This was your original post:

I would appreciate your criticism of my rendition of John 17:3

And this is everlasting life, that they should intimately know and understand* the only true God and him whom you did send, Jesus Christ.

I intend to have a footnote that reads...

* ginōskō: perceive, understand, to know not just intellectually but in an intimate way.

You did not indicate that you wanted to ignore your poor rendering of hINA GINWSKWSIN, only of your poor rendering of GINOWSKWSIN!

Well, "know and understand" does not enhance the "intimacy" of the rendering, since "understand" has the connotation of *intellectual knowledge*. Perhaps "know you intimately" is what you are looking for? Although I don't find that particularly useful, personally.

"Parrot," eh? Maybe you should parrot more and quit trying to put creative spins based on shabby linguistic ideas.

I think I've wasted enough time on this subject.

Originally posted by WoundedEgo

This was your original post:



You did not indicate that you wanted to ignore your poor rendering of hINA GINWSKWSIN, only of your poor rendering of GINOWSKWSIN!

Well, "know and understand" does not enhance the "intimacy" of the rendering, since "understand" has the connotation of *intellectual knowledge*. Perhaps "know you intimately" is what you are looking for? Although I don't find that particularly useful, personally.

"Parrot," eh? Maybe you should parrot more and quit trying to put creative spins based on shabby linguistic ideas.

I think I've wasted enough time on this subject.

Obviously you have wasted your time. All you have presented is some dogmatic use of hina, ignoring its context and placement. Here is the Greek αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωή ἵνα γινώσκωσιν σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν . It prefaces ginōskōsin.

I suggest you also read John 14 in the Greek. In the English, how is it that Jesus says that they had the knowledge (eidon) but Thomas contradicts him and says they didn't. Jesus explains they lack ginōskō. He also says they couldn't see the Father in him as they lacked ginōskō.

I was inclined to render "intimately know" but perceived that this didn't bring out the meaning that distinguishes ginōskō from eidon, gnosis or epignosis (all rendered knowledge in most versions).

If you care to read a lexicon you'll find that it basically means "to know, understand, perceive, have knowledge of" eidon can have a similar range of meanings. However eidon is generic knowledge whereas ginosko is often associated with intimate knowledge. Now what is special about intimate knowledge? In my experience, it is the understanding that comes with it - the why answered, as opposed to the what which is seen with the eyes, or perceived with the mind.

According to John in his Gospel and letters, why did the Father send the Son? cp. 1 Jn 4:9.

Actually, worth noting the use of hina in 1 John 4:9.

ps. Well worth you reading Thayer on hina. http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/...s=G2443&t=KJV# "that" would seem the most appropriate word at John 17:3. Especially as the reference to knowledge as necessary to eternal life is a consistent theme in John's Gospel.

I think that the problem with translating the term γινώσκωσιν is that Jesus and the disciples may well be using the term as they might use the Hebrew terms יָדַע (yada) and דַּעַת (d’ath). You hint at that in some of your remarks regarding the meaning of γνῶσις. The Greek connotes perception, understanding, discernment and, as you said, intimate knowledge. The Hebrew has the connotation of visceral or experiential knowledge.

Quick note: I believe that you might be better served with regard to the rendering αἰώνιος as “eternal” because “everlasting” and such all connote the time-bound. “eternal” connotes timeless... more on that later...

Literally the first clause of the verse renders: “same yet is the eternal life. ἵνα in this context may be used in relation to a place… a state of being… in which case the implication of “in that place” may also be present… not to the exclusion of “that” or “in order that” but as an addition. Also, ἵνα + the subjunctive has the sense of the infinitive… especially, I think, in the context of the entire chapter and this verse beginning with αὕτη δέ not καί… keeping in mind that αὕτη has a connotation of “here” and δέ has an adversative as well as copulative functions including indicating causal connection and/or explanation.

