Bible Study The Gospel of John, Greek discussion

[TimothyW]

I thought it would be fun to post the Gospel of John verse by verse in the original Greek, along with a translation and have a discussion about the Gospel.
Here goes:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος. (Η ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ Text, by Eberhard Nestle)

En arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en ho logos. (transliteration)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (ESV)

 

[mondar]

John has a surprising way of expressing his understanding of the person of Christ. He describes Christ is two ways.

ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν,
Christ was with God from the beginning. There was never a time when Christ was not with God.

καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.
Christ was God from the beginning. There never was a time that Christ was not God.

In the very same sentence, John introduces tension. How can someone be with God, and still be God. I cannot say that I and typing this post with myself. I am one person and one being. So then, as a single person being, I cannot accomplish tasks without my whole being accomplishing the task. The tension in the verse clearly expresses that God is not so simple of a being. Christ might be the same essence as God so that he is God, but as a distinct person, he can also be with God.

Before ending the post, I must mention one of that non-Orthodox interpreters try to make Christ "a god." This would be a possible interpretation if the last part of the verse were not included. Also, this interpretation is not possible because of the grammatical construction of the phrase Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος. The grammar is called "predicate nominative." No one of the things that is different from greek to english is that in greek, word order does not determine grammatical function as it does in english. In a predicate construction in english, the noun following the verb would be the predicate. This is not true in greek. The greeks identified the subject by the article in a predicate nominative construction. So then, the use of the article in greek is completely different and foreign to an english reader. To make the verse read that Jesus was "a god," one would find a completely different construction. I believe the predicate would be in the accusative case and would look like this "ton logon." The actual parcing of the words "ho logos" is nominative. It can only be read in English "The word was God."

One must be careful because this understanding of John 1:1 does not establish the doctrine of the trinity. Three persons are not mentioned in this verse. It is very strong support for the fact that God has distinct persons within the Godhead, The verse certainly allows for the doctrine of the trinity. It does not allow for the interpretation that Christ is "a god" and not a part of the godhead.

The Nicean formula nicely describes the complete and full deity of Christ. He was eternally begotten and not made.

 

[By Grace]

BELOW are two ways of expressing the above. The first is old, and the second is modern.

"The following rule by Granville Sharp of a century back still proves to be true: `When the copulative KAI connects two nouns of the same case, if the article HO or any of its cases precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle; i.e., it denotes a further description of the first-named person.'"
(A Manual Of The Greek New Testament, Dana & Mantey, p. 147)
===================================================================================================
Wallace has restated Granville Sharp's rule in order to explicitly state all the restrictions and to enhance the readability of the rule.

In native Greek constructions (i.e., not translation Greek), when a single article modifies two substantives connected by kai (thus, article-substantive-kai-substantive), when both substantives are

(1) singular (both grammatically and semantically),
(2) personal,
(3) and common nouns (not proper names or ordinals), they have the same referent​

Daniel B. Wallace, The Article with Multiple Substantives Connected by kai in the New Testament: Semantics and Significance (Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary), 134-35.

 

[chessman]

John has a surprising way of expressing his understanding of the person of Christ. He describes Christ is two ways.

ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν,
Christ was with God from the beginning. There was never a time when Christ was not with God.

Is there some Greek to Hebrew translation detail (i.e. grammer, syntax, ?) that "ties" John's opening to the Gen 1:1 Hebrew phrase, other than the obviousness that they both open by saying "In the beginning..." in the English translations?

 

[mondar]

Is there some Greek to Hebrew translation detail (i.e. grammer, syntax, ?) that "ties" John's opening to the Gen 1:1 Hebrew phrase, other than the obviousness that they both open by saying "In the beginning..." in the English translations?

chessman, I am not sure what you are referring to here. In the LXX there is Hebrew to greek translation, but I know nothing about Greek to Hebrew translations. Messianic Christians might have something like that. I am guessing that you are asking if Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 have the same wording to start their books. I do not have the LXX in front of me, but I would guess the LXX has the same thing in Genesis 1:1 as the modern text has in John 1:1. However, I would not take this to mean that John is quoting Moses or that they are speaking of the same "beginning." Would that not mean that God, himself, is not eternal? Genesis 1:1 is the beginning of the material universe, in John 1 :1 it actually speaks of the eternity of the Godhead. Kind of like "in the beginning... before there was anything there was God."

