In association with THE BIBLE BUREAU BibleBureau.com	THE SYLVANUS BIBLE
	ENGAGED IN TRANSLATION

BIBLE comparison STUDY

BACK

JOHN 1:16

The word we are interested in here, is the word anti. As you can see on the list below, the majority of bible translations/versions render it as either:

The word anti corresponds to the Strong's number 0473, found 17 times in the NT in this form, and 5 time as anq, which is defined therein by those terms: A primary particle; opposite, that is, instead or because of (rarely in addition to): - for, in the room of. Often used in composition to denote contrast, requital, substitution, correspondence, etc.

The definition of anti  is clear, and in all occurrences can be translated as: 'in place of', or 'instead'. (Matt 2:22, 5:38, 17:27, 20:28, Mark 10:45, 11:11, John 1:16, Rom 12:17, 1Cor 11:15, Eph 5:31, 1Th 5:15, Heb 12:2, 12:16, James 4:15, 1Ptr 3:9). (anq = Luke 1:20, 12:3, 19:44, Acts 12:23, 2Th 2:10, translated as: 'because', or 'since'). So let have a look as the way it is translated otherwise:

This seems to make some sense, as in English when we say 'tit for tat', we mean tit in response to tat, or tit instead of tat, as a Greek speaker would say. But it is quite misleading as we also say 'I'll do this for you', meaning an action of grace to the recipient. A translation must be clear. When Jesus died for us, He didn't die for us, as if doing us a favour, though it was, but rather He died instead of us. So to translate as for, is correct, but quite ambiguous.

Why would a translator do such a thing? If the original writer would have wanted to say Grace upon Grace, he would have rather used επί, as in Matthew 24:2 'a stone upon(epi)  a stone' or Philippians 2:27 'sorrow upon(epi)  sorrow'. Besides, to express this idea, the second 'Grace' couldn't have been in the genitive case.

This way of translating does not seem to make sense at all. Whereas Grace for Grace implies a reciprocity, and Grace upon Grace an accumulation, Grace after Grace implies a constant repetition. This only seem to be an interpretative translating, and is absolutely not correct.

To translate Grace in place of Grace is correct. We find this form in the New Testament also on these verses:

The confusion derives in the way verses are divided. This was done a long time after the writing of the New Testament, and sometimes it confuses the reader. I assert the verses 16 and 17 of chapter 1 of John should not be split.:

The word 'for' here (οτι) joins the two sentences together (it's a conjunction), the second explaining the first, as in: 'I say it that you may understand', and is mostly translated in the King James as 'because' (183/206 times). 

Verse 17 explains that the law (a grace in itself) was given through Moses, and that truth (also a grace) was given through Jesus, so that there was two dispensation of Grace, the second having replaced the first. 

If you separate these two verses, the whole meaning of these disappear instantly, and the end of verse 16 does not fit anymore.

www.sylvanusbible.com

Copyright 2006-2007 SylvanusBible.com. All Rights Reserved.