How this information might be of help I am not sure… and I realized as typing this that you probably had reviewed most of this before your posting. I think that the only substantive contributions I might have is that Jesus is talking of experiencing God so it might render as “that they may be experiencing the one true God”… as He indicates when he says things like “I am in my Father and you in me and I in you…” (John 14:20) it is experiential not intellectual or even perceptual… I believe that this is another reason that the term “eternal” is important… because God is eternal, to experience this we must transcend this κόσμος. I think it might also be helpful to research the meaning of κόσμος… it means system or order of things (which I am sure you know so forgive any indication of condescension!)… The Father’s kingdom is not “of” this system…

Anyway… eternal life… that they may experience…

My two big contributions after all that verbiage!!

Originally posted by RonC

I think that the problem with translating the term γινώσκωσιν is that Jesus and the disciples may well be using the term as they might use the Hebrew terms יָדַע (yada) and דַּעַת (d’ath). You hint at that in some of your remarks regarding the meaning of γνῶσις. The Greek connotes perception, understanding, discernment and, as you said, intimate knowledge. The Hebrew has the connotation of visceral or experiential knowledge.

Quick note: I believe that you might be better served with regard to the rendering αἰώνιος as “eternal” because “everlasting” and such all connote the time-bound. “eternal” connotes timeless... more on that later...

Literally the first clause of the verse renders: “same yet is the eternal life. ἵνα in this context may be used in relation to a place… a state of being… in which case the implication of “in that place” may also be present… not to the exclusion of “that” or “in order that” but as an addition. Also, ἵνα + the subjunctive has the sense of the infinitive… especially, I think, in the context of the entire chapter and this verse beginning with αὕτη δέ not καί… keeping in mind that αὕτη has a connotation of “here” and δέ has an adversative as well as copulative functions including indicating causal connection and/or explanation.

How this information might be of help I am not sure… and I realized as typing this that you probably had reviewed most of this before your posting. I think that the only substantive contributions I might have is that Jesus is talking of experiencing God so it might render as “that they may be experiencing the one true God”… as He indicates when he says things like “I am in my Father and you in me and I in you…” (John 14:20) it is experiential not intellectual or even perceptual… I believe that this is another reason that the term “eternal” is important… because God is eternal, to experience this we must transcend this κόσμος. I think it might also be helpful to research the meaning of κόσμος… it means system or order of things (which I am sure you know so forgive any indication of condescension!)… The Father’s kingdom is not “of” this system…

Anyway… eternal life… that they may experience…

My two big contributions after all that verbiage!!

Hi Ron,

Thanks for the input it is valuable to me. I hum and har about "eternal" vs "everlasting". Rev 22 indicates to me that in the kingdom there is a perception of time. Hence my preference for "everlasting" (plus the existence of the tree of life. Why is it needed?). Also, imu, I think "everlasting" is more descriptive of the result of the ginosko, but thats just a prejudice of mine, the testing of which I encourage.

I like your rendering "… eternal life… that they may experience…" but to me it needs to be expanded to the trifecta of experiencing, knowing and understanding thing. ie: I can experience something but never truely comprehend it (eg: women ;-)

I feel John 1:1-2 must be considered as Jesus context for vs3. For me these explain the ginosko not of a one but of a two, and with John 16:12-15 of a three. For all the Father has, so has the Son, and so has the Parakletos.

_______________

I came across the following notes, which I found of interest:

From Moulton: Ginosko denotes the attainment or the manifestation of knowledge and is used for the following:
a. where there is reference to some earlier state of ignorance, or to some prior facts on which the knowledge is based.
b. where the ideas of thoroughness, familiarity or of approbation are involved.

Both ideas arise out of the stress ginosko lays on the process of reception.

