Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

John 1:18 and Exodus 3:14

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • John 1:18 and Exodus 3:14


    Exodus 3:14 LXX Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν· καὶ εἶπεν Οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραήλ Ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς

    John 1:18 θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

    It is well know in general, and has recently been discussed in other threads in this forum (with a great deal of misinformation, I might add), that the second finite Hebrew verb in Exodus 3:14 MT, אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה is rendered by the substantive participle ὁ ὤν rather than the equivalent finite form in Greek, εἰμί, despite the fact that the first אהיה, identical to the second, is translated using εἰμί. Different explanations in the history of interpretation have been given. One is that Greek has trouble with such direct equivalencies, although one sees directly corresponding subjects and predicates throughout Greek literature, so this explanation is unlikely. More plausible is that the translators, possibly influenced by neo-Platonism, are giving an interpretive paraphrase to make it a statement of God's absolute existence. The writer of Revelation (traditionally John the apostle) certainly seems to have LXX 3:14 in mind in Rev 1:4:

    χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος...

    There treated as indeclinable, perhaps to emphasize that he is using a form of the divine name.

    I believe the the writer of John also has the divine name LXX in mind at John 1:18, particularly as we consider the superior reading θεός vs. υἱός. Even if υἱός is read, the language connects to Ex 3:14 and further underscores the apostle's emphasis on the divine nature of the Logos begun in 1:1 of the prologue. This forms a ring composition which strengthens the theme, concludes the prologue and provides the transition to the narrative portions of John.




  • #2
    μονογενὴς θεός {B}

    With the acquisition of 𝔓66 and 𝔓75, both of which read θεός, the external support of this reading has been notably strengthened. A majority of the Committee regarded the reading μονογενὴς υἱός, which undoubtedly is easier than μονογενὴς θεός, to be the result of scribal assimilation to Jn 3:16, 18; 1 Jn 4:9. The anarthrous use of θεός (cf. 1:1) appears to be more primitive. There is no reason why the article should have been deleted, and when υἱός supplanted θεός it would certainly have been added. The shortest reading, ὁ μονογενής, while attractive because of internal considerations, is too poorly attested for acceptance as the text.

    Some modern commentators take μονογενής as a noun and punctuate so as to have three distinct designations of him who makes God known (μονογενής, θεός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς …).

    (It is doubtful that the author would have written μονογενὴς θεός, which may be a primitive, transcriptional error in the Alexandrian tradition (Υς/Θς). At least a {D} decision would be preferable. A.W.)

    Metzger, B. M., United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (pp. 169–170). London; New York: United Bible Societies.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Barry Hofstetter View Post
      Exodus 3:14 LXX Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν· καὶ εἶπεν Οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραήλ Ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς

      John 1:18 θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

      It is well know in general, and has recently been discussed in other threads in this forum (with a great deal of misinformation, I might add), that the second finite Hebrew verb in Exodus 3:14 MT, אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה is rendered by the substantive participle ὁ ὤν rather than the equivalent finite form in Greek, εἰμί, despite the fact that the first אהיה, identical to the second, is translated using εἰμί. Different explanations in the history of interpretation have been given. One is that Greek has trouble with such direct equivalencies, although one sees directly corresponding subjects and predicates throughout Greek literature, so this explanation is unlikely. More plausible is that the translators, possibly influenced by neo-Platonism, are giving an interpretive paraphrase to make it a statement of God's absolute existence. The writer of Revelation (traditionally John the apostle) certainly seems to have LXX 3:14 in mind in Rev 1:4:

      χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος...

      There treated as indeclinable, perhaps to emphasize that he is using a form of the divine name.

      I believe the the writer of John also has the divine name LXX in mind at John 1:18, particularly as we consider the superior reading θεός vs. υἱός. Even if υἱός is read, the language connects to Ex 3:14 and further underscores the apostle's emphasis on the divine nature of the Logos begun in 1:1 of the prologue. This forms a ring composition which strengthens the theme, concludes the prologue and provides the transition to the narrative portions of John.


