A
ajpirc
Guest
I the Gospel of John, chapter 3 verse 16, the Catholic Bible says “might not perish” but many Protestant Bibles say “will not perish”. What did it really say in the original Greek and why are they different?
- Status
P
ProVobis
Guest
This is not the original orginal but is the Greek.
In Latin
The verbs that are in subjunctive can be translated as may not be, let not be, or something to that effect.
G
Godfollower
Guest
I’m not good enough to give you a complete exegesis on the actual Greek, but the problem appears to be one of the translators either not knowing or not caring about the actual sophisticated grammar. The entire phrase, “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” has a very specific meaning revolving around God’s love and His gift of His Son to us. It then has a purpose clause, rendered in the subjunctive mood: “that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.”
(For those who care: the subjunctive mood is used when discussing necessity, uncertainty, desire, emotion, or doubt: “May you be happy” is subjunctive – it might or might not happen – as opposed to the indicative “You will be happy” – which will, in fact, happen).
In modern English, “might not perish” and “will not perish” are both wrong. It might be better to render it “for the purpose that whoever believes in Him not perish but have eternal life.” The sentence is not a promise that merely believing will guarantee eternal life; it’s a statement of the goal of the preceding phrase (why God sent His Son).
The same Greek word ἵνα (in order that) is used in Luke 20:14 (Whom when the husbandmen saw, they thought within themselves, saying: This is the heir, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours). It’s a “so that” construction, but it doesn’t mean that they would, in fact, get the inheritance.
The fact that it’s rendered in the subjunctive means that it might or might not happen. So yes, God so loved [indicative; He did in fact love] the world that He gave [indicative; he did in fact give] His only begotten Son, that whosever believes [indicative; whoever does in fact believe] in Him might/would/should/could not perish [subjunctive of purpose; he might or might not perish, but the not-perishing is the purpose of the preceding phrase] but have [subjunctive of purpose; he might or might not have life, but the having-life is the purpose of the preceding phrase] eternal life.
Hope this helps.
(For those who care: the subjunctive mood is used when discussing necessity, uncertainty, desire, emotion, or doubt: “May you be happy” is subjunctive – it might or might not happen – as opposed to the indicative “You will be happy” – which will, in fact, happen).
In modern English, “might not perish” and “will not perish” are both wrong. It might be better to render it “for the purpose that whoever believes in Him not perish but have eternal life.” The sentence is not a promise that merely believing will guarantee eternal life; it’s a statement of the goal of the preceding phrase (why God sent His Son).
The same Greek word ἵνα (in order that) is used in Luke 20:14 (Whom when the husbandmen saw, they thought within themselves, saying: This is the heir, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours). It’s a “so that” construction, but it doesn’t mean that they would, in fact, get the inheritance.
The fact that it’s rendered in the subjunctive means that it might or might not happen. So yes, God so loved [indicative; He did in fact love] the world that He gave [indicative; he did in fact give] His only begotten Son, that whosever believes [indicative; whoever does in fact believe] in Him might/would/should/could not perish [subjunctive of purpose; he might or might not perish, but the not-perishing is the purpose of the preceding phrase] but have [subjunctive of purpose; he might or might not have life, but the having-life is the purpose of the preceding phrase] eternal life.
Hope this helps.
A
ajpirc
Guest
This does help a bit more. English is so confusing though so I’ll just have to buy an original Greek Bible to explain things to people next time.
But what you’re saying is that, in a nutshell, the Father sent the Son “in order that” we have salvation. It’s just saying God sent Christ for our salvation, not saying whether it’s definite or not if we believe.
This is what I got out of it. If it’s not what you meant, please tell me.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Good explanation of the subjunctive. I agree that they’re both wrong. I notice the English-speaking world is slowly losing the distinction between subjunctive and indicative modes. For example, it’s now okay to say “if I was” instead of “if I were” to perhaps further blur this distinction. In this case the listener can more easily conclude the clause is more fact than supposition while the speaker has legally/technically covered himself with stating it as a hypothetical.
G
Godfollower
Guest
Yes, you’re right. The fault lies with English itself, which has lost a lot of the tenses used in other languages. For example:This does help a bit more. English is so confusing though so I’ll just have to buy an original Greek Bible to explain things to people next time.