Vine commenting on the distinction between ginosko and oida, writes, “The differences between ginosko (No. 1) and oida demand consideration: (a) ginosko, frequently suggests inception or progress in "knowledge," while oida suggests fullness of "knowledge," e. g., (John 8:55), "ye have not known Him" (ginosko), i. e., begun to "know," "but I know Him" (oida), i. e., "know Him perfectly"; (13:7), "What I do thou knowest not now," i. e. Peter did not yet perceive (oida) its significance, "but thou shalt understand," i.e., "get to know (ginosko), hereafter"; (14:7), "If ye had known Me" (ginosko), i. e., "had definitely come toknow Me," "ye would have known My Father also" (oida), i. e., "would have had perception of": "from henceforth ye know Him" (ginosko), i. e., having unconsciously been coming to the Father, as the One who
was in Him, they would now consciously be in the constant and progressive experience of "knowing" Him; in (Mark 4:13), "Know ye not (oida) this parable? and how shall ye know (ginosko) all the parables?" (RV), i. e., "Do ye not understand this parable? How shall ye come to perceive all..." the intimation being that the first parable is a leading and testing one; (b) while ginosko frequently implies an active relation between the one who "knows" and the person or thing "known" (see No. 1, above), oida expresses the fact that the object has simply come within the scope of the "knower's" perception; thus in (Matt. 7:23) "I never knew you" (ginosko) suggests "I have never been in approving connection with you," whereas in (25:12), "I know
you not" (oida) suggests "you stand in no relation to Me."

Peace

Originally posted by apostoli

Hi Ron,

Thanks for the input it is valuable to me. I hum and har about "eternal" vs "everlasting". Rev 22 indicates to me that in the kingdom there is a perception of time. Hence my preference for "everlasting" (plus the existence of the tree of life. Why is it needed?). Also, imu, I think "everlasting" is more descriptive of the result of the ginosko, but thats just a prejudice of mine, the testing of which I encourage.

And so I will!! Just kidding… I think that we may both be correct… It may well be (for human conceptual purposes only we might say) that God exists simultaneously in time and in timelessness but in a very real sense is not “of” time or “of” timelessness, rather is beyond them…

Originally posted by apostoli

I like your rendering "… eternal life… that they may experience…" but to me it needs to be expanded to the trifecta of experiencing, knowing and understanding thing. ie: I can experience something but never truely comprehend it (eg: women ;-)

I actually fully agree. My suggestions are not specific suggestions as to what the English terms chosen should be… my suggestions are more reminders of connotations we might forget… The challenge of conveying the meaning of “ginosko” or “d’ath” in a single English term may be an insurmountable one… An oceanographer or marine biologist might well have “knowledge” of the ocean, but if a storm were coming up I would prefer an old fisherman at the helm of my boat because the fisherman may not have “knowledge” of the ocean, but he sure will “know” it better than the oceanographer or the marine biologist… this is based on personal experience…

RonC

Originally posted by RonC

And so I will!! Just kidding… I think that we may both be correct… It may well be (for human conceptual purposes only we might say) that God exists simultaneously in time and in timelessness but in a very real sense is not “of” time or “of” timelessness, rather is beyond them…

I actually fully agree. My suggestions are not specific suggestions as to what the English terms chosen should be… my suggestions are more reminders of connotations we might forget… The challenge of conveying the meaning of “ginosko” or “d’ath” in a single English term may be an insurmountable one… An oceanographer or marine biologist might well have “knowledge” of the ocean, but if a storm were coming up I would prefer an old fisherman at the helm of my boat because the fisherman may not have “knowledge” of the ocean, but he sure will “know” it better than the oceanographer or the marine biologist… this is based on personal experience…

RonC

Hi RonC,

I've been chastened by self realisation. My original project has been severely cut back, though still on target. I suspect I have crumbled as all other English renderers of the NT. Some verses are better explained as a supplement to the NT, so vagaries in translation need to remain. It is a pity, but my ambition of amplification is just not practical - English is just too limited.

At a personal level your thoughts on 17:3 have led me to another level of investigation. So sincere thanks.

