joi, 20 octombrie 2016

Un articol excelent despre Ioan 1:1



Cineva a punctat următoarele:
"John could have done John 1:1c in three ways:
1). kai theon ēn ho logos.
2). kai ton theon ēn ho logos.
3). kai theos ēn ho logos.
If John had wanted the text to read (in English) "and the Word was a god" he likely would have used the first option. Putting god in the accusative without the definite article. If John had wanted to say "and the Word was the God", he would have used the 2nd option. Again putting God in the accusative this time with the definite article.
However, John chose to use a nominative predicate (3rd option) and it clearly has a meaning other than "and the word was a god" or "and the Word was the God". This leaves the traditional "and the Word was God".
I have seen a number of articles on this, people suggesting that either "and the Word was a god." or "and the Word was the God." as being correct. We do not need an in depth analysis of the Greek to understand the correct translation. A simply knowledge of psychology and the linguistic options the author had brings us to the correct conclusion.
The non-trinitarian interpretations are interesting."

Joseph Warren Wells - expert în limba coptă - despre Ioan 1:1b scria următoarele:

"To answer your questions: On my website I state "Coptic was the first language the New Testament was translated into that has the indefinite article; and the only language with the indefinite article that was produced during the Koine Greek period. "The is of interest because, in Coptic versions, John 1:1b is commonly translated "the word was with God and the word was a God" using the Coptic indefinite article; with some variation in word order. "In the proto-Bohairic version (Papyrus Bodmer III, the text of which was partially reconstructed by Rodolphe Kasser) the first occurrence of "God" in John 1:1 is in the Nomina Sacra form, whereas the second occurrence is spelled out. In John 1:18 the word "God" (which no one has seen) is in the Nomina Sacra form, while the word "God" (only-begotten) is spelled out." So literally, the Sahidic and Bohairic texts say "a god" in the extant mss. In a similar way translations of the Greek "pneuma ho theos" (spirit the god") at John 4:24 usually say either "God is spirit" or "God is a spirit" where both give the same sense of "what" God is, not who he is. Here the Sahidic says literally "a spirit is the God" (P.Palau Rib 183) as does the Proto-Bohairic (Bodmer III). To me, the sense of the passage in John 1 is likewise a description of what the Logos was in relation to God. A rather clumsy reading might be: The Logos was in the beginning. The Logos was with God. The Logos was like God (or godlike, or divine) with the emphasis on his nature; not his person."4

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kermitzarleyblog/2013/07/your-gospel-of-john-says-the-word-was-god-but-that-translation-is-really-quite-odd/

Niciun comentariu:

Trimiteți un comentariu