Dean_Poulos wrote: I mentioned it is not only John 1.1. I used 1 Cor 13.1 as an example, however, here is a much more critical one and I think a pattern will become clear.
ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν.
The Father and I are one.
I’m now out of my comfort zone, being a beginner grammatically with respect to Koine, so I’ll be asking:
With ἐσμεν being (I think) the FPP indicative, I am now guessing it could be rendered: The Father and I are one essence. Yes? No?
If so, then does “the Word was with God” have the same force??? (aspect???) as I read I John 10:30?
By that I am trying to say that simply reading the words come through to me as one essence, not two persons, not in John 1.1.
Dean what I see is that ἐγὼ presents a contrast with ὁ πατὴρ making each person distinct and ἐσμεν is in accord with this same contrast it being a plural verb - indicating more than one. ἕν then indicates the unity of the two parties. That ἕν is nueter indicates to me that the unity is not in person (which might be expressed by the masculine) but in some abstract way. So I would find your translation "The Father and I are one essence." to be within the scope of acceptable translation. However, I'm not sure what exactly it means to be of one essence and John 17:11 and 21-23 are grammatically identical which could also mean that Jesus is presenting his desire for his apostles to be of one essence with him and his father. I find it more sensible to see ἕν in those verses to mean one in purpose and will also admit that the same thought could equally apply to the ἕν of John 10:30. In sum, I feel that the dichotomy of Jesus and his father exists in the text and is rightly brought out in translation and that the NWT faithfully reflects the distinctiveness of Jesus and his father.
Dean_Poulos wrote:είμαι μαζί τήν γυναίκα μοῦ (I am with my wife) to a Greek instinctively implies the oneness of the marriage bond.
I note that μαζί can have a vulgar connotation. Is this what you are gently implying?
Dean_Poulos wrote:If by pleonastic you mean a redundant, tautology, e.g., burning fire, and not an idiomatic tautology, I would agree. If not, you're way over my head at this point.
I do not necessarily see every pleonasm as a mere redunancy but it may reflect a more complete description on a particular subject.
Thank you, Dean, for your enlightening comments.