|
The BibleTexts.com Bible Commentary Copyright 1996-2004 Robert Nguyen Cramer THE GOSPEL OF JOHN |
|
.
|
|
Jump
to chapter ...
|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| Other resources |
I said, "You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you;...
http://www.bibletexts.com/versecom/joh01v01.htm, including the following excerpts:
Theologians of varying, and often competing, persuasions appealed to John 1:1-14 as the scriptural warrant for their views. Yet the precise meaning of logos in this text has been open to a wide spectrum of interpretations. (Donald F. Winslow)
Both Athenagoras and Theophilus [both writing around 180 A.D.] are willing to call the Son or Logos the Mind of the Father (Clement calls the Logos the Son of the Father-Mind). (Robert M. Grant)
To explore additional references, browse "WORD WAS GOD" at http://www.bibletexts.com/topics/w.htm#word-was-god.
To explore additional references, browse "WORD WAS GOD" at http://www.bibletexts.com/topics/w.htm#word-was-god.
panta <3956> di <1223> auto <846> egeneto <1096>
Here the Greek word dia <1223> was shortened to di, because it preceded the Greek word auto, which begins with an a (alpha). It rolls off the tongue more smoothly to say di auto than to say dia auto. Many languages, ancient and modern, follow similar practices.
To explore the relationship of this verse to the teaching of the Trinity in the Nicene Creed, see http://www.bibletexts.com/glossary/trinity.htm.
Joh 1:18 - correction of KJV's "the only begotten son"
BibleTexts.com comment: For Joh 1:18, the GNT's rendering of this particular verse would be the best substitute for the KJV's incorrect rendering, which is based upon the KJV's errant Greek text. (Instead of the Greek word huios [son]) in the KJV's text, the Greek word theos [normally translated God] appeared in the original text. Due to complex grammatical issues, theos in this phrase acts as an adjective and means divine or the same as God. Also since the only begotten one is grammatically male in the Greek text, it can be legitimately interpreted to mean the only son. It is unfortunate that the current word-for-word literal approaches taken by virtually all word-for-word translations, including the ESV, NRSV, NAB, and NASB , seem unable to properly address the nuances of some Greek grammatical structures, such as that found in Joh 1:18. Goodspeed, Moffatt, REB, Schonfield, and the GNT all succeeded in addressing this quite well. Hopefully, some day translating such nuances into English will be considered a natural part of even word-for-word translations.
Additional BibleTexts.com commentary: Detailed commentary on this verse, which also addresses the significant theological controversy surrounding the interpretation of this verse, can be found at http://www.bibletexts.com/verses/v-joh.htm#joh01v18 and http://www.bibletexts.com/versecom/joh01v18.htm.
The KJV with Strong's numbers is as follows: No man <3762> hath seen <3708> God <2316> at any time <4455>; the only begotten <3439> Son <5207>, which <3588> is <5607> in <1520> the <3588> bosom <2859> of the <3588> Father <3962>, he <1565> hath declared <1834> [him].
NASB:
18 No man has seen God at any time ; the only begotten God, who
is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
* divine: literally God (Theos), but the anarthrous grammatical construction in Greek makes it an adjective, meaning divine, godly, or the same as God
** Son: literally only-begotton ... male one (monogenes ... ho on). The grammatical construction of this verse dictates that the only begotten is male, which means son; therefore, it is legitimately interpretted as the only-begotton son, though literally translated as the only begotten male one.
*** God's: REB's and Schonfield's use of God's can only legitimately be explained as an interpretatve translation of the anarthrous grammatical construction of Theos, which here serves as an adjectival modifier for the only-begotten, which then becomes God's only-begotten.
SUMMARY OF CORRECT TRANSLATIONS OF JOH 1:18
Goodspeed - 18 No one has ever seen God; it is the divine Only Son, who leans upon his Father's breast, that has made him known.
Moffatt - 18 Nobody has ever seen God, but God has been unfolded by the divine One, the only Son, who lies upon the Father's breast.
REB - 18 No one has ever seen God; God's only Son, he who is nearest to the Father's heart, has made him known.
Schonfield - 18 No one has ever seen God. God's Only-Begotten, who is in the Father's bosom, he has portrayed him.
GNT - 18 No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is the same as God and is at the Father's side, he has made him known.
