LOL, first its the verb, then its the preposition.
"EIS" is often translated "into."
Just because a phrase is traditionally translated one way, does not preclude that the intended meaning consistent with context is something else.
I think the idea is Jesus lifted up his vision into heaven as He addressed His Father in heaven. Note when the context requires "into heaven" translators choose to translate eis that way. (Acts 7:55)
A Skopos Version of John 17
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by John of Japan, Mar 5, 2015.
Page 3 of 10
-
-
Continuing with verse 6 of John 17:
6. I showed Your name to the men who You have given Me out of the world; and they were for You, and You gave them to Me. And they have kept Your word. (JOJ)
6. I revealed your name to the people whom you have given me out of the world. They were yours, and you have given them to me. They have kept your word. (WEB)
JOJ’s interesting take on this verse raises very good questions. First, I think revealed better captures the idea than showed. Second, we have several choices for “men.” It could refer to people, but contextually Christ’s chosen 12 are in view. So should we help the reader and say “disciples?” I think so. But of course that choice must be footnoted, i.e. “literally men.” Both JOJ and the WEB translation include who/whom but consistent with translational avoidance of difficult English grammar, we should simply leave the word out. I prefer the WEB rendering, of “to you they were” as “they were yours.” I have no problem using “have given” twice. The last point is what does “they have kept your word” mean. They have memorized accurately what I revealed to them, or they have adhered to your commands and precepts and instructions? The NIV and NET render “kept” as obeyed. But following the principle that translation should start with the core meaning, and then shift to a more peripheral meaning only when the core meaning does not fit the context, I would go with “carefully kept.” This presents the idea of adherence, but does not demand it. Thus we have:
6. I revealed your name to the disciples you have given Me out of the world; they were yours, and you have given them to Me. They have carefully kept your word. -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
9. I ask for them; I do not ask for the world but for those who You have given to Me, because they are Yours.
9 Ἐγὼ περὶ αὐτῶν ἐρωτῶ· οὐ περὶ τοῦ κόσμου ἐρωτῶ, ἀλλὰ περὶ ὧν δέδωκάς μοι, ὅτι σοί εἰσιν· (Joh 17:9 BYZ)
This is a fairly straightforward verse. Any of my Greek 102 students could translate it easily in a literal rendering. The two verbs “I ask” are present active indicative, as is the final “they are.” The aspect of the present for “ask” is continuous, so they could have been translated “I am asking.” The verb for “have given” is a perfect active indicative, with the aspect of having occurred in the past with continuing ramifications. So Christ continues His relationship with the disciples. -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
The verb in John 17:1 is evpai,rw, which when used with ovfqalmoj becomes an idiom, "to raise one's gaze." The verb there virtually always is a physical raising, even in this idiom. It occurs 19 times in the NT, every time with a physical raising, except twice by Paul in Corinthians where it has a metaphorical meaning. Therefore, when you say "Lifted his eyes into Heaven," you have abandoned the idiom and are saying He actually put His eyeballs into Heaven. See Acts 27:40, where they raised the sail, described with this word. -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
10. And all that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I have been glorified in them.
10 καὶ τὰ ἐμὰ πάντα σά ἐστιν, καὶ τὰ σὰ ἐμά· καὶ δεδόξασμαι ἐν αὐτοῖς. (Joh 17:10 BYZ)
This is another straightforward verse. The verb for “to be” (ἐστιν) is a present active indicative, third person plural, “They are.” The word for “glorified” is a perfect passive. So the aspect of a past event with continuing results is in play.
“Glorify” is a difficult word. A really radical and modern translation might say, “They make me look good,” but that would simply be wrong. It’s more than that. It could be “They praise (or compliment) me,” but the way Jesus used it is much more than that. I don’t see any other alternative than “glorified.” -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
11. And I am no longer in the world, and they are in the world, and I Myself am going to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name who You have given to Me, that they might be one just as We are.
11 Καὶ οὐκέτι εἰμὶ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, καὶ οὗτοι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ εἰσίν, καὶ ἐγὼ πρός σε ἔρχομαι. Πάτερ ἅγιε, τήρησον αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου, ᾧ δέδωκάς μοι, ἵνα ὦσιν ἕν, καθὼς ἡμεῖς.(Joh 17:11 BYZ)
This is an interesting verse to interpret, since Christ was technically still in the world at this point. However, this is one place where difficulty of exegesis does not affect the translation, which is fairly straightforward. The first three verbs, “am” and “are” and “going,” are all present active indicative (the third one being a deponent verb, passive in form and active in meaning). Therefore their aspect is continual. This is very hard to get into the target language in a “to be” verb, but the third verb was translated as “am going.” This may solve the exegesis problem in that Christ viewed Himself as being in the process of going, according to the verb He chose.
The next verb is again an imperative of entreaty. We then have “you gave” in the perfect once more.
The final phrase is another hina purpose clause with the subjunctive of “to be.”
Concerning the conjunctions, I translated them literally for the sake of my skopos, but this is a place where the translator might have license to be freer, as in “but” in place of the second “and.” -
And did you not read where I said "Lifted up his vision into heaven." It is hard to carry on a conversation when my position is mischaracterized in every post. Yet afterword you repeat the inane charge I am suggested he put his eyeballs into heaven.
