Early Believers Understanding of John 1:3,4

[gregoryfl]

Joh 1:3 Everything existed by his hand and without him not even one [thing] existed [of] that which existed. 4 In him was life and the life was the light of men. (Joh 1:3-4 MGI)

Basically, this is how English translations today translate this verse, whether from the Greek, or from the Aramaic, which I have here.

I discovered though, that the earliest believers in the East after the apostles did not render these verses this way, and it makes quite a difference.

One thing I appreciate about the MGI (Magiera's translation of the Peshitta) is that she puts words in brackets that are not actually in the text, but that she believes makes for proper or smooth English. Notice that there are two words here in brackets...'thing' and 'of'. In Aramaic, the letter dalet serves as a prefix to indicate the idea of 'of' or 'that of'. You can see it in the last word which is literally 'of men'.

The word for 'that' is medem and it does not have the prefix dalet. This is important because this is where the early believers understood this passage different than is done today. She added the 'of' in brackets because she understood these verses in the way that most today do, and needed to add it to make sense of it in English. Take out the bracketed word and verse numbers and let's see where they punctuated these verses at.

Everything existed by his hand and without him not even one [thing] existed. That which existed in him was life and the life was the light of men. (Joh 1:3-4)

Compare this with the way it is today:

Everything existed by his hand and without him not even one [thing] existed [of] that which existed. In him was life and the life was the light of men. (Joh 1:3-4 MGI)

The earliest understanding of these verses is consistent with the eastern churches understanding of the entire universe being in God, held together and sustained by his Son. His life has always been the life that truly exists in all his creation.

One example of this can be found in Cyril of Alexandria's commentary on John, where you can find the quote in these two places, noting how he renders it:

https://archive.org/stream/CyrilOfAlexan...3/mode/2up
https://archive.org/stream/CyrilOfAlexan...1/mode/2up

Ronen

[ScorpioSniper2]

That's definitely interesting, Brother! Do you know if there is any more proof that it could be translated this way? I haven't read a single translation that does.

"Everything came to be by his hand and without him not even on thing that was created came to be. The life was in him, and the life is the light of men."- Dr. George M. Lamsa

"Everything through His hands existed, and without Him not even one [thing] existed [of] the things which have existed. In him life was, and the life was the light of the men."- Paul Younan

"Everything was within his power, [otherwise] nothing would ever exist. Through him [there] was Life and Life became the spark of humanity..."- Vic Alexander

"Everything was by his hand; and without him was not anything whatever that existed. In him was life and the light was the light of man."- James Murdock

"Everything by his hand was made; and without him also was not one thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life is the light of the sons of man..."- John Wesley Etheridge

"Everything was in his hand, and without him not even one thing existed of the things that existed. In him was The Life and The Life is The Light of men."- David Bauscher

[Aramaic]

John 1:3-5
3 All came to be by His Power {lit. by His hand, singular}, and without Him, not even one thing came to be, which has come to be.
4 The Life existed in Him, and The Life is The Light of the sons of Men.
5 And He, The Light, shines into the darkness, and the darkness has not overtaken it.

[gregoryfl]

Shlama Scorpio,

While I know of no modern translation that has this rendering, I do have several from the church fathers. Here are some more quotes of verse 3, all of which end the sentence differently than is done in today's translations:

"Understand now for me the mystery of the truth, granting pardon if I shrink from advancing further in the treatment of it, by announcing this alone: 'All things were made by Him, and without Him was not even one thing.'" (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 6.11)
"But it is said Providence, from above, from what is of prime importance, as from the head, reaches to all, 'as the ointment,' it is said, 'which descends to Aaron's beard, and to the skirt of his garment'(that is, of the great High Priest, 'by whom all things were made, and without whom not even one thing was made' not to the ornament of the body; for Philosophy is outside of the People, like raiment." (Stromata 6.17)

? 'And God said, Let there be light, and there was light.' Immediately there appears the Word, 'that true light, which lighteth man on his coming into the world,' and through Him also came light upon the world. From that moment God willed creation to be effected in the Word, Christ being present and ministering unto Him: and so God created. And God said, 'Let there be a firmament . . . and God made the firmament;' and God also said, 'Let there be lights (in the firmament); and so God made a greater and a lesser light.' But all the rest of the created things did He in like manner make, who made the former ones?I mean the Word of God, 'through whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made.' Now if He too is God, according to John, (who says,) 'The Word was God,' then you have two Beings?One that commands that the thing be made, and the Other that executes the order and creates." (Tertullian, Adversus Praxean 12).

