Hebrew, so when you study it in Israel, you have to be careful about what you study, Jason, and what your aim is. As an example, it is as different from middle English is from modern English. Do you remember the Prologue from Chaucer's Canterbury Tales in 12th grade English?

Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote
The droghte of March hath perced to the roote
And bathed every veyne in swich licour,
Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth​

That will give you an idea of what you are dealing with, and why you need to be sure of what sort of Hebrew you study.

BTW the beth in berishith is an inseparable preposition, meaning that it cannot stand on its own. So while you are technically correct that the word "beginning" begins with a resh, the addition of the preposition makes it different. Thus it is possible to state it means "before" or "in', in which case you would get "before the beginning began...". Since that is a redundancy, it is simpler to state, "In the beginning".

 

[jasoncran]

Hebrew hasn't changed much. other wise that implication of yours means that Hebrew died out and its kinda useless to learn it it like enlgish and koine greek has evolved but its still in use. I can say the same with kjv English as well we American use the closer of the English to that then all the other users. and yet we if we don't use it aren't able to grasp it. so its not really dead.

remember that greek is a very literal and descriptive tounge and Hebrew isn't. greeks think more scientifically and Hebrew wont. this is clearly said by jesus" for the jews seek a sign and the greeks wisdom" so when the Hebrews speak about a word or an meaning its from a way different angle, the source I have is from the tenth century jew named ramban. most jews today quote him and use his views on the torah. therefore because he avoids all these whacky theories that Christians and some jew espouse I use him . those theories are:

1) gap theory
2) local flood
3) Lilith(jews only)
4) serpent seed doctrines
5) nephillum
6) old earth

funny how it hasn't really change. im aware of the poetry of Hebrew. I take that when he mentions it.when I get the portion of the commentary on genesis I will post it.

 

[By Grace]

Hebrew hasn't changed much. other wise that implication of yours means that Hebrew died out and its kinda useless to learn it it like enlgish and koine greek has evolved but its still in use. I can say the same with kjv English as well we American use the closer of the English to that then all the other users. and yet we if we don't use it aren't able to grasp it. so its not really dead. <SNIP>

I was making the point that EVERY language evolves. Biblical Hebrew is not like modern Hebrew because the latter does not use tha vowels as does the old stuff. Likewise Koine Greek (NT Greek) and modern Greek, and the Middle English stuff I quoted from the prologue to the Canterbury Tales.

 

[Asyncritus]

It is serious, time consuming, and effort demanding. And it is well worth the effort, even if a person isn't able to better than the translation committees. It isn't my goal to produce yet another translation. It is my goal to understand the scriptures as well as I possibly can. And when I read technical articles that include sentences like "In the original Greek, this mean that instead of this...", I am able to at least have an informed opinion about it. I don't have to just take the writer's word for it. People write a lot of stuff, and not everything they write is accurate.

As I said, I wouldn't argue too much if someone really wanted to learn the language. There are possible benefits, and I wouldn't deny that either.

What I've seen happen is someone gets a smattering of Greek or Hebrew and from thenceforth is an authority on the subject, with comments like 'the Greek/Hebrew says this' etc etc.

Here's Grace's post. Is a perfect illustration of what I mean.

1 Ἐνἀρχῇἐποίησενὁθεὸςτὸνοὐρανὸνκαὶτὴνγῆν.
LXX

בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥תהַשָּׁמַ֖ יִםוְאֵ֥תהָאָֽרֶץ׃
BHS (WTS)

1 בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃

How much of it do you understand?

Of course, not everybody is like that, but it does happen.

But you raise a point about reading other people's stuff and wanting to have an informed opinion on the matter.

I am very much against the practice of reading other people's stuff. Especially where they comment on Gk or Hebrew. You can never know if they're right or wrong: useful or misleading..

How can you possibly know? Even if you've learned some of the language, it is improbable that you will ever be able to argue with them with any force.

It is far better to stay with the text of scripture and leave the writers alone. You will be led down many a garden path by them, and happily follow along, simply because you don't and can't know any better.

Sola scriptura is my war cry.

Look at it like this.

How many commentaries and versions etc etc did the very early church have? None.

How many authorities did Jesus, Peter and Paul quote? None.

And yet, we are happy to read this and that commentary, treatise, etc etc by people who may or may not know better than ourselves. Is that smart? I doubt it.

Why do it? What does scripture itself say?

'Oh how love I thy law. It is my study all the day'. 'To the law and to the testimony. If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them'. 'Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth'.

Not a single mention of authorities etc in there, is there?

So SOLA SCRIPTURA is the most sensible attitude to take, and we should rejoice in it.

 

[jasoncran]

I was making the point that EVERY language evolves. Biblical Hebrew is not like modern Hebrew because the latter does not use tha vowels as does the old stuff. Likewise Koine Greek (NT Greek) and modern Greek, and the Middle English stuff I quoted from the prologue to the Canterbury Tales.

the person im asking isn't a Christian but an orthodox jew, she is also was raised in the temple and also is fluent in her tounge. asking them about that is best way I can see to go about.

 

[TimothyW]

John 1:5
καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν.
kai to phos en te skotia phainei, kau he skotia aout ou katelaben.

The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. ESV

κατέλαβεν is interesting, from kata and lambano.
http://biblehub.com/greek/2638.htm

Definition: (a) I seize tight hold of, arrest, catch, capture, appropriate, (b) I overtake, (c) mid. aor: I perceived, comprehended.

 

[chessman]

John 1:5
The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. ESV
κατέλαβεν is interesting, from kata and lambano.
Definition: (a) I seize tight hold of, arrest, catch, capture, appropriate, (b) I overtake, (c) mid. aor: I perceived, comprehended.

Would this verse, and in particular the one Greek word from it you mention, demonstrate details and/or challenges in translating Greek to English?

I see (and correct me if I’m wrong) two aspects of the best translation here:

1. It’s just a brute fact that sometimes a Greek word has a meaning for which there is no one word in the English that means the same thing as the original, right? Which is why I enjoy the Amplified translation occasionally. It’s my understanding that the AMP version basically doesn’t really care if the translation “flows” well in the English. That is, that translation doesn't care if it has all the proper syntax, grammar and punctuation 100% correct. right? It just inserts into their English text these cases where there are perhaps multiple meanings to the Greek and/or it takes a phrase in English to translate from the Greek. The AMP for the word κατέλαβεν = “overpowered”. Which seems well enough I suppose. But in fact κατέλαβεν = “seize tight hold of” might even be better than the one word “overpowered”.​

Then the AMP also includes in brackets [put it out or absorbed it or appropriated it, and is unreceptive to it] as alternate meanings. Kind of like, here it is, you decide. RIght?​

2. The most common (Best?) modern translations differ here for John 1:5. Not so much because they have an agend to prove, but it's just a rare case when the translation is dificult. Right?

Here’s a link that parallels the ESV, ASV, LEB, and NASB to the YLT. They vary in translation from “overcome” to “perceive” to “comprehend”. Who’s right? I don’t know. I wish I did. And in this particular case (though my gut fell is that it’s a rather rare case in bible translation efforts) there’s actually quite a bit of range in meanings. I don't think "overcome" means the same thing as "comprehend".
​

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%201%3A5&version=ESV;ASV;LEB;YLT;NASB

 

[TimothyW]

Would this verse, and in particular the one Greek word from it you mention, demonstrate details and/or challenges in translating Greek to English?

[/quote]

Yes, exactly. I agree with everything you just posted. The different translations give different aspects of the idea behind the Greek word, κατέλαβεν.
That's what I thought was so interesting about this word.