LEB translation question re: John 1:7b
In looking at the comparison of the text for this passage, I noticed that the LEB used "would" where the other translations all used "might". I know what the 'official' distinction between the two. What I wonder is what the "average Bible reader" would make of the difference. Thanks in advance for your time.
"so that all might believe" vs. "so that all would believe"
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
Comments
-
MJ. Smith said:
"so that all might believe" vs. "so that all would believe"
I would suggest here that the use of "might" allows for a degree of uncertainty, where as "would" may suggest more of a certainty.
So the "average Bible reader" here depending on version would either understand the text as saying that John's witness all men would believe the testimony, where as with the other rendering it would be that through John's witness all men might believe the testimony.
Those are my quick thoughts on this, hope its of some help.
Paul
0 -
I ran through my parallels and saw one translation that says "could" ...
It IS a "subjunctive" which English doesn't handle very well any longer ...
I wish it "were" different *smile"
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Paul Gisbourne said:
Those are my quick thoughts on this, hope its of some help.
It does. You make the same distinction that I would. I want to know if that is the common assumption or if some group of English speakers makes a different distinction.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Again, thank you. As for the use of 'would' as an auxiliary to the subjunctive ... that led me to another problem. From a grammar:
"The past tenses of the Subjunctive, and the auxiliary would, are used
in expressing wishes. ... The past tenses of the Subjunctive, and the auxiliary would, can also
be used in order to indicate that conditions being expressed are false or improbable."This obviously takes me deeper into a quagmire as I am missing the past tense.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
In looking at the comparison of the text for this passage, I noticed that the LEB used "would" where the other translations all used "might". I know what the 'official' distinction between the two. What I wonder is what the "average Bible reader" would make of the difference. Thanks in advance for your time.
"so that all might believe" vs. "so that all would believe"
Isn't it going to be a function of (1) your basic theological approach to the Scriptures and (2) your understanding of "pantes" (i.e., "all")?
Understanding the Use of "Would" or "Might" or "Could" in Light of Pas (Pantes) in John 1:7b = all w/o exception
(i.e., every person)= all w/o distinction
(i.e., every nation, tongue, tribe, etc.)= all people who are elect Universalist would would n/a Reformed, Calvinist n/a would would Arminian, Weslyan, Pelagian might or could might or could n/a sorry ... this quick chart doesn't paste/format very well from Excel
Instead of Artificial Intelligence, I prefer to continue to rely on Divine Intelligence instructing my Natural Dullness (Ps 32:8, John 16:13a)
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
Again, thank you. As for the use of 'would' as an auxiliary to the subjunctive ... that led me to another problem. From a grammar:
"The past tenses of the Subjunctive, and the auxiliary would, are used
in expressing wishes. ... The past tenses of the Subjunctive, and the auxiliary would, can also
be used in order to indicate that conditions being expressed are false or improbable."This obviously takes me deeper into a quagmire as I am missing the past tense.
English doesn't have a genuine subjunctive, so we have to use helping words "would, may, might," etc.
Since I know Spanish, which does have a genuine subjunctive, and which I know much better than Greek, I read it in Spanish. The sense in the Spanish translations I have, has nothing to do with the certainty or uncertainty of who our how many will believe, but that all who will come to faith will do so through Jesus. The subjunctive conveys a degree of uncertainty though not necessarily that the outcome is uncertain. I know, it's hard to explain. It seems to me that in this case the subjunctive tells us that many will come to faith through Jesus, but not at a specific time, rather whenever they would come to faith.
The suggestion that the LEB sounds more universalist, misses the point that John is talking here about belief (not salvation), and that this belief comes exclusively through Jesus.
But we don't want to start a theological debate here, do we.
(That's not a question.)
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
Paul Gisbourne said:
I would suggest here that the use of "might" allows for a degree of uncertainty, where as "would" may suggest more of a certainty
That is exactly my thought and how I read them. I just had no idea of how to express it in words. [:)]
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
Again, thank you. As for the use of 'would' as an auxiliary to the subjunctive ... that led me to another problem. From a grammar:
"The past tenses of the Subjunctive, and the auxiliary would, are used
in expressing wishes. ... The past tenses of the Subjunctive, and the auxiliary would, can also
be used in order to indicate that conditions being expressed are false or improbable."This obviously takes me deeper into a quagmire as I am missing the past tense.
When you talk of "The past tense" are you referring to the use of the Aorist? This is a common misconception that the Aorist refers to the past in sense of time frame. This is true in some instances, however this is not the primary usage of the Aorist tense, rather it used in terms of completeness, which could be a past action but not necessarily.
It is important to remember that Aorist often refers more to a completed view of something rather than a mere past action.
0 -
I'm a novice so take what I say with a grain of salt, but I don't see that the "might" introduces any degree of uncertainty.
Example:
I hit CTRL+P in order that I might print a page...
I hit CTRL+P in order that I would print a page...
There is no certainty in the first example at all...just a different way of expressing the idea...
From the Glossary of morpho syntactic data base from the Exegetical guide:
subjunctive — The mood that normally presents the verbal action as being probable or intentional. The subjunctive can also express verbal action in terms of mere possibility. However it is the optative mood that points to possibility more than probability.
Michael S. Heiser, Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology (Logos Bible Software, 2005; 2005).If you do a word study on this word/morph data you get some interesting stuff.....
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0 -
Contrast these 2 sentences:
"I might, or I might not."
"I would, if I could."
"Might" seems to express less certainty of intention. "Would" is less certainty of circumstances.