"Let him who is inclined to entertain this suspicion hear the undoubted declaration of Scripture pronouncing, 'In wisdom hast Thou made them all,' and the teaching of the Gospel, that 'by Him were all things made, and without Him nothing was made;'" (Origen, De Principiis I.2)

And here are a couple quotes of verse 4, which is in agreement with the ancient rendering:

"John also, who lived after him, said, 'That which was in the Logos was life, and the life was the light of men;'" (Contra Celsum 6.5)

'This is what John suggested when he said about the Word: "That which was made was life in Him." Life then came in the Word.' (Origen, Commentary On John; 22)

More convincing to me though, is the literal rendering of the words of the Aramaic (which to me is easier to see, although the same can be done in Greek as well). If John wanted to communicate that 'without Him nothing existed of what was made', then he would have prefixed the word for 'what' (medem) with a dalet. Since he did not, then the sentence reads more naturally (no need to insert the word 'of') to be ended as it was anciently, after the word medem.

Acts 4:34 gives an example of medem with the dalet prefix rightly being translated as 'of what'.

Ronen

[Thirdwoe]

The church fathers tend to paraphrase and come up with their own translations, and sometimes their own interpretations...they're renderings may or may not be accurate for the particular text they were looking at.

[gregoryfl]

I agree Thirdwoe, which is why I lean much more toward the actual text itself, not any translation. So in looking at these quotes, and comparing them with the actual text, do you see it as a paraphrase, or as a more accurate rendering? The key word for me is medem, which when you leave out the added word 'of' (which to me is a paraphrase), you end up needing to read it differently than is normally done today. Whether you add the word 'of', 'that', or, in the case of Aramaic's rendering 'which', you are still adding words to the text in order to make the sentence continue past where it would normally end if rendered literally, which is about how one understands the verses in question. I believe that it is probable that the reason for the rendering being as it is today is because most do not believe that all of creation is in God, in his Miltha, since most hold to forms of dualism.

Oh, I almost forgot Scorpio, I actually found a translation that does render it this way. Here is the NAB:

John 1:3 All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be 4 through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race (Joh 1:3,4 NABO)

Ronen

[Thirdwoe]

I don't know what was in the mind of the translators who add the words you mention, but I think that the above translation that Aramaic gave is very good for what is found in the Aramaic source text.

John 1:3-5
3 All came to be by His Power {lit. by His hand, singular}, and without Him, not even one thing came to be, which has come to be.
4 The Life existed in Him, and The Life is The Light of the sons of Men.

Ronen, how would you translate the verse into English from the Aramaic text?

Also, I've never heard of the NABO translation. Is it from the Greek text, and who translated it?

[gregoryfl]

Everything existed in his hand, and without him not even one existed. That of what existed in him existed life, and the life is the light of the sons of mankind.

This is how I would translate it, as literally as I am able.

The NAB is the New American Bible translated by a team of scholars, not an individual. It is from the Greek text. Although I can demonstrate this same translation from the Greek, I prefer the Aramaic as that is the source text I use, and it is also shows the point more clearly.

[Thirdwoe]

Ronen,

Let's take a look at this a bit closer. Just the 1st part of the verse for now, so as not to put too much hay on the fork all at once.

You have rendered it as "Everything existed in his hand," rather than "All came to be by His Power {lit. by His hand, singular},"

Your version of that part of the verse sounds like God has a "hand" and everything "existed" "in" it, before He brought forth "everything" "in" His "hand", as if it "existed" eternally "in" His "hand".

Is this how you would interpret the meaning of that part of the translation you offered?

The translation Aramaic gave there, shows us that "All came to be", which I take to mean that the "All" was not existing at all, prior to it existing, when God created it all, at which point that it all "came to be"... and it was "by His Power", which literally is "by His hand"...

God's "hand" meaning His "Power", not meaning His palm and five fingers. It's a metaphor and it is in the singular there, not in the plural, so, if we take it as a literal "hand" then we would surmise that God just used one of His "hands" to create all things.

...

[gregoryfl]

So you would rather I translate it according to how someone today would understand it, and not literally? No, I do not believe God has a literal hand or any other body part. The phrase, 'Everything existed in his hand', what I understand it to be saying is, 'Everything existed by means of his working' (as in a working hand). 'In' although more literal, in this case is understood to be 'by', or 'with', all of which fits the meaning of the letter bet as the picture of an ancient home with two sections.

