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.
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