J.H. Bernard (The International Critical Commentary: The Gospel according to St. John, Volume I, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, no date, page 60) comments:
The Aramaic name Kephas... is familiar in Paul, who uses it to designate Simon always in 1 Cor. (1:12, 3:22, 9:5, 15:5) and generally in Gal. (1:18, 2:9,11,14; but cf. 2:7,8). It appears in no other Gospel but Jn., and the retention of the Aramaic Kepha is a touch that could hardly have occured to any one whose mother speech was not Aramaic... By the end of the first century Simon was best known as Petros, and he has been generally called by this name ever since.
Raymond Brown (The Anchor Bible: The Gospel according to John, Volume 1, New York: Doubleday, 1966, page 76) comments:
Only John among the Gospels give the Greek transliteration of Peter's Aramaic name Kepha, or, perhaps, in Galilean Aramaic Qepha... Matt xvi 18 supposes the Aramaic substratum but does not express it (the play on "Peter" and "rock" is not good in Greek where the former is Petros [masculine] and the latter is petra [feminine]; it is perfect in Aramaic where both are kepha). Neither Petros in Greek nor Kepha in Aramiac is a normal proper name; rather it is a nickname (like American "Rocky" which would have to be explained by something in Simon's character or career.
Barclay M. Newman and Eugene A. Nida (A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of John, New York: United Bible Societies, 1980, page 45) comments:
The Greek word Petros renders the Aramic kepa, the Greek form of which Kephas, appears in this verse. This information can be conveyed by translating literally and providing a foodnote, as in the RSV. However it seems preferable to follow the technique of the TEV or NEB, which make this information explicit in the text: "Your name will be Cephas. (This is the same as Peter and means 'a rock.')...
A term chosen to translate "Rock" should have a meaning which focuses primarily on durability and permanence. The Greek word petros is a masculine form corresponding to the feminie form, petra, normally referring to bedrock (compare Matt 16.18). Since Peter is a man, the masculine form is required, even though it imperfectly renders the original Aramaic. Of course, in this context "rock" does not mean simply a large stone but rather a rock outcrop, on which a house could be built (compare Matt 7:24). One must be careful in the selection of a term for "rock," since such terms may carry special connotations. In some languages, for example, a term for "rock" can suggest "incurably stubborn" or "difficult to deal with." Although simon's new name is not explained in this verse, it clearly does not have these connotations.
Some persons have thought that the use of the name "Petros" (that is Peter) is a reference to the character of Simon, a person as dependable as a bedrock to be used as a foundation for a house. In Matthew 16:18, however, the reference to Peter as "a rock" is generally interpreted as being related to Peter's declaration (Matt 16:16) that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
In a different context, Paul used the Greek word petra (Strong's #4073) when he wrote (1Co 10:4):
The rock was Christ.
| Other resources |
| Other resources |
Most modern translations translate the Greek word anothen <Strong's Greek # 509> as "again" and many also have a footnote such as, "again: or from above" (TEV). The NRSV does the opposite and translates the word as "from above" but includes a footnote, "Or born anew."
As in quite a few other verses in John, the Greek words have a dual meaning. In each account, the spiritually dull understand the word with one of the two meanings; whereas, Jesus obviously intended the other meaning. This is similar to the issues John's symbolic use of Greek as noted in the Web page commentary on Joh 21:15-17 (http://www.bibletexts.com/versecom/joh21v15.htm).
Though all of the books of the New Testament, including the Gospel of John, were first written in Greek, Jesus primarily spoke in Aramaic, a colloquial Semitic language related to Hebrew and entirely different from Greek. (Having come from Nazareth, Jesus also certainly did know and speak Greek, as is obvious from his conversation with the Syrophenician woman in Mar 7:26 and other accounts.) With only a few exceptions, all of Jesus' dialogue in the Greek New Testament is a translation from Aramaic to Greek.
In Aramaic there is no single word that has the dual meaning of "again" and "from above." However, though John was written in colloquial Koine Greek, it was written with very careful symbolic use of Greek words to articulate Jesus message, if not his actual words. (In terms of the artistry of its symbolism in the Greek language, the Gospel of John is unique in the New Testament. Even Revelation, which is full of outward symbolism, does not weave the symbolism into the use of the Greek language nearly to the extent that the Gospel of John does.)
| Other resources |
| Other resources |
| Other resources |
| Other resources |
16 What I teach is not my own teaching, but it comes from God, who sent me. 17 Whoever is willing to do what God wants will know whether what I teach comes from God or whether I speak on my own authority. 18 A person who speaks on his own authority is trying to gain glory for himself. But he who wants glory for the one who sent him is honest, and there is nothing false in him.
