Isn't this a wonderful look-see?
The only way I know about in approaching this whole 1:1-18 section of
text is to utterly and rigorously clean up the tenses in translation
into English. HN then is not 'was', but is 'was being', and so
forth. It does turn into a kind of 'Attila the Hun' pursuit, but what
is lost in gloss is more than amply rewarded in comprehensibility,
when read slowly and thoughtfully, and in the terms of the text, as
they are introduced by the text, and unfolded by the text. The
meaning of this text will not be exhausted by any of us, eh?
And I think that we are sliding off into commentary and away from
grammar, so I'll post to you off list.
George Blaisdell
Edgar Foster wrote:
>
> George,
>
> You raise a few interesting issues here. :-))
>
> ---dalmatia@eburg.com wrote:
>
> > Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>
> > > Well, my understanding of the prologue is that IF we want to
> assign a WHEN
> > > to orient the tenses in it, that WHEN ought to be either the time of
> > > composition OR the time (each time) it is being read.
>
> > This particular present tense [FANEI] just sticks out like a very
> sore thumb, grammatically.<
>
> > I emphatically do not buy the idea that it is either the time [each
> > time] the composition is being read, or the time when it was written.
>
> With all due respect to Carl and his amazing expertise with the Greek
> language, I don't buy this option either. Yet, I also don't agree with
> your conclusion, George. Surprise!
> :-)
>
> > This present tense stands virtually on its own.
>
> > But WHEN?? When indeed!! Did it START shining some time back??
> > Eh??? ... NO. Why? Because EN ARCH HN hO LOGOS. The Logos WAS
> BEING [already] IN the ARCH of time
> ~ It precedes the origin and genesis of time.
>
> Here's where I disagree, George. Sure HN (in this case) predicates
> existence of the LOGOS. It does not tell us, however, whether the
> existence posited of the LOGOS is eternal or temporal. We must draw
> upon other aspects of the Johannine Gospel to elucidate such matters.
>
> True, the LOGOS existed EN ARXH. But that's ALL John tells us. John
> does not deal with concepts of Platonic timelessness, nor with
> Parmenidean beingness. It is quite possible that Scripture in toto
> doesn't present information from this perspective.
>
> In 1 John 1:1, John uses HN AP' ARXHS to describe the ARXH of Christ's
> earthly ministry. Closer to hom (depending on how we construe John
> 1:4) HN is also utilized with reference to the LIFE created by the
> LOGOS. GR Beasley-Murray offers the following translation:
>
> "What has come into being had [HN] its life in [EN AUTW] him, and the
> life was [HN] the light of all men" (WBC 1-3). If this rendering is
> legitimate, HN is also used with regard to the creation.
>
> In 1:8, the apostle also writes concerning John the Immerser:
>
> OUK HN EKEINOS TO FWS.
>
> While it is true that this passage tells us that John is NOT the true
> light, HN is used to inform us of this vital point ABOUT a created
> being.
>
> >It is timeless, and this little sentence states this fact in
> > the simple sentence 'The Light in the darkness is shining.' The
> > ongoing present tense is the only one that catches the timeless
> > permanence of this 'shining'. No other tense CAN do this. Why is
> > this so hard?? We simply do not understand the tense power of the
> > Greek verb.
>
> Just because FANEI is present tense doesn't mean that it's timeless,
> George. As a matter of fact, 1:3, 4 makes it clear that FANEI is not
> timeless: it had a "beginning."
>
> hO GEGONEN EN AUTW ZWH HN KAI hE ZWH TO FWS TWN ANQRWPWN
>
> These words tell us that at creation's "beginning" LIGHT (or LIFE)
> came into existence through the LOGOS. Since the LOGOS was the active
> agent of the light (which is life), he could also be called the light
> which shines in darkness.
>
> Edgar Foster
>
> L-R College
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
> DO YOU YAHOO!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com