John 3:16 shall or may have everlasting life?

[exnihilo]

Tomorrow the assigned readings in the Catholic church and Protestant churches who use the RCL such as mine will be John 3:14-21. In this selection is the very famous verse John 3:16 which is translated in the KJV as

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

KJV

And in Douay-Rheims

For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.

Douay-Rheims

I find two interesting aspects. First the Douay-Rheims translates the latter part as ‘may not’ which gives us a decidedly different understanding. May indicates possibility not an assurance. The rest of the verse discusses judgement of works and that those who believe will do good works ‘because they are done in God’.

But I wanted to focus most on John 3:16. First a disclaimer. I took Latin many years ago and my Latin is now terrible. Even though I had some proficiency years ago I was never a Latin expert. The Vulgate has the verse as:

Sic enim Deus dilexit mundum, ut Filium suum unigenitum daret : ut omnis qui credit in eum, non pereat, sed habeat vitam æternam.

Vulgate

According to the definition of credo, credere using it with the accusative case means ‘to believe as a fact, to accept as true’. Using it with the dative would mean to ‘to trust in, rely upon’. I believe ‘in eum’ is the accusative case. So this would best be translated as it is in all version.

However is not ‘habeat’ the present conjunctive of habeo, habere? Thus would that not best be translated as a possibility and thus ‘may’ or ‘might’?

The NIV translates this in a most affirmative way.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

[NIV](For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.)

It would seem to me the Douay-Rheims is the most accurate translation from the Vulgate which is not exactly surprising. And it seems more consistent with the rest of the chapter and Catholic understanding (which I personally agree with). I am interested in any comments on this verse. I am also interested in knowing if my understanding of the Latin is correct. And I would be most interested in knowing from someone who knows Greek what the Greek says.

One thing is certain small changes in words can give a whole different meaning. And seeing and understanding that I now have a great appreciation for the teaching authority of the Church.

 

[DaveBj]

What matters is not the Latin, but the Greek original. In this case, both the “perish” verb and the “have” verb are subjunctive mode, which signifies an action or a state that is represented as contingent, or probable, or eventual. The NIV translation is too definite; the KJV and D/R get it better. It’s a little tricky, since English doesn’t have a true subjunctive, but uses past tense plural (when there is a plural) to represent that mode: “If I were you . . . God shed His grace on thee. . .” (the last from the song “America”). It gets even trickier for English modal verbs like “shall” (past tense “should”) and “may” (past tense “might”).

Hope this helps.

 

[MarkThompson]

What matters is not the Latin, but the Greek original. In this case, both the “perish” verb and the “have” verb are subjunctive mode, which signifies an action or a state that is represented as contingent, or probable, or eventual. The NIV translation is too definite; the KJV and D/R get it better. It’s a little tricky, since English doesn’t have a true subjunctive, but uses past tense plural (when there is a plural) to represent that mode: “If I were you . . . God shed His grace on thee. . .” (the last from the song “America”). It gets even trickier for English modal verbs like “shall” (past tense “should”) and “may” (past tense “might”).

Hope this helps.

This is all correct. It also helps to point out that the use in English of what are called modal verbs (can, should, might, may, etc.) has changed over time. “I should like to know …” has generally given way to “I would like to know …”, “Might I trouble you …” to “Could I trouble you …”, etc. Therefore it does not do too much good to attempt to derive deep meaning from the selection of a certain modal verb in English, particularly when we approach an older translation with 21st-century eyes – and most especially when we acknowledge that what is being expressed is, indeed, simply a translation of Greek and not an English (or Latin) original in the first place. In Greek, the verb for “perish” is an aorist middle-voice subjunctive, and the verb for “have” is present active subjunctive. A good analysis really ought to start there (preferably by someone whose Greek is better than mine!).

 

[DaveBj]

Here’s some extra information. The word for “perish” is “apollumi,” which means “to destroy” in the active voice; in the middle, or reflexive, it means “to perish/lose.”

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Tomorrow the assigned readings in the Catholic church and Protestant churches who use the RCL such as mine will be John 3:14-21. In this selection is the very famous verse John 3:16 which is translated in the KJV as

And in Douay-Rheims

I find two interesting aspects. First the Douay-Rheims translates the latter part as ‘may not’ which gives us a decidedly different understanding. May indicates possibility not an assurance. The rest of the verse discusses judgement of works and that those who believe will do good works ‘because they are done in God’.

But I wanted to focus most on John 3:16. First a disclaimer. I took Latin many years ago and my Latin is now terrible. Even though I had some proficiency years ago I was never a Latin expert. The Vulgate has the verse as:

According to the definition of credo, credere using it with the accusative case means ‘to believe as a fact, to accept as true’. Using it with the dative would mean to ‘to trust in, rely upon’. I believe ‘in eum’ is the accusative case. So this would best be translated as it is in all version.

However is not ‘habeat’ the present conjunctive of habeo, habere? Thus would that not best be translated as a possibility and thus ‘may’ or ‘might’?

The NIV translates this in a most affirmative way.

It would seem to me the Douay-Rheims is the most accurate translation from the Vulgate which is not exactly surprising. And it seems more consistent with the rest of the chapter and Catholic understanding (which I personally agree with). I am interested in any comments on this verse. I am also interested in knowing if my understanding of the Latin is correct. And I would be most interested in knowing from someone who knows Greek what the Greek says.

One thing is certain small changes in words can give a whole different meaning. And seeing and understanding that I now have a great appreciation for the teaching authority of the Church.