This thread is about teaching on translation. I have introduced many observations and you seem unable to respond. Why is that?
The idiom is lifted up his (or their or whatever) eyes indicating raising up the vision to something. A person, or place, or people in a place.
In summary the verb means to raise up or lift up, and when used with ophthalmos (eyes or vision or gaze) means to raise up the gaze. So I did not "abandon the idiom."
I think the best translation of John 17:1 includes that Jesus lifted up His vision into heaven. -
John 17
1. After Jesus spoke these words, and lifted up His vision into heaven, He said, “Father, the hour has come, glorify your Son that your Son may glorify you.”
2. Even as you gave Him authority over all flesh that He will give eternal life to them you have given to Him.
3. Moreover, this is eternal life – that they would know the only true God and Jesus Christ, the One you sent.
4. I glorified you on earth by finishing the work you gave Me to do.
5. Now Father, glorify Me along side you with the glory I had with you before the world existed.
6. I revealed your name to the disciples you have given Me out of the world; they were yours, and you have given them to Me. They have carefully kept your word. -
Here are some samples of Van's translational abilities:
"Why does it render inactive the ground?" (Luke 13:7)
"The brightness of his face was being rendered inactive." (2 Cor. 3:7) -
In their zeal to find fault where none exists, you might expect them to say Wycliffe got it wrong too. Lets see, JOJ and Mr. Rippon say Wycliffe's translation ... eyes in to heaven.... is not a proper translation. LOL
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Too bad. I mistakenly thought that we were having a profitable conversation and that I was helping you understand the text. Oh well, at least my 18 Greek 102 students still listen to me. :tongue3:
"Lifted up his vision (gaze, eyesight, etc.) into Heaven" = Good English, wrong meaning for the Greek of John 17:1.
So far you have contributed nothing to this thread to help me teach translation method. Keep trying. :smilewinkgrin: -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
12. When I was with them in the world, I was keeping them in Your name, and I have protected those who You had given Me, and none of them perished except for the son of destruction, so that the Scripture might be fulfilled.
12 Ὅτε ἤμην μετ᾽ αὐτῶν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, ἐγὼ ἐτήρουν αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου· οὓς δέδωκάς μοι, ἐφύλαξα, καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀπώλετο, εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας, ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ. (Joh 17:12 BYZ)
The first phrase is easy. The second phrase has an imperfect verb, which I translated as “was keeping” to bring out the continuous aspect. The next two verbs are perfect tenses, which I translated as “have protected” and “had given” to bring out the aspect. Both of these verbs might well be translated with a simple English past in various versions, but the skopos here is to produce a teaching version.
The verb for “perished” is ἀπώλετο, from avpo,llumi, a strong word in the aorist middle/passive, used many times in the NT. Interesting how Jesus appears to be looking at events from outside of time, considering the tenses He uses.
The last two phrases are standard Greek, with no surprises. We have an εἰ μὴ phrase which literally means “if not” but is usually translated “except” because the meaning is not quite analogous to the English “if not.” Then we have another hina clause which might be “for the purpose of the Scripture being fulfilled.” Putting it into smoother English I rendered it “so that….” -
Will JOJ provide a link to a published commentary indicating Wycliffe was wrong? Some commentaries do indicate the idea was Jesus was raising his vision into heaven, to the very throne of God. I have presented a mainline view if not a majority view.
I was not attempting to teach you, JOJ (or Mr. Rippon) anything. This thread is, or should be, for the edification of others. Petty bickering over non-issues does not move the ball forward. -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Just a peripheral note. John Wycliffe had nothing to do with the second so-called Wycliffe Bible. It was put together by John Purvey ten to twelve years after Wycliffe's death. There are less than a handful of the first very literal one which slavisly followed the Vulgate. The second one was more idiomatic --in the vernacular.
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
13. But now I am going to You, and I am saying these things in the world so that they might have My joy fulfilled in themselves.
13 Νῦν δὲ πρός σε ἔρχομαι, καὶ ταῦτα λαλῶ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, ἵνα ἔχωσιν τὴν χαρὰν τὴν ἐμὴν πεπληρωμένην ἐν αὐτοῖς. (Joh 17:13 BYZ)
This verse is interesting in that it starts with two conjunctions, Νῦν (“Now”) and δὲ (“but, and”). In the context, it makes sense to translate both of them, beginning the sentence with “But now….” The first two verbs are present active indicative, and I translated them with “am” to show that aspect.
Next we have another hina purpose clause. The verbs in the hina clause are a present active subjunctive (“might have”) and a perfect passive participle, the first participle we’ve seen in John 17. It’s in the accusative with an article (substantival usage), making it the object of the previous verb. This would be an instructive verse to help young translators with their participles, a difficult study in Greek grammar. -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
So the claim, folks, that Wycliffe was wrong (eyes in to heaven) is without support. Now that is interesting. :)
And, because the other poster never presents my views accurately, my comment about commentaries, was not the Wycliffe was right to translate "eis" as into, but that several commentators think Jesus set his mind's eye into the very throne room of God. Thus "raised His vision into heaven" certainly is seen as a possible meaning by more than one commentator.
Jesus lifted His vision upward would seem to translate John 11:41, with the same idea, that Jesus is focusing His mind's eye on the throne of God. -
A snippet from John Gill's commentary:
Page 3 of 10