 

[jasoncran]

chessman, I am not sure what you are referring to here. In the LXX there is Hebrew to greek translation, but I know nothing about Greek to Hebrew translations. Messianic Christians might have something like that. I am guessing that you are asking if Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 have the same wording to start their books. I do not have the LXX in front of me, but I would guess the LXX has the same thing in Genesis 1:1 as the modern text has in John 1:1. However, I would not take this to mean that John is quoting Moses or that they are speaking of the same "beginning." Would that not mean that God, himself, is not eternal? Genesis 1:1 is the beginning of the material universe, in John 1 :1 it actually speaks of the eternity of the Godhead. Kind of like "in the beginning... before there was anything there was God."

the first word in genesis is barah.

 

[chessman]

I am guessing that you are asking if Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 have the same wording to start their books.

Yes. that's what I meant. And Jason, I'm glad you're here to help answer this. I only know anything about the Greek and/or the Hebrew by what's published by experts that do know these languages.

The reason I ask is that in the ESV study Bible it says of John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word 'echoes' of the opening phrase of the book of Genesis, ..."

Frankly, I wonder if they are 1) technically correct and 2) thought that through to it's logical conclusion for this reason.

I've always understood that in Gen 1:1 God is basically putting a time stamp on the events that He's about to discribe within the rest of Gen 1. i.e. He's not really talking about things prior to "the beginning" but rather He's establishing that there was in fact a beginning time to the "Heavens and Earth" and that what he is desribing latercame after this time. (Something Atheists still struggle to explain how the Bible knew that the universe began to exist in the past.)

Where John is actually saying the exact opposite with "In the beginning was..." That there was no beginning of The Word (Jesus).

Therefore, how can they be the same "phrase"? Even though they are both the same phrse (at least the opening, "in the Beginning is the same) in the English.

I hope that question makes sense as a question. Gen 1:1 seems to be placing a point on a timeline (so to speak). Where John 1:1 is actually doing anything but defining a point on a timeline.

 

[jasoncran]

the name of genesis in Hebrew is beersherit. it means in the beginning god created from nothing and came down to be with man. that is from the kabbalah but it really fits. genesis in greek means origins. notice the differences. the Hebrew do use the greek names for the books when they go to English and from that to other tounges but when its in the temple they will call the books by their names. they have changed some names though. I cant remember which ones for sure. I know exodus was one. shemot( these are the names from exodus 1:1). that said I see that john uses the principal of first mention.

 

[By Grace]

the first word in genesis is barah.

Please look again. That is the second word

 

[jasoncran]

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

the name is derived from the first word of the text

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.

 

[TimothyW]

Wow, this is great discussion. Thanks guys.

Here is the Septuagint of Genesis 1:1 to show the parallel between it and John 1:1
ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν
en arche epoiesen ho Theos ton ouranon kai ten gen
In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth (A New English Translation of the Septuagint, NETS)

John 1:1a
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος...

 

[TimothyW]

John 1:2
Οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. (Nestle, I will be using this text for the thread)
Outos en en arche pros ton Theon

He was in the beginning with God. (ESV)

Οὗτος
"He"
"this one"
"the one just named"

http://biblehub.com/greek/3778.htm

 

[jasoncran]

I don't use greek for the ot, I prefer not to, its kinda like using latin to know what the early church spoke in. the Hebrew tounge is what the isrealites spoke and used to teach the word to each other, so I want that for the purpose of knowing what the Hebrews wanted to know. the lxx is good but its not well a literal translation from Hebrew to greek. God is not Lord, that is what the Hebrews translated his name to in greek.personal preference of mine.

 

[TimothyW]

Thanks Jason. I agree that the OT was was in Hebrew, I posted the Greek Septuagint in order to compare the Greek of John 1:1 and Genesis 1:1. Thought Chessman had a nice point about the parallels between John 1:1 and Genesis 1:1. Since I had the Septuagint handy and the NETS translation, I thought I would post it.

 

[jasoncran]

yes but remember if john was speaking to a jew he would say first. barah, and barah is from genesis. a jew then would go into the teachings of sages on beersherit and what it means, theres a ton words in gen 1 and gen 2 that can be linked to jesus as him be a diety. ie and god said, and the spirit moved upon the earth.

