Re: Pronouns in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1-4

From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Mon Dec 27 1999 - 10:39:38 EST


At 7:01 PM -0500 12/26/99, KJohn36574@aol.com wrote:
>Interpretation of the Hebrew Tanakh vs the Greek LXX has little to do with
>the different translations of Gen. 1:1 as the Hebrew has been translated both
>ways as Steve has correctly pointed out, by Hebrew scholars.
>
>Steven is possibly working from the notion of the LXX influence on
>translating the Hebrew rendering of Gen. 1:1 into English, although I'm not
>convinced all translators who use, "In the beginning" are necessarily doing
>it only through consideration of the LXX and its influence on English bible
>format and translation.
>
>What I am saying has alot more going for it than the "timing" of the creation
>of the earth. It has to do with the facts that John quotes the OT much more
>than any synoptic writer, and was one of the Sons of Thunder, who suggested
>the Lord call down fire on the unbelieving Samaritans. He was a radical
>Palistinian Jew who was a strict monotheist. I just don't believe, even as a
>Hellenistic Jew, he thought as much about saving Greek philosophers as Jewish
>unbelievers in Ephesus, who were everywhere their. But these are authorship
>and background issues that go even beyond the background of the use of
>vocabulary in a portion of Scripture.
>Lets remember Paul was Saul of Tarsus and steeped in Greek philosophy, but
>spent little time discussion doctrine along the lines of Grecian thought even
>when writing to Greeks in the Church. Christ came first to the lost sheep of
>Israel, and so did Paul and the other Apostles.
>The Jerusalem Church has much more to say on Christian beginnings/thought
>than the Church in Rome or Athens.
>
>But this is history and not grammar studies I'm talking about. But then
>again, who can study vocabulary usage fully without knowledge of
>historical/cultural backgrounds of that language's usage and author? How and
>why should one feel he/she must do that?

I'd be careful about just what we can assume is history and just how sure
we may assume these assumptions you're taking for granted about the author
of the gospel of John. No, this isn't the place to discuss those questions
(there is a list for discussion of gospel of John, and another list for
discussion of Paul, yet another for discussion of the Synoptic gospels).
The only point I'm trying to make here is that when you write, "What I am
saying has a lot more going for it than ...," you need to be aware that
there may well be challenges to other things that you're confident are
"going for" your perspective. You dare not assume that others will share
your notions of what is 'self-evident' about the "history" underlying the
composition of the gospels. There is very little in this area that is not
subject to considerable dispute.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

---
B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:52 EDT