Peace

Originally posted by RonC

And so I will!! Just kidding… I think that we may both be correct… It may well be (for human conceptual purposes only we might say) that God exists simultaneously in time and in timelessness but in a very real sense is not “of” time or “of” timelessness, rather is beyond them…

ps.

I see the understanding of 17:3 in the context of us. Thus the reference of life is to our existence rather than our perspective of the Father or the Son's existence ie: we have participation in eternity but are not intrinsic to it = we do not become theos, nor theotēs but partake of theios.

Originally posted by apostoli

ps.

I see the understanding of 17:3 in the context of us. Thus the reference of life is to our existence rather than our perspective of the Father or the Son's existence ie: we have participation in eternity but are not intrinsic to it = we do not become theos, nor theotēs but partake of theios.

Thank you for this... it voices one of those truths that we (and I include myself) overlook... too often we make God in our image... it is one of our great flaws...

Hi RonC,

In your opinion could ginosko at John 17:3 be rendered "comprehend"? In modern English, at least here in Oz, that seems to convey the trifecta I'm looking for - experience, knowledge & understanding.

Peace

Originally posted by apostoli

Hi RonC,

In your opinion could ginosko at John 17:3 be rendered "comprehend"? In modern English, at least here in Oz, that seems to convey the trifecta I'm looking for - experience, knowledge & understanding.

Peace

It seems that all of these terms indicate that we (humans) can come to the point of understanding or comprehending the Creator...

Though Jesuit trained I do have an affinity for the EO understandings! Perhaps exploring their word choice in this area might be enlightening.

Originally posted by RonC

It seems that all of these terms indicate that we (humans) can come to the point of understanding or comprehending the Creator...

Though Jesuit trained I do have an affinity for the EO understandings! Perhaps exploring their word choice in this area might be enlightening.

I also have an affinity for EO theology, but they express it in Greek! Which isn't of assistence in conveying the same meaning in English, without resorting to pages of text ;-{

For my TESL (Teach English as a Second Language) edition I've largely gone with tradition, but here and there I want to be a little radical. For me Jn 17:3 is a critical text and links directly to 3:33,36. So I feel a need to expand here on ginosko.

Time is running out, so I will have to give up and just render the typical, but if I can expand the term, so the meaning can be translated more appropriately from English to another language, it would be a major plus.

Peace

A common error in pop preaching is to say that John 17:3 *defines* something called "eternal life" as consisting of "knowledge of God." That is, they imbue the simple word for "everlasting" with a connotation of "eternal depth." But the Greek word has no such connotation, and John 17:3, properly translated, makes no such equation. It is NOT:

"Eternal life=to know God and Jesus"

but rather:

"and this is everlasting life in order that they should know God, and also Jesus"

But the titillating version will prevail because people like it better that the actual version.

I sort of address what you are saying in this post:here

Originally posted by WoundedEgo

A common error in pop preaching is to say that John 17:3 *defines* something called "eternal life" as consisting of "knowledge of God." That is, they imbue the simple word for "everlasting" with a connotation of "eternal depth." But the Greek word has no such connotation, and John 17:3, properly translated, makes no such equation. It is NOT:

That is simply not accurate. The term aionios is used by Plato connoting“eternal”. As is the related term aionizo.

Originally posted by WoundedEgo

"Eternal life=to know God and Jesus"

but rather:

"and this is everlasting life in order that they should know God, and also Jesus"

But the titillating version will prevail because people like it better that the actual version.

If the Creator were time-bound in all ways then your rendering might be acceptable. However if the Creator exists within and outside of time... if the Creator existed prior to creation and the establishment of time... then this needs to be addressed in any rendering...

