Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
Luke states the following in 1:35 :
και το γεννωμενον αγιον κληθησεται υιος θεου
also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God [KJV]
Note : My question relates to the TR text (I am quoting Stephens 1550) and I am aware that there is a variant (Scrivener 1881 notes it in italic) which includes εκ σου and which further complicates the issue. I wish to remain with the TR and to examine the translations from that text only.
My question is – where does ‘thing’ come from ?
‘Born’ is not a good translation of the verb γενναο, since ‘born’ in English may refer to the whole conception to delivery process or it may refer to delivery only. And in any case γεννωμενον is a present participle and there is nothing future about it.
Young’s literal gives ‘holy-begotten thing’ for το γεννωμενον αγιον and the EGNT (Englishman’s Greek New Testament) has ‘the born holy thing’.
Mounce’s Grammar tells me that γεννωμενον is the present participle in the middle/passive voice. And tells me that it is either the neuter singular nominative or the masculine singular accusative.
I suspect that translators are getting ‘thing’ from assuming that γεννωμενον is neuter singular nominative.
In 1:32, Luke reports :
και υοος υφιστου κληθησεται
and shall be called Son of the Highest [KJV]
This passive statement can be rearranged :
and Son of the Highest shall be called (he)
where Son is nominative and the invisible (he) would be an accusative.
Thus 1:35 could also be rearranged :
and ‘Son of God’ shall the being-begotten holy be called
Here, I have rendered ‘being-begotten’ as present tense since it translates a present participle and I have rendered it as ‘begotten’ to more accurately express γενναο.
(My rendering here agrees more with Young’s Literal than with either KJV or EGNT.)
This shows that the nominative subject of the sentence is ‘Son of God’ and the predicate is ‘the being-begotten holy be called’ wherefore it is an accusative expression.
Therefore there is no ‘thing’.
Γεννωμενον is masculine singular accusative (not neuter singular nominative) and
αγιον is an adjective. There is no ‘thing’.
The implications of the translation are considerable. If ‘the being-begotten’ refers to Deity and if it refers to a Divine begetting (the Father and the Son) then the meaning is not as traditionally has been accepted.
And if ‘the holy’ refers only to that which came from Mary – something separated in holiness from her – then ‘thou shalt conceive’, Luke 1:31 (συλληφη, from sullambano ‘bring together’) refers to a bringing together of that which is Divinely begotten (a present matter indicating an eternal begetting) and that which is separated, in holiness, from the virgin.
Am I correct in my assumption that ‘thing’ comes from a mistaken translation of a supposed nominative neuter (when it should be a masculine accusative) or is there somewhere else that translators are finding ‘thing’ ?
Troy Day
Dan Cross and John Mushenhouse can explain EXEGETICALLY why and how just about ANY time THING is used in KJV it is NOT in the original Greek TR they used – not sure who was the text criticism expert here Maybe Plain Ole Chris Jeremiah Würz or Philip Williams BUT this goes their ways as well
Dan Cross
In Greek we come across word forms which become nouns that we usually use as adjectives or adverbs. In the example of Luke 1: 35 we see the Greek ἅγιον (hagion) used in a similar way. What it literally says is simply “holy” in English, implying a noun after it that translators have to accommodate. This is done in various ways for the 42 times that it occurs in the New Testament. Sometimes translators have to supply a verb. So here’s where the active translation needs to be particularly inspired, and it is my conclusion that sometimes that has not been done, being left in the hands of the legends who may have been more into their heads than the Holy Spirit and relying upon the whole council of God. I could go on and on about this, but I will leave it at that. This is one of the instances of many that affect the rendering of a translation and why appropriate exegesis from the original languages, the context and culture are so important to understand what Holy Spirit was saying to us then and hermeneutically apply it to today
Jeremiah Würz
Ss. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus of Lyon (2nd century) relayed that phrasing as well (in this verse), as a conceptual synthesis between the “Son of Man” / “Logos” fulfillment (that was common in Jewish apocalypses of that era).
•. Much later on, St. Bernard’s reflection:
“Why does he say merely that Holy Thing, and no more? Because there was not any proper or worthy expression that he could use.
If he had said that holy flesh, or that holy Prayer of Manasseh , or whatever expression of such a kind he had used, he would have seemed to himself to have said but little.
He uses, therefore, the indefinite expression, That Holy Thing; because whatever it was that the Virgin brought forth, It was without doubt holy and in a singular manner holy, both through the sanctification of the Spirit and the assumption of the Word.”
The Son of God by nature, Who would make all the faithful, sons of God by grace.
Pentecostal Theology
Jeremiah Würz WHY?