But what you’re saying is that, in a nutshell, the Father sent the Son “in order that” we have salvation. It’s just saying God sent Christ for our salvation, not saying whether it’s definite or not if we believe.
This is what I got out of it. If it’s not what you meant, please tell me.
English Indicative…French Indicative
To make…Faire
I make…Je fais
You make…Tu fait
He/she/one makes…Il/elle/on fait
We make…Nous faisons
You make…Vous faites
They make…Ils/Elles font
So you can see that, even in the indicative present tense (which is the “normal” tense for everyday use), French differentiates in the form of the verb more than English does.
English subjunctive…French subjunctive
If I were to make…Si je fasse
If you were to make…Si tu fasses
If he/she/one were to make…S’il/elle/on fasse
If we were to make…Si nous fassions
If you were to make…Si vous fassiez
If they were to make…S’ils/elles fassent
(Sorry about the random spaces appearing there; they don’t appear in my editing screen, and I don’t know why they’re happening).
In English, it’s all the same word, with or without an “s” on the end: make or makes, and you need the noun to know the context. In French, there are ten different forms of the verb.
But even an English speaker recognizes a huge difference between “I make” and “If I were to make.” In fact, note the English national anthem, “God save the Queen.” It’s not indicative (that would be “God saves the Queen”), and it certainly isn’t the imperative (that would be “God, save the Queen” and would be highly inappropriate as a command to God). It’s the subjunctive of desire: “[May] God save the Queen.”
The Gospel of John is using the subjunctive of desire: God sent His Son for the purpose that those who believe in Him [may/would/should] not perish but [may/would/should] have eternal life.
A
ajpirc
Guest
Ya, I take Spanish and the changing of the verb into its agreeing “person” is called conjugation. I think all European languages (except English, of course) conjugate their verbs.
I’ve also noticed that almost all English speaking countries are Protestant! It probably wasn’t the confusing English Bible though. Probably just because they were British colonies and were mostly Anglican.
B
Big_Dummy
Guest
For so (outw gar). This use of gar is quite in John’s style in introducing his comments ( 2:25 ; 4:8 ; 5:13 , etc.). This “Little Gospel” as it is often called, this “comfortable word” (the Anglican Liturgy), while not a quotation from Jesus is a just and marvellous interpretation of the mission and message of our Lord. In verses 16-21 John recapitulates in summary fashion the teaching of Jesus to Nicodemus. Loved (hgaphsen). First aorist active indicative of agapaw, the noble word so common in the Gospels for the highest form of love, used here as often in John ( 14:23 ; 17:23 ; 1 John 3:1 ; 1 John 4:10 ) of God’s love for man (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:16 ; Romans 5:8 ; Ephesians 2:4 ). In 21:15 John presents a distinction between agapaw and pilew. Agapaw is used also for love of men for men ( 13:34 ), for Jesus ( 8:42 ), for God ( 1 John 4:10 ). The world (ton kosmon). The whole cosmos of men, including Gentiles, the whole human race. This universal aspect of God’s love appears also in 2 Corinthians 5:19 ; Romans 5:8 . That he gave (wste edwken). The usual classical construction with wste and the indicative (first aorist active) practical result, the only example in the N.T. save that in Galatians 2:13 . Elsewhere wste with the infinitive occurs for actual result ( Matthew 13:32 ) as well as purpose ( Matthew 10:1 ), though even this is rare. His only begotten Son (ton uion ton monogenh). “The Son the only begotten.” For this word see on Matthew 1:14 Matthew 1:18 ; Matthew 3:18 . The rest of the sentence, the purpose clause with ina-ech precisely reproduces the close of Matthew 3:15 save that ei auton takes the place of en autwi (see Matthew 1:12 ) and goes certainly with pisteuwn (not with ech as en autwi in verse 3:15 ) and the added clause “should not perish but” (mh apolhtai alla, second aorist middle subjunctive, intransitive, of apollumi, to destroy). The same contrast between “perish” and “eternal life” (for this world and the next) appears also in 10:28 . On “perish” see also 17:12 .
biblestudytools.com/commentaries/robertsons-word-pictures/john/john-3-16.html
biblestudytools.com/commentaries/robertsons-word-pictures/john/john-3-16.html
P
ProVobis
Guest
English is a descendant of the Germanic language which was spoken by the barbarians and used by the Reformers who wanted nothing to do with the Church. Today English is stuck with having to use weird auxiliary verbs, such as should, must, may, might, ought, let be, can, shall, etc. and all they do is confuse. And the illiterates and semi-literates are only making it worse.