I suggest you look at my post here on the concept of eternity as presented in Proverbs 8:23 which is translated into Greek in the LXX as: πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐθεμελίωσέν με ἐν ἀρχῇ

Originally posted by WoundedEgo

A common error in pop preaching is to say that John 17:3 *defines* something called "eternal life" as consisting of "knowledge of God." That is, they imbue the simple word for "everlasting" with a connotation of "eternal depth." But the Greek word has no such connotation, and John 17:3, properly translated, makes no such equation. It is NOT:

"Eternal life=to know God and Jesus"

but rather:

"and this is everlasting life in order that they should know God, and also Jesus"

But the titillating version will prevail because people like it better that the actual version.

A typical sign of absolute ignorance is found in those who focus on a single phrase or word. John has a consistent message throughout the Gospel that you seem to need to ignore. See chapter 3 which reflects chapter 17.

John 17:3 does not say anything about knowing God and Jesus, but to know he, the referee of vs 1 as true God, and he of vs 1 & 2 as the one who he sent, who is indentified explicitly as Jesus Christ, and who John consistently calls Son of God in the most intimate perspective.

As we find consistently in the Gospel & John's letters, the first is identified as the Father of the one sent in a progenitor context. Which emphasises John 1:1.

What, in your effort to be a popularist, you call "pop preaching" happens to be the consistent teaching of Christians for 2000 or so years. What you parrot is 19th century occultism, found in such dieing groups as the WT&TS, Christadelphians, Christian Scientists, Brethren (opened & closed), Nazarenes and other minor cult movements.

Nothing new is under the sun. So if you think you are being innovative - we have heard it all before and it has been disproved over, and over, and over, and over......again.

Go away. Read the scriptures and do a Berean if you are an honest seeker. But I suspect all you are aiming for is to puff yourself up and fester your wounded ego.

If I have misinderstood your intent I apologise. But your posts come across as if you are just looking for a fight, rather than any serious consideration of facts...

In reference to an earlier comment of yours: Equanimity requires that one stand up to bullies and Nazis type propagandists, it is not a doctrine of pacifity! Understand this and you too might find some semblance of balance.

Well, I'm going to have to eat some words.

I did some further research. Apparently, if 1 John is the same author as the 4th gospel, which it appears he is, then he has a characteristic of his style that uses hINA+Subjunctive to mean "namely, that"...

1 John 3:11 ¶ For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, [namely,] that we should love one another.

1Jo 3:23 And this is his commandment, [namely,] That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

1 Jo 4:21 And this commandment have we from him, [namely,] That he who loveth God love his brother also.

1 Jo 5:3 For this is the love of [for] God, [namely,] that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

So, I withdraw my previous reading and submit:

"and this is everlasting life, namely that we know you, the only true God, and [also know] Jesus Christ, whom you have sent"

This is roughly parallel to:

1Jo 5:11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal [everlasting] life, and this life is in his Son.
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal [everlasting] life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

It was not my intention to "darken counsel with words without knowledge" and having done so, I ask you to accept my apology.

Bill Ross

Originally posted by WoundedEgo

Well, I'm going to have to eat some words.

I did some further research. Apparently, if 1 John is the same author as the 4th gospel, which it appears he is, then he has a characteristic of his style that uses hINA+Subjunctive to mean "namely, that"...

1 John 3:11 ¶ For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, [namely,] that we should love one another.

1Jo 3:23 And this is his commandment, [namely,] That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

1 Jo 4:21 And this commandment have we from him, [namely,] That he who loveth God love his brother also.

1 Jo 5:3 For this is the love of [for] God, [namely,] that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

So, I withdraw my previous reading and submit:

"and this is everlasting life, namely that we know you, the only true God, and [also know] Jesus Christ, whom you have sent"

This is roughly parallel to:

1Jo 5:11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal [everlasting] life, and this life is in his Son.
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal [everlasting] life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

It was not my intention to "darken counsel with words without knowledge" and having done so, I ask you to accept my apology.

Bill Ross

Thank you for this wonderful post which teaches something all of us need to be reminded of... It is a lesson I in particular will try to heed... though I still disagree with you on eternal v everlasting!! But that is insignificant in light of your example.

Thank you again.

RonC