In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus expected his followers to follow his example and not to justify their respect or authority by scholarly credentials. He he said (Mat 23:2-13):
2 The teachers of the Law and the Pharisees are the authorized interpreters of Moses’ Law. 3 So you must obey and follow everything they tell you to do; do not, however, imitate their actions, because they don’t practise what they preach... 5 They do everything so that people will see them. Look at the straps with scripture verses on them which they wear on their foreheads and arms, and notice how large they are! Notice also how long are the tassels on their cloaks! 6 They love the best places at feasts and the reserved seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted with respect in the market places and to be called ‘Teacher’. 8 You must not be called ‘Teacher’, because you are all members of one family and have only one Teacher. 9 And you must not call anyone here on earth ‘Father’, because you have only the one Father in heaven. 10 Nor should you be called ‘Leader’, because your one and only leader is the Messiah. 11 The greatest one among you must be your servant. 12 Whoever makes himself great will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be made great. 13 “How terrible for you, teachers of the Law and Pharisees! You hypocrites! You lock the door to the Kingdom of heaven in people’s faces, and you yourselves don’t go in, nor do you allow in those who are trying to enter! [See the commentary at http://www.bibletexts.com/verses/v-mat.htm#23-8.]
And after delivering a series of parables, Jesus concluded that his followers represented a new type of scribe/scholar. He said (Mat 13:51,52):
51 “Do you understand these things?” Jesus asked them. “Yes,” they answered. 52 So he replied, “This means, then, that every teacher of the Law who becomes a disciple in the Kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who takes new and old things out of his storeroom.” [See the commentary at http://www.bibletexts.com/verses/v-mat.htm#13-52.]
Raymond E. Brown (The Anchor Bible: The Gospel according to John, Volumes 1, New York: Doubleday, 1966, p. 312) comments:
Before a man became a rabbi, he normally studied diligently under another rabbi; much of the rabbinical learning consisted in knowing the opinions of famous teachers of the past. Yet Jesus had not undergone any such training.
How is it that this man who has never been a disciple in the rabbinic schools can carry on a learned disputation? It would not be surprising that an ordinary man should be able to quote Scripture. Any reasonably intelligent man who heard the Law read through year by year in synagogue and recited the Shema daily would be able to quote parts. This is against a close connection between this verse and 5:47; in fact the question serves primarily to elicit the theme of the next verse, and indeed of the next two chapters -- the relation of Jesus to, and his mission from, the Father.
Jesus' assertion that the Scriptures (hai graphai) bear witness to him (5:39) and that it is only out of malice (5:40) that his interlocutors will not believe the written words (ta grammata) of Moses (5:47) is met by the Jews with the spiteful remark that Jesus has not had a scholastic education (me memathekos) and hence can scarcely 'know scriptures'. In ordinary contemporary usage this expression without the article meant 'to have learnt to read and write, to have the elements of knowledge'. This cannot however be the meaning here, since Jesus was able to read Holy Scripture (cf. Lk 4:16 ff), at an early age. The reference is rather to being learned in the Scriptures, a knowledge acquired in the school of a teacher of the Law and through association with him; only someone educated (memathekos) in this way would be credited with real knowledge of the Scriptures. But this was a kind of schooling that Jesus had not undergone... The objection is in line with other aspersions and denigrations put forward by Jesus' opponents with the idea of disqualifying him (cf. 7:20, 35; 8:22, 48, 52; 10:20).
Note: Bruce Metzger (A Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament, page 187-189) writes that there is overwhelming and conclusive evidence that the text from John 7:53 to John 8:11 was not part of the original text of John. It was absent from important early and diverse New Testament manuscripts. He writes:
At the same time the account has all the earmarks of historical veracity. It is obviously a piece of oral tradition which circulated in certain parts of the Western church and which was subsequently incorporated into various manuscripts at various places... Although the Committee was unanimous that [this passage] was originally no part of the Fourth Gospel, in deference to the evident antiquity of the passage a majority decided to print it, enclosed within double square brackets, at its traditional place following Jn. 7.52.
| Other resources |
Note: Bruce Metzger (A Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament, page 187-189) writes that there is overwhelming and conclusive evidence that the text from John 7:53 to John 8:11 was not part of the original text of John. It was absent from important early and diverse New Testament manuscripts. He writes:
At the same time the account has all the earmarks of historical veracity. It is obviously a piece of oral tradition which circulated in certain parts of the Western church and which was subsequently incorporated into various manuscripts at various places... Although the Committee was unanimous that [this passage] was originally no part of the Fourth Gospel, in deference to the evident antiquity of the passage a majority decided to print it, enclosed within double square brackets, at its traditional place following Jn. 7.52.