[Thirdwoe]

Thanks Ronen. Would you say that this part of the verse would be more correct translated thus then? "Everything existed by his hand, and without him not even one existed."

I think we should translate as literal as possible and have it make sense to the reader, so as to bring the meaning out as simple as possible in current English. Which brings me to the next part of the verse.

You gave:
"..., and without him not even one existed. That of what existed in him existed life, ..."

Aramaic gave:
"..., and without Him, not even one thing came to be, which has come to be."


Ronen, can you please check the above part of the verse to see which translation is the more accurate, and makes the better sense of what is being related in English from the Aramaic text? Thanks.

.

[gregoryfl]

Thanks Ronen. Would you say that this part of the verse be more correct translated thus then? "Everything existed by his hand, and without him not even one existed."

I think we should translate as literal as possible and have it make sense to the reader, so as to bring the meaning out as simple as possible in current English. Which brings me to the next part of the verse.

You gave:
"..., and without him not even one existed. That of what existed in him existed life, ..."

Aramaic gave:
"..., and without Him, not even one thing came to be, which has come to be."


Ronen, can you please check the above part of the verse to see which translation is the more accurate, and makes the better sense of what is being related in English from the Aramaic text? Thanks.

.

As for your first question, yes, I believe that is an accurate rendering of the verse.

As for your second question, I believe that from reading the text itself, not the translation, the first rendering is more accurate than the second. Here is why...if the Aramaic word 'medem' had a dalet prefix, as it does in Acts 4:34, then I would say that the rendering Aramaic gave would be the accurate one, although I would render it 'and without Him, not even one [thing] came to be, of what has come to be.' I will show another rendering from Janet's translation, first as it would have been read without punctuation, and no added words.

everything existed by his hand and without him not even one existed that which existed in him was life and the life was the light of men. (Joh 1:3-4 MGI)

Looking at this and reading it, which is more accurate below; the first way, which needs to have words in brackets added to it for it to make sense, or the second way, which needs no added words, just being punctuated differently?

Joh 1:3 Everything existed by his hand and without him not even one [thing] existed [of] that which existed. In him was life and the life was the light of men. (Joh 1:3-4 MGI)

Joh 1:3 Everything existed by his hand and without him not even one existed. That which existed in him was life, and the life was the light of men. (Joh 1:3-4 MGI)

More importantly, which accurately reflects the meaning of 'medem'...[of] that, or 'that'? Again, I believe the reason people are so comfortable with the first reading is because that is the only way they have ever read or heard the text read. And reading it in that way automatically biases one when going back to the source text and forces them to add words to make it fit what they already believe it is saying. This is a very common thing that happens to anyone who translates, unless they are given something different to see, which they can then take back to the source text and now see what they had not been able to see before.

Ronen

[Thirdwoe]

How the Aramaic text actually reads from the Khabouris manuscript. If you look closely you can see where the breaks in the flow of the passage are indicated in the manuscript. Note the big black dots, showing the breaks in the text.

I offer below what is seen there in the manuscript, both in punctuation, and translating the words in the form they are given in the text. i.e. "the lives" emphatic plural, rather than "the life" emphatic singular, and rendered "has existed" and "have existed", because these are given in the perfect tense.

The "not even" is reversed in the English prose, or else it would be "even not", which is awkward, and it says the same thing either way.

And "one thing" rather than just "one", because we shouldn't leave out the word med'em "something" or "thing", which is present there in the text.

So, considering all that is seen there in the Aramaic manuscript text, I would render this statement thus, in the English language.

"All by His hand have existed, and without Him not even one thing has existed which has existed. In Him the lives have existed, and the lives are the light of the sons of men."

.

.

[gregoryfl]

I guess we will have to disagree then. It would be nice to be able to sit together in person, whoever wished to examine this, and look at the Aramaic together, as the main reason for my translating it the way I do is either not being seen, or perhaps there is no interest in examining it, since it is not the popular understanding.

Ronen

[gregoryfl]

Shalom Thirdwoe,

I hope my last post did not come off as mean spirited, as I did not intend it to be taken that way. I know you are attempting to discuss this with me, which I do appreciate. I just feel it would be better if there were a way for us to put the text in the post and work it out word by word, where we both can see it. As it is now, I see that this message board does not allow to be posted the Hebrew script that I normally would type using my keyboard in Hebrew characters. I also do not wish to come across like I am trying to prove my point and convince you or anyone of what I see. I just wish to share what I have found and if anyone else gets anything from it, then great. If not, then I understand that we can only say what we personally see. Perfectly understandable.

Ronen