|
|
|
|
|
UPDATE EMAIL |
|
UNIQUE VISITS |
| SINCE 01/01/07: |
|
|
|
|
|
THE SYLVANUS TRANSLATION NOTES©
--- 1 ---
This is the Strong's definition of logos: 'Something said (including the thought); by implication a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty)'. This is the Chamber's definition of enunciation: 'The act of enunciating (to state formally; to pronounce distinctly; to utter); the manner of speaking or pronouncing; a distinct statement or declaration; the words in which a proposition is expressed'. The Sylvanus Translation uses a more accurate representation of the One enunciating the words of God expressed, not just through his speech, but also through his life. The Free Version renders this word as Spokesman, in the sense of a prophet who not only spoke the words of God, but also acted/mimicked them (ask Isaiah). Jesus on the other hand, was THE Enunciation, who had been enunciated about so many times and for so long.
Here the word pros is translated 'toward, as it should be. The word 'with' has its Greek equivalent and describes a static position, whereas 'toward' describes = = = = >>>> an action in motion. The Free Version renders this clause as Gorward, as these verses do not elucidate the manner of the torwardness.
Most, but not all (see 'The Emphatic Diaglott', 'Analytical-Literal', 'Aramaic Bible', Inspired Version', 'An Understandable Version' etc), translations render qeoV as God with a capital 'G'. Here, qeoV is the predicate of the word logoV (Enunciation). A predicate is a adjective-noun, describing the subject in question, namely logoV, which has already been established twice in verse 1 and confirmed in verse 2. See more in appendix 1.
A few translations attach the last two words ( o gegonen - that has come to be) to the following sentence (en autw zwh hn - in him was life), splitting verse 4. To say 'What has came to be in him was life', seems to make sense, but the verb hn belong to 'life', not to 'what' (or which or that). These translations imply that 'him' is the source of life, but John says that 'him' 'merely' possessed life (otherwise he would have said: In him, life came to be - 'life' being the subject and 'came to be' its verb). o gegonen therefore belongs naturally to verse 3, creating amplified emphasis.
The verb 'to come' has a masculine gender, and therefore describes the action of the noun 'individual', also masculine. The light (neuter) is not the one coming, as it is sometimes rendered. Furthermore, 'every', 'individual' and 'coming' are all in the accusative case, and therefore are thus associated as a clause.
'a father', not THE Father, as the Greek manuscripts here do not have the definite article. An only-child, as in any family, has the privilege of being the sole heir and the exclusive pride of its father. This is a general description, and not describing only the Son of God (the word 'as' is comparative).
'carin anti caritos' (to-grace instead of-grace). This was written the same as in Matthew 5:38 'an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth', or Peter 3:9 'evil for evil', but it is wrong to translate 'grace upon grace' since Greek has a way for saying it this way, 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 be in the genitive case. Rather than toping itself up, the grace in question replaces another grace, this is the whole point of the word anti . .
|