Spanish, along with French, Italian, Portuguese, and other ROMANce languages, were as the word ROMAN suggests, all descendants of Latin, which of course, uses more organized conjugations and declensions.
M
Mintaka
Guest
English is just as organized and subtle as Latin. It’s just that those of us who are English speakers are too close to the subject to see it.
If you ever get to a big library, there’s a book called the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. It’s a few thousand pages long, because it’s a descriptive grammar; and it points out that English (as used in real life) has a huge number of tenses that don’t fit nicely into the Latin tense paradigm (not surprisingly). English as taught in English class is an extremely loose approximation; sometimes it’s outright misleading.
(And let’s not get into all the subtleties that tone of voice and gesture adds!)
But there are plenty of ways to speak subjunctively in English. The less popular one option is, the more popular that others become.
If you ever get to a big library, there’s a book called the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. It’s a few thousand pages long, because it’s a descriptive grammar; and it points out that English (as used in real life) has a huge number of tenses that don’t fit nicely into the Latin tense paradigm (not surprisingly). English as taught in English class is an extremely loose approximation; sometimes it’s outright misleading.
(And let’s not get into all the subtleties that tone of voice and gesture adds!)
But there are plenty of ways to speak subjunctively in English. The less popular one option is, the more popular that others become.
A
ajpirc
Guest
New Verse - Mark 16:16:
“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.”
The first time I read this, I thought to myself, “Hmmm, I’ve been baptized and I believe. I’m going to be saved!” So then I thought it sounded too much like Sola Fide.
So, what was the original Greek and original Latin of this verse? Any clarifications on how it relates to Catholic teaching?
“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.”
The first time I read this, I thought to myself, “Hmmm, I’ve been baptized and I believe. I’m going to be saved!” So then I thought it sounded too much like Sola Fide.
So, what was the original Greek and original Latin of this verse? Any clarifications on how it relates to Catholic teaching?
M
MarkThompson
Guest
The original is in Greek, not Latin, and the word is σωθήσεται, which is third-person singular future passive: will be saved, will be made safe, will be safe. And for what it’s worth, the Latin Vulgate (which is just a translation from the Greek) has salvus erit, which is also the third-person singular future passive: will be saved, etc.
The problem with the way of looking at these matters that you hint at is that the Bible is full of contradictory-seeming statements about what it takes to be saved: baptism, believing in God, following God’s commandments, and eating the flesh of the Son of Man are all mentioned in different contexts. So on the one hand, “Whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life,” and on the other, “the wage of sin is death,” and the laborer surely deserves his wage. What about someone who believeth in Christ, but still sinneth? You can just see St. Peter at the Pearly Gates break down: “DOES NOT COMPUTE! DOES NOT COMPUTE!”
This points, in the end, to the very reason why Jesus went about establishing a Church instead of writing a book. The Bible is not really a theological manual, it is an extremely varied collection of stories, teachings, poems, prophecies, histories, exhortations, and parables. Without authoritative interpretation guided by the Holy Spirit, one cannot simply take a verse here or there out of context and apply it as a comprehensive and dogmatic theological statement: “Oh, well, I am baptized and believe in God, so that’s all I need to know, end of story. Cool.”
P
ProVobis
Guest
It could be but as phrases such as “have went” and “he gone” are becoming more and more accepted even in writing and especially from our politicians, I’m not sure that there is much future in teaching organized and correct grammar. Maybe I can see this better as I’m not a native-English speaker, though.
A
ajpirc
Guest
Many vernacular languages are constantly changing. I read Blessed Pope John XXIII’s encyclical on Latin that you suggested in another thread. Because Latin isn’t a vernacular, it doesn’t change and therefore can be used throughout the Universal Church without it changing meanings and grammar. If we as Catholics all learn Latin, the Church can issue something and we could know the meaning of it word-for-word without it being translated and words being altered or changed and have people understanding different meanings.
- Status