Talk:Biblical Studies/Christianity/John 1

Parallel version columns 1 and 3 use word wrap, 2 and 4 require one * plus string of spaces to maintain width.

The (Model) Modernity Parallel N.T. Comments
No word wrap presents problems requiring precise tags to keep total table width under 800px and ultimately first border code="0" instead of "1" producing beautiful final document with proper spacing and no cell lines. Need contributors to Modernity translation/paraphrase on Christianity page. No details yet, except consider this Gospel-101 for believers. Possibly the whole project could develop on Talk:Christianity.  &#45; Athrash |  {Talk)  23:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Eureka, when the Chapters are set up, bordering on perfection, each chapter of Modernity has talk page for work on parallel version.  &#45; Athrash |  {Talk)  02:14, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

The translation below is rather free. We are dealing here with the Word of God! Therefore explanations belong into a commentary, not into the text (that's not just my view, that's even a pre-Christian tradition). If the syntax requires words to be supplied that are not in the Koine, then they should be placed in brackets, e.g. "creative power" in Jn 1:3 - that's apart from missing in this verse the difference betweeen "to come" and "to become" (when a bus comes along, hurray, but it has been in existence before it came into view...), and changing a negative into a positive statement. In v. 6 the translator introduces an appearance but drops a pregnant sending. In v. 7 the sending itself replaces the more humble came - humble, since this time it is the bus-type coming, not the being created one. Next a Semitism, a tell-tale literary feature, has been eliminated: "witness that he might witness". These few examples of liberties in the translation convince me that its value is limited to a literary exercise. The translator of the text below cannot be regarded as a servant of the original, I mean servant like doulos, you know: like Mary, like David, like in Isaiah?!!! Portress 22:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Great dialogue. I take free as a compliment. The Prologue is undertaken as a hymn, so certain liberties were entertained, call it rhythm, and being convinced that reduntant Semitism here (and only here) are unwarranted, the language must flow. Will incorporate your suggestions. Added "being" to verse 3, "become" is difficult, grammatically speaking, and The Living Bible did not put "created" in their verse 3 in brackets, whereas the word is literally "generated" (Strong's says, used with great latitude) and I wanted to present Jesus as the Word in His omnificence. So, witness to witness could be staircase parallelism in verse 6 and 7 (a new found rhythm), plus humbly using "came" in verse 8. Need 8 more people like Portress and David C. and Modernity can soar. In the quote on the talk page, Weymouth, himself, said it is not necessary to be chained to literal translation from the original. The King James collaborators also took poetic license. Fond adieu. &#45; Athrash | {Talk)  20:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) &#949;&#947;&#969; &#949;&#953;&#956;&#953; &#959; &#948;&#959;&#965;&#955;&#959;&#962;

On second thought "came" in verse 8 to "did come," John the Baptist is presented as one of the least humble personages in the New Testament. In Luke, a baptism scene, he told the crowd to their face, You, generation of vipers. He came preaching fire and brimstone. &#45; Athrash | {Talk)  00:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Finalized
Findings: &#949;&#965;&#961;&#949;&#963;&#953;&#962;
 * Primacy of John here, adds the introductory name of Jesus (v. 12) dictated by an Aramism. Otherwise, He might be construed as conventionally surnamed (v. 17) Christ, rather than Yeshua bar-Yowceph.
 * The Law is prescriptive (v. 17), a prescription for daily living in the moral sense.
 * Logos is declared (v. 18, UKJV) and He is no more, referring to this visitation, of course.
 * Convention calls for the widely acceptable Jesus Christ, whereas all references to The Christ are rendered, the Messiah.
 * Omnificence is extra-biblical, but so is Shekinah. One must combine two phrases (v. 14) to achieve "tented glory."
 * Though, by acknowledging that implied glory, the Epistle of James becomes a relational sidebar equal to the most illustrious of apostles, Peter and John, who rise to the top in Chapter One.
 * Proposed, new order of N.T. canon: John, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, James, Peter, John (letters), Hebrews, Paul (letters), Jude, Revelation. The thematic &#8722; Gospels (literary order) &#8722; Epistles (historic order or closeness to Jesus) &#8722; Apocalypse (Jude, Revelation). Why, even, if you save the best for last, then, Luke is the most beautiful story ever told and there is no Gospel without Paul. &#913;&#956;&#951;&#957; &#945;&#956;&#951;&#957;
 * Astounding, Jesus may have been scripted, the two hour session (v. 39) could have outlined O.T. testimonia, which were written messianic anthologies, since some of Jesus' quotes do not match the older reference standards exactly.
 * Aramaic primacy is not pushed, but it stands to reason, being a simple and poetic language employed by simple people who met something divine. Here, the lingua franca is introduced as sometimes containing lack of coherence and redundancy. If the Word of God leaped over five language barriers, who wins in the end?
 * Guile (v. 47) is portrayed as a play on the name Jacob. The inspiration, well, nobody's perfect.   &#45; Athrash |  {Talk)  00:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay???
Can someone say on the page where you got the verses from? The Bible is a source on Wikisource. It should be noted that the verses are from the bible on Wikisource. Just a thought. Thanks!!! Tannersf 21:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I just realized that they were annotations. Tannersf 21:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Creative power
The only constructive criticism offered so far was reference to (MOV) being a loose translation and the example cited here in discussion is that &quot;creative power&quot; was not in the original language and should be in brackets if included. This Modernity Version (MOV) was ahead of its time. The Passion Translation of 2017 reads &quot;through his creative inspiration,&quot; but the footnote for verse 3 has: The Aramaic is “everything was in his hand (of power)&quot; and adds reference to Ps. 33:6. So, the (MOV) use of &quot;power&quot; seems to be justified by its own footnote/margin comment which reads: The Omnificent Word. Also, about verse 42,TPT version states: It appears that the Greek text is admitting it is a translation from the Aramaic. &#45; Athrash | T a l k 19:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

There is an old hymn pertinent to this discussion with the powerful words: By his own power were all things made; By him supported all things stand; He is the whole creation's head, And angels fly at his command. &#45; Athrash | T a l k 22:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)