 

[TimothyW]

I don't know. I don't think that John was speaking, I think he was writing. Do you know if the Gospel of John was written in Hebrew or Aramaic and then translated into Greek? I'm thinking that it was originally composed in Greek, but I have no proof of that. (Other than the lack of a Hebrew manuscript signed "John - First Draft")

 

[jasoncran]

but he was a jew, if he said it in greek, how would a jew who cant speak nor write greek know it? he would have to ask, that is why I said that. remember the early church was mostly Hebrews and then mixed into both goy in Hebrew. when john and them were before the Sanhedrin greek wasn't used. remember there were other tounges in that ancient word that greek was common but, but in the explanation of it all its not like the poor had any education of greek. they didn't have public schools to teach them to read and right. the only the wealthy romans had an education. a jew might understand greek if he was like paul .

 

[TimothyW]

I don't know if John was uneducated. We have the book he wrote. I don't think that only the rich were educated. I've heard that even slaves were educated at that time. The Greek language that the NT was written in is called "Koine", Common. I think it was the language that common people used, it was "marketplace greek". They didn't need Seminaries to learn the ancient dead language of Greece. They heard it when they went to the market. It was part of life. Greece had conquered the land before Rome did. So many people read Greek and didn't read Hebrew that the Hebrew Scriptures had to be translated into Greek in order to be read.

 

[chessman]

Thought Chessman had a nice point about the parallels between John 1:1 and Genesis 1:1. .

I feel you understood my point. I think the modern English translations are spot on correct. The Hebrew to English is correct in ESV and others for Gen 1:1. Also well as the Greek to English is correct in all the translations (except for the NWT). My little detail was simply that John was not quoting Gen 1:1 there. Yet I hear people say that he was.

 

[jasoncran]

koine greek is the older, actually the Hebrews did it in the days of the ptolemiac dynasty and it wasn't FOR THE HELLENISTIC JEWS. it was at the badgering of greeks. they simply didn't want to do it. do you know why its call septugiant? it has a lot to do with the sandhedrin. its seventy plus one, the amount of writers that translated that tanach from Hebrew to greek. it was done after the macabee revolt and not even in Jerusalem but Alexandra, Egypt and even with the seventy it was almost not done. they told the high priest over them that they didn't want to do it and he told them write what you know to translate and all of them did the exact same thing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Ancient_Greece

In their early years, Athenian children were taught at home, sometimes under the guidance of a master or pedagogue. They were taught basic morals, until they began elementary education at approximately seven years of age. Children were taught how to read and write, as well as how to count and draw.[7] Children were taught letters and then syllables, followed by words and sentences. Reading and writing were taught at the same time. Students would write using a stylus, with which they would etch onto a wax-covered board. When children were ready to begin reading whole works, they would often be given poetry to memorize and recite.[8] An elementary education was the only education available to most people, especially the poor.[9] Children belonging to the upper social classes would receive formal elementary education since their parents would be able to afford to hire a tutor or to send them to a public school.[10] Children coming from poor families, however, would only be offered informal education, and the extent of their exposure to the above subjects would be directly linked to the knowledge of their parents.[11] In addition to not having the money to pay for a formal education, members of the lower class most likely would have required their children’s services at home just to be able to afford food and other basic necessities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_ancient_rome

At between nine and twelve years of age, boys from affluent families would leave their literature behind and take up study with a grammar, who honed his students' writing and speaking skills, versed them in the art of poetic analysis and taught them Greek if they did not yet know it.[9] By this point, lower class boys would already be working as apprentices, and girls—rich or poor—would be focused on making themselves attractive brides and, subsequently, capable mothers.[9]

Daily activities included lectures by the grammaticus (enarratio), expressive reading of poetry (lectio) and the analysis of poetry (partitio).[2] The curriculum was thoroughly bilingual, as students were expected to both read and speak in Greek as well as in Latin.[3] Assessment of a student's performance was done on-the-spot and on-the-fly according to standards set by his particular grammaticus, as no source on Roman education ever mentions work taken away to be graded.[12] Instead, pupils would complete an exercise, display their results and be corrected or congratulated as needed by the grammaticus, who reveled in his self-perception as a "guardian of language".[13]

the Pharisees had money and thus were able to speak, read and write latin and greek. paul was roman citizen, he was born to roman citizens and likely had money. he mentions this in his knowledge of greek stoicism. the disciples such as john didn't even have the honor of being chosen by a rabbi. so that show you that they weren't going to be really knowledgeable in the tanach and also other things a Pharisee will learn.