      John 1:18 --

      Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.
      If ὁ ὢν here is an indeclinable, and functioning as a name then you render a perfectly grammatical sentence ungrammatical. It would be the equivalent of rendering ὁ ὢν inJohn 6:46 as an indeclinable name of God. Here is my reading of John Chapter 1 for more context.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by John Milton View Post

        John 1:18 --



        If ὁ ὢν here is an indeclinable, and functioning as a name then you render a perfectly grammatical sentence ungrammatical. It would be the equivalent of rendering ὁ ὢν inJohn 6:46 as an indeclinable name of God. Here is my reading of John Chapter 1 for more context.
        Hmmm... looks like you are not really following the argument.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Barry Hofstetter View Post

          Hmmm... looks like you are not really following the argument.
          Explain why I am not following your argument.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by John Milton View Post

            Explain why I am not following your argument.
            You wrote a non sequitur in response.

            Comment


            • #7
              Readers, do not be fooled by the courtier's reply , a type of informal fallacy. It is often wielded by someone without a sound argument, who knows that it will not stand up to scrutiny .

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Barry Hofstetter View Post

                You wrote a non sequitur in response.
                Why is my argument ( that taking ὁ ὢν at John 1:18 as an indeclinable renders the sentence ungrammatical) a non sequitur ?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by John Milton View Post
                  Readers, do not be fooled by the courtier's reply , a type of informal fallacy. It is often wielded by someone without a sound argument, who knows that it will not stand up to scrutiny .
                  οὕτως γὰρ εἶπεν ἡ τοῦ σατανᾶ ἑταίρα.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
                    οὕτως γὰρ εἶπεν ἡ τοῦ σατανᾶ ἑταίρα.
                    "Thus said the Courtier of Satan."

                    Don't be distracted by ad hominems either.

                    -----

                    By the way, the very first thread in the Bible Language forum asserts this:


                    Message to all posters: Even if using Biblical languages, this rule applies: Please translate all your post on this forum into English if posting sections/sentences of other languages.

                    "Rule 23: English only
                    • This is an English only forum.
                      1. Very small statements in other languages are permitted if "G" rated and translated. "
                    The word "translated" is even in bold. Do you not care for this rule ?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by John Milton View Post

                      "Thus said the Courtier of Satan."

                      Don't be distracted by ad hominems either.
                      It's only ok for you, huh?

                      Do you not care for this rule ?
                      No. If the forum required use of the Biblical languages, it wouldn't be plagued with people like you pretending to know what they are talking about.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by CL4P-TP View Post
                        It's only ok for you, huh?

                        No. If the forum required use of the Biblical languages, it wouldn't be plagued with people like you pretending to know what they are talking about.
                        Figures. Anyway,

                        If ὁ ὢν is a name in John 1:18 , the sentence becomes ungrammatical. True or False ?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by John Milton View Post

                          Figures. Anyway,

                          If ὁ ὢν is a name in John 1:18 , the sentence becomes ungrammatical. True or False ?
                          Look up the word "allusion" in an English dictionary. Ponder it's meaning. Then get back to me.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Barry Hofstetter View Post

                            Look up the word "allusion" in an English dictionary. Ponder it's meaning. Then get back to me.
                            Lol, so ὁ ὢν is just an “allusion” to the Divine name . Now I understand why you have been so embarrassed to openly make this argument. Looks like the hidden argument is that ἐγὼ εἰμί in John 8:58 is an “allusion” too. Finally got it out.

                            Ha, Ha.. An illusion in the tradition of Mambres and Jambres.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              So readers should be aware that Barry’s position is that ὁ ὢν is not a name in John 1:18 , it is only alluding to it esoterically .

                              In other words his argument is that even though it is functioning normally (exactly as it does in passages like Matthew 12:30 where the expression simply denotes someone who is being discussed, the one who is, ) more meaning should be read into it only at John 1:18. What is this but biblical eisegesis ? I am now fairly certain that he views ἐγὼ εἰμί in John 8:58 in the same way.

                              Beware of anyone who does not openly declare his position, but speaks it in riddles.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X