This is an interesting question because it combines features of Greek as well as the way English Classicists have been taught to render their translations.

The clause that you are referring to in the verse (beginning with “that” in your various translations) is what is know as a purpose clause and is here introduced by the Greek word hina. The general meaning of hina is “in order that” or that in a sequence of events, a certain event/action was purposed to happened so that another event/action would happen.

In classical Greek, you have two different moods of verbs that can used in a purpose clause: the subjunctive or the optative. (The word you were searching for was “subjunctive” and not “conjunctive.”) While normally we think of subjunctive as indicating possibility instead of assurance, that’s not always the case. Certain types of constructions simply take subjunctive verbs—and this is one of them. (There are many similarities with “ut” clauses in Latin, but that’s going to get pretty complicated, so I’m going to just stick to Greek.)

So, back to our two choices: subjunctive or optative. Subjunctive verbs are used in cases where “X was made to happen in order that Y happens/happened/will happen.” Optative verbs carry more the meaning of “X was made to happen in order that Y has the possibility of happening.”

English classicists have traditionally used a sort of “code” to distinguish between the two verbal moods. Subjunctive verbs in such clauses are traditionally translated as “may” and optative verbs as “might.” The distinctions between the two are awfully slippery in contemporary English, but when confronted with “might” as possibility, “may” sounds much more assured–but more on that later.

Now, back to John 3:16. Because the verbs in the purpose clause are in the subjunctive, the expected situation is that “X was made to happen in order that Y could happen” or, God sent his son, in order that that the ones trusting in him wouldn’t die but would have eternal life.

However, there are admittedly a few complications here. By the time the New Testament is written, optative verbs have started to die out, so the subjective is sometimes used to indicate possibility rather than the assurance of purpose. Also, by the time the New Testament is written, hina has also taken some of the features of the result clause: because X happened, Y happened, without necessarily any purpose behind it. That having been said the usual use of hina is still that X was made to happen with the purpose of Y in mind.

Personally, I think the use of “may” in the translation has great potential to be misleading to contemporary readers because to most people it conveys the sense of only possibility, which is really reading against the grain of how the Greek text would normally be translated. However, one should probably look at other instances of the use of hina in John and see what they look like. I’m not going to take the time to do that.

In my opinion, the KJV or NIV are, in this case, to be preferred in the context of contemporary English. I would use “trust” instead of “believe” however; a whole other can of worms

 

[Nate13]

Someone who believes in him and loves him would show they do so following his commands and teachings. These teachings and authority to teach are embodied in the Church.

 

[exnihilo]

Thanks for the answers I’m sorting through them trying to get a solid understanding.

It also helps to point out that the use in English of what are called modal verbs (can, should, might, may, etc.) has changed over time. “I should like to know …” has generally given way to “I would like to know …”, “Might I trouble you …” to “Could I trouble you …”, etc. Therefore it does not do too much good to attempt to derive deep meaning from the selection of a certain modal verb in English, particularly when we approach an older translation with 21st-century eyes

My grammar skills are poor in any language. However I do know one thing related to English modals, and unrelated to this discussion, that you may find interesting. In the South we often use what is called the double modal. A man might say ‘you might ought to think about…’ as a way to gently suggesting something. Or if my wife asks if I want to go shopping I might reply ‘I might could’ as a way to indicate I’m not very interested in going but might. I guess I can tie that back in as a way of showing the difficulty of understanding the true meaning in other languages. Someone who speaks English but is not from the South might find this hard to understand.

 

[PJM]

=exnihilo;9082819]Tomorrow the assigned readings in the Catholic church and Protestant churches who use the RCL such as mine will be John 3:14-21. In this selection is the very famous verse John 3:16 which is translated in the KJV as

And in Douay-Rheims

I find two interesting aspects. First the Douay-Rheims translates the latter part as ‘may not’ which gives us a decidedly different understanding. May indicates possibility not an assurance. The rest of the verse discusses judgement of works and that those who believe will do good works ‘because they are done in God’.

But I wanted to focus most on John 3:16. First a disclaimer. I took Latin many years ago and my Latin is now terrible. Even though I had some proficiency years ago I was never a Latin expert. The Vulgate has the verse as:

According to the definition of credo, credere using it with the accusative case means ‘to believe as a fact, to accept as true’. Using it with the dative would mean to ‘to trust in, rely upon’. I believe ‘in eum’ is the accusative case. So this would best be translated as it is in all version.

However is not ‘habeat’ the present conjunctive of habeo, habere? Thus would that not best be translated as a possibility and thus ‘may’ or ‘might’?

FROM THE SAME AUTHOR. BOOK, AND CHAPTER ARE THE FOLLOWING:

John

---

John.3 Verses 5 to 36

[5] Jesus answered, ***"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. ***

[15] that whoever believes in him may have eternal life."
[16] For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. ???]

[18] He who believes in him is not condemned***; he who does not believe is condemned ***already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

[36] He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.

It would seem to me the Douay-Rheims is the most accurate translation from the Vulgate which is not exactly surprising. And it seems more consistent with the rest of the chapter and Catholic understanding (which I personally agree with). I am interested in any comments on this verse. I am also interested in knowing if my understanding of the Latin is correct. And I would be most interested in knowing from someone who knows Greek what the Greek says

One thing is certain small changes in words can give a whole different meaning. And seeing and understanding that I now have a great appreciation for the teaching authority of the Church.