0 -
Paul Gisbourne said:
When you talk of "The past tense" are you referring to the use of the Aorist?
I was actually talking of the past subjunctive in English. My question was less grammatical than socio-linguistic - although the grammatical understands have been very useful. I knew that my reaction to each wording would lead me to a particular choice. But I cannot argue on strictly grammatical grounds that it is 'right'. I wondered if others shared my gut-feeling of the difference between the wordings so that I could argue for my choice on common usage grounds.
I truly appreciate everyone's answers as it tells me a great deal about how one can support (or dispute) each translation.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Richard DeRuiter said:
But we don't want to start a theological debate here, do we.
That is correct. My question is genuinely one of language not of interpretation.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Robert Pavich said:
I'm a novice so take what I say with a grain of salt, but I don't see that the "might" introduces any degree of uncertainty.
Not a novice for my question - I genuinely want to know how you react to the two translations. Only "requirement" is probably that you are a native speaker of English though even that can be waived.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Hope this is helpful:
Introduction to Subjunctive Mood1. The subjunctive indicates probability or objective possibility. The action of the verb will possibly happen, depending on certain objective factors or circumstances. It has a number of specific uses and is oftentimes used in conditional statements (i.e. 'If...then...' clauses) or in purpose clauses.
2. However, if the subjunctive mood was used in isolation it may be accurate to merely call it the mood of probability, but this is an overly simplistic view when you look at how it is used in the NT. As seen by the classification of its uses (below), it is almost never used in making a kind of objective statement that something will possibly happen. It must be seen in context to understand how it used.
3. As far as the tense of the verb in the subjunctive mood, it should be remembered that the subjunctive only shows the kind of action (verbal aspect or ‘aktionsart’) and not time. Only verbs in the indicative mood indicate time in an absolute sense. However, the ‘time’ implied by the subjunctive is usually future since it is a mood of contingency. Thus the future indicative and the aorist subjunctive are closely related and sometimes used in substitution for each other.
4. The subjunctive mood is used in both independent (main) and depended (subordinate) clauses. That is, it can be used as the main verb that makes up a sentence, or may be used in a subordinate clause that is dependent upon another clause to make up a complete sentence. The following explanations are divided into these two broad categories of classification.
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Charles,
What resources was that info from?
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0 -
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Milford Charles Murray said:
Hope this is helpful:
Introduction to Subjunctive Mood1. The subjunctive indicates probability or objective possibility. The action of the verb will possibly happen, depending on certain objective factors or circumstances. It has a number of specific uses and is oftentimes used in conditional statements (i.e. 'If...then...' clauses) or in purpose clauses.
2. However, if the subjunctive mood was used in isolation it may be accurate to merely call it the mood of probability, but this is an overly simplistic view when you look at how it is used in the NT. As seen by the classification of its uses (below), it is almost never used in making a kind of objective statement that something will possibly happen. It must be seen in context to understand how it used.
3. As far as the tense of the verb in the subjunctive mood, it should be remembered that the subjunctive only shows the kind of action (verbal aspect or ‘aktionsart’) and not time. Only verbs in the indicative mood indicate time in an absolute sense. However, the ‘time’ implied by the subjunctive is usually future since it is a mood of contingency. Thus the future indicative and the aorist subjunctive are closely related and sometimes used in substitution for each other.
4. The subjunctive mood is used in both independent (main) and depended (subordinate) clauses. That is, it can be used as the main verb that makes up a sentence, or may be used in a subordinate clause that is dependent upon another clause to make up a complete sentence. The following explanations are divided into these two broad categories of classification.
Perhaps this should be called the "subjective" mood??
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
What I wonder is what the "average Bible reader" would make of the difference
If you take a look at Webster's Dictionary for would and might......I think you get some perspective. To be truthful, when you asked that question I don't think I have ever really thought about that difference. If I sit and contemplate things a bit, "would" gives me the sense that it will happen in time. We don't know to what extent or how far away that it is but that it "would" happen sometime. "Might" gives me the sense that it may or may not happen. There is most definately a case that it does not happen.
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Richard DeRuiter said:
But we don't want to start a theological debate here, do we.
That is correct. My question is genuinely one of language not of interpretation.
MJ, I was not thinking of your post when I wrote the above request.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
I really had never given it much thought before ... also I could bore you stiff on the difference between "my coat got caught on the nail" vs "my coat caught on the nail" .I actually have a strong language and linguistics background. But when I read the two translations, my gut reaction was that regardless of what dictionaries and grammar say, might is more conditional than would.
But I learned never to trust my gut without evidence. A linguistics prof loved to tell of a field trip to the Spokane State Fair. He had graduate students stop people and ask them what a ranch was. Everyone knew what a ranch was - the question was silly ... except
- some thought ranch applied only to the homestead / main buildings especially in the southwest (a la Bonanza)
- some thought ranches had to raise cattle (or at least large animals)
- some thought any animal was enough to qualify - as in chicken ranch (not Nevada style - egg style)
- some thought acreage made the difference - as in wheat ranches
Having grown up on a cattle ranch, I knew only cattle made a ranch truly deserving of the name.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
"so that all might believe" vs. "so that all would believe"
Hi MJ.
Looking at just the two phrases outside of any other context I can see that the "might" speaks of scope in that it is saying that this option of belief is open to everyone.
"Would" on the other hand is conveying a more definitive statement as to what will happen - in that everyone will believe.
Hope this helps
Graham
0
