OK Scott,
I suppose one could say (if they clung to a self-refuting strict evidentialist epistemology) that was Modern.
Dean...your above comment creates a bit of "cognitive dissonance" for me...
Now you know how Clint feels each day and Hitch as well; before he passed away.
Enough of my misplaced jokes. I'm glad you found that blog and I will address it.
Sooo....you are indeed saying that the translators of the NWT in Greek stuttered and made errors in "Modern Demotic" or Romaic. Yes?
In all seriousness, while the stutter comment was lighthearted, to clarify; it is simply wrong based on all texts. (Howwever, the Blog is an excellent find) Technically, while it may be classified as a redundancy or grammatical tautology such as (He kept it from his friends that he was a keeping a secret) or (He kept it from his friends that he was a secret drinker), there is more going on.
When you read the text above you know it is bad English. When I read the JWV or NWV it’s more than bad Greek. There is an agenda. I’ll explain and provide another clear example.
MAZI ME = with with and the blog. The Watchtower would argue they are simply trying to emphasize God was [together with] Jesus at the beginning (puzzling in and of itself). However, that does not work in Modern Greek to stand true to the original text.
By rendering MAZI ME as (together with) this intentionally diminishes the Godhead. To say Jesus was [together with] God tells a Greek reader that a relationship exists which is no different than two friends who happen to be at a movie together (The Blog).
A personal example that would annoy my wife: I’m talking on the phone to a friend and say:
είμαι [μαζί με] τήν γυναίκα μοῦ
Once I hung up the phone, I’d be met with a cross look (no dinner) and something to the effect of: (Did you tell Nick you were with me or the dog?)
I would immediately know she caught my careless and very, very bad Greek, with respect to my wife.
είμαι μαζί τήν γυναίκα μοῦ (I am with my wife) to a Greek instinctively implies the oneness of the marriage bond.
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.
John 10:30
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.
The JWV works hard to break this essence apart; it’s all over the place in John.
Back to my comfort area with the added example and a glaring one at that.
John 10.30 is rendered thus and called modern.
Εγώ καί ὁ Πατέρας είμαστε ἔνα.
eίμαστε = 1PP
I and the Father (we are) one. Yes, as is my naval and the universe we are also one.
The pattern is consistant is attempting to break up the oneness as well as the distinct personhood of the Trinity.
You indicate that μαζί με as a translation for πρὸς is poor Demotic and I hesitate to dispute it with you but I do note that the NWT uses the same construction at 1 Thessalonians 4:17 to translate ἄμα σὺν which is pleonastic.
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.
Dean, your comments go right to the heart of John's question as to whether or not there is translational equivalency in the Greek rendering of John 1:1c of the NWT with the Koine. You seem to see the fronting of ο λόγος as significant to the understanding of the Demotic. Do I understand you correctly?
Yes, as alluded to above.
John Brainard has presented θεός ήταν ο λόγος and θεὸς ἧν ὀ λόγος as being translationally equivalent but then goes on to muddy the waters by referring to the NWT which in fact has the reverse order - ο Λόγος ήταν θεός. Does Demotic really make the distinction that the anarthrous predicate noun's placement makes such a large difference?
Scott, I will need to have another look at what John said again tomorrow. I had initially thought he had mixed it in with the Katharevousa. If not, of course there is no difference with respect to a substantive without a direct article. There is no indirect article in modern Greek or Koine Greek. I'm assuming this is what you're asking, correct? (here I am out of the comfort zone again)
However, if it was the Katharevousa
Εν αρχή ήτο ο Λόγος, και ο Λόγος ήτο παρά τω Θεώ, και Θεός ήτο ο Λόγος.
It may hurt my eyes, but if ήτο is 3PS and if παρά which in modern means above or over, but in Koine means more than (once again, I’m treading in muddy waters) BDAG which renders παρά as a: “marker of extension from the side of, from (the side of) w. local sense preserved, used w. verbs of coming, going, sending, originating, going out, etc.” then perhaps it is correct, however, I still don't get it and never heard ήτο.
Perhaps I need to go further into BDAG, however, I’ll need to refrain at this point, since pointing out John 1 has nothing to do with who I may believe Proceeds (going out) from the Father and who I may believe is Given by the Son is a clear violation of b-Greek policy, no?
Besides, Greeks who become Baptists should not be discussing issues such as the Filioque.
: