Thanks to Suzanne for picking up an interesting point in CD-Host’s post on The Voice translation. I hope to have a post on that translation later today. Here I want to stick simply with the translation of John 1:13. A few samples are given below.
οἳ οὐκ ἐξ αἱμάτων
οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκὸς
οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρὸς
ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν.who were born, not of blood
or of the will of the flesh
or of the will of man,
but of God. (NRSV)children not born by human parents
or by human desire
or a husband’s decision, but by God. (NET)born not of human stock,
by the physical desire of a human father,
but of God. (REB)They are reborn–
not with a physical birth resulting from human passion or plan,
but a birth that comes from God. (NLT)
Suzanne and CD Host take the word blood (KJV / NRSV etc but literally “bloods”) to refer to the mother’s womb and some contemporary Greek ideas of the role blood plays in foetal development. This idea (judging by the notes) has also influenced the NET’s translators, who, like Suzanne reference Wisdom 7:1 for possible background. Suzanne therefore translates:
children not born from the womb of a mother
nor from the will of the natural body
nor from the will of a father,
but born from God.
This is both possible and plausible. Not least it fits very well with the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus in the third chapter about being born again (or from above).
I am, however, hesitant about it. There is an early tradition (mainly Latin) of reading the text as a singular, and therefore a reference to the virginal conception of Jesus. One of the features of the Johannine writings is the idea of becoming like Jesus, and sharing the same relationship with Father and Son that they share with one another. It is, I think, at least possible that the Latin mistranslation is nonetheless picking up an allusion and making an implicit idea explicit. Whether John knows a tradition of the virginal conception is open to debate, although it is certainly possible to take this verse together with the dialogue between Jesus and the Pharisees in chapter 8 as evidence that he does.
If the verse is meant to allude to the virginal conception, and draw a parallel between the spiritual rebirth of the believer, and the coming to flesh of the Son, then clearly translating ἐξ αἱμάτων as “from the womb of a mother” would be impossible. The mother of Jesus, probably as a representative of faithful Israel, is a significant figure bookending the gospel.
It is a fairly sharp reminder of just how much potential theological and literary freight a single translation decision can have. Personally, I would like to keep the possibility open, and translate:
children born not from human descent,
nor from human desire,
nor from a husband’s decision,
but from God.
{ 3 comments }
I am not aware of the Latin version with the singular. However, I see your point. But Jesus did have “human descent” in that he had a genealogy. Its something I have to think about.
The NET Bible notes provide a good discussion also.
The Latin singular is in Tertullian and translations of Irenaeus and Origin and others. I agree on the NET Bible notes being good. I think that unlike later Judaism the evidence suggests that when John was writing descent and therefore social location and identity was patrilineal. I agree “human descent” poses difficulties, but it seems to me to offer fewer than some. I suspect we don’t know enough to come to a definitive solution.
Thanks for coming back on this one (and for a stimulating post in the first place to get me thinking!).
http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Joh&chapter=1&verse=13
Comments on this entry are closed.