---Richard Lindeman richlind@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Carl Conrad writes:
> >Well, for once we agree on something, George. I think that present
FAINEI
> >is indeed important and would even be willing to convey it as
"continues to
> >shine" or "goes on shining"--my reading of Johannine theology is
that the
> >shining started with the incarnation but really climaxed with the
> >crucifixion/resurrection--which is to say with the
> >exaltation/glorification. Of course this COULD have been expressed
with an
> >imperfect (or "past imperfect" as you call it above), but I would
translate
> >an imperfect (if it were EFAINEN) as "the light began to shine
..."-- the
> >built-in imperfective aspect here is the emphasis upon the
uncompleted,
> >i.e. ongoing, process of shining.
>
> I am fairly certain that Carl will agree that the *time* of FAINEI
in John
> 1:5 depends upon whether whether we read this verse as an
independent clause
> or a dependent clause within the paragraph. In the former case we
must
> translate it with absolute time(present - ongoing). In the latter
case we
> must translate it as relative time(past - ongoing). I read this
clause as
> being strongly dependent and yet at the same time introducing an
independent
> thought.
There seems to be good evidence to understand John 1:5 as an
independent thought and therefore to translate FANEI with the
present-ongoing ("the light IS shining" or "the light shines"). You
may be right about verse five being dependent, however.
> Therefore I offer Carl the following barter: I will concede that
FAINEI is
> not exclusively past time if he will concede that it is not
exclusively
> present time. The paraphrase of the verse (not its translation)
might be as
> follows... ""The light has been and continues shining now in the the
> darkness yet the darkness did not overcome it."
This translation relies on whether you take this as an independent or
dependent clause. While this may be a valid approach, I would also
consider context in this matter as well. It is surely determinative in
this case.
IMHO, the context gives us no reason to render 1:5 as "has been and
continues." This implies that John is addressing an eternal conflict
or that he is taking in both the past and present with his comments.
The context does not seem to support this conclusion. While it may be
true that the light both shone and shines, this is not what 1:5 is
saying.
At issue is the enfleshment of the LOGOS and the way in which his
"own" responded to him (John 1:10-13). Despite the rejection of
Messiah, the light continues shining and the darkness **still** "has
not" (aorist) overtaken it. But even prior to the LOGOS becoming
flesh, PANTA DI' AUTOU EGENETO.
Since PANTA DI' AUTOU EGENETO, FWS existed PRIOR to the fleshly
appearance of the LOGOS. The light is an associative aspect of the
LOGOS' ministry, yet it also preceded the tenting of the LOGOS with
humans (John 1:3, 4). Therefore, the "shining" of light is an ongoing
process. The darkness' inability to "overtake" TO FWS is not ongoing,
however. It HAS failed to KATELABEN.
Edgar Foster
L-R College
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com