From: Kyle Dillon (spiffy@learningstar.com)
Date: Mon Nov 16 1998 - 15:14:47 EST
<x-html><!x-stuff-for-pete base="" src="" id="0"><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content='"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=GENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>In the miniscule manuscripts of John 1:3, a
period is placed before the phrase hO GEGONEN, thus making it the subject of the
sentence in 1:4b. But the original uncials had no punctuation. So what is more
likely, that hO GEGONEN modifies hEN in verse 3, or that it is the subject of
verse 4b? In other words, which of the following is a better
translation:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>...(3) and without him was made not one thing that has been
made. (4) In him was life..</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>or</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>...(3) and without him was made not one thing. That which has
been made (4) in him was life...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Personally, it seems to me that the first translation is more
accurate, so hO GEGONEN is being used for redundant emphasis (whereas the second
translation seems to create some confusion in meaning). But I would like to know
if there are other matters of syntax involved.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>Kyle Dillon</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
</x-html>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:07 EDT