From: Andrew Kulikovsky (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Oct 13 1997 - 12:14:17 EDT
> From: Jonathan Robie <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 06:58:06 -0400
> Subject: RE: Translation for O LOGOS (John 1)?
> I rather suspect that every Bible translation committee has this same
> discussion, and eventually decides to translate "the word" after realizing
> how many legitimately different ways there are to understand hO LOGOS. John
> does not really define his use of the term, so we look to other background
> that we presume John had to guess at what he meant.
> But John's use of the word clearly would have gone beyond the original use
> anyways - and exactly what he meant by that should be left to the reader and
> the commentaries as much as possible. Incidentally, I still like a
> definition of hO LOGOS that Carl once gave here on the list:
> "Jesus is what God wanted to say."
> But translating the verse "In the beginning was the statement" doesn't
> really bring out that meaning any more than translating it "In the beginning
> was the soul" really conveys the meaning Will sees to the normal reader.
> Either of these calls for further explanation. And so does "In the beginning
> was the idea".
> In fact, "In the beginning was the LOGOS" or "In the beginning was the word"
> does pretty much the same for me. All of these make me ask, "what does that
> mean?". And that is probably good.
Not sure if anyone has pointed this out yet, but the word LOGOS appears
to focus on the content of the word rather than the word itself. ie. the
meaning or message of the word.
Yep, I like Carl's definition too.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:32 EDT