Vestitor:

richardhall:Strictly speaking, Christians believe God sent a person, not a book. That's the essence of Christmas.

Which makes me wonder why so much store is put in 'the book'.

That is a very good and interesting question. I would say two things.
1. Both in Judaism and Christianity the idea of a canon developed - some books were considered to contain or even embody the word of God more than, or in distinction to, others. Different communities would have had different ideas about the boundaries, though there wasn't much disagreement about the centre - in the case of Judaism, the first five books of the Hebrew scriptures, and in the case of Christianity, the four gospels. The Psalms were important in worship, and there was very little disagreement about them. You may find interesting John Barton's What is the bible?
2. Technology. The bound book or codex replaced scrolls (at least for popular use), so that the earliest manuscripts of the complete New Testament are codices. The invention of printing would have further encouraged people to think of the bible (as understood by their community) as a complete bound book.

keithwood57:And on languages, just to very lightly add another note on this, I am a 'traditional catholic'. I prefer my liturgy in Latin, so my friend from Poland who sits near me follows it in the same Missal as do I.

I've always felt that Catholicism lost more than it gained when they dropped Latin as the language of Mass. I agree with you that there is a lot to be said for being able to go to your religion's services anywhere in the world and at least being able to follow the service and fully participate (perhaps with your own prayerbook, with the original language and a translation into your own language), even if you can't understand the sermon given in the local language.

It is a comforting aspect of being Jewish, that I can do this pretty much anywhere since Orthodox services are fully in Hebrew. Though certain regional rites change some things around and the tunes may be totally different, the basic service is the same and I know what's going on.

Polaris:In Koine Greek, Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος, the portion of the scripture in question places the definite article before the word "WORD" but not before the word God, indicating that the word "Word" is the subject and that the word God is the predicate nominative (renaming part) of the sentence.

Could you please elaborate why the absence of presence of the definite article indicates that a nominal phrase be either a subject or a predicate noun?
Especially as in "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος" and in "καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν" the subject is "ὁ Λόγος" with a definite article?
How about "Ὁ πατὴρ ἐστὶ δοῦλος."? Is "ὁ πατήρ" the predicate noun, because it has an article? Is "δοῦλος" the subject, because it has none?
Or taken from the bible: "Πιλᾶτος δὲ ἀκούσας ἐπηρώτησεν εἰ ὁ ἄνθρωπος Γαλιλαῖός ἐστιν"? Ho anthropos is predicate noun because it has an article and galilaios is subject because it has none?

nornen:

Polaris:In Koine Greek, Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος, the portion of the scripture in question places the definite article before the word "WORD" but not before the word God, indicating that the word "Word" is the subject and that the word God is the predicate nominative (renaming part) of the sentence.

Could you please elaborate why the absence of presence of the definite article indicates that a nominal phrase be either a subject or a predicate noun?
Especially as in "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος" and in "καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν" the subject is "ὁ Λόγος" with a definite article?
How about "Ὁ πατὴρ ἐστὶ δοῦλος."? Is "ὁ πατήρ" the predicate noun, because it has an article? Is "δοῦλος" the subject, because it has none?
Or taken from the bible: "Πιλᾶτος δὲ ἀκούσας ἐπηρώτησεν εἰ ὁ ἄνθρωπος Γαλιλαῖός ἐστιν"? Ho anthropos is predicate noun because it has an article and galilaios is subject because it has none?

It is common in Koine Greek to use anarthrous nouns for the predicate nominative in sentences like John 1:1. The definite article identifies the subject in this construction. The article often particularizes in Greek whereas the absence of the article can be used to emphasize quality (i.e. the deity of the Word, not the distinctiveness of his being).

nornen:

Polaris:In Koine Greek, Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος, the portion of the scripture in question places the definite article before the word "WORD" but not before the word God, indicating that the word "Word" is the subject and that the word God is the predicate nominative (renaming part) of the sentence.

Could you please elaborate why the absence of presence of the definite article indicates that a nominal phrase be either a subject or a predicate noun?
Especially as in "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος" and in "καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν" the subject is "ὁ Λόγος" with a definite article?
How about "Ὁ πατὴρ ἐστὶ δοῦλος."? Is "ὁ πατήρ" the predicate noun, because it has an article? Is "δοῦλος" the subject, because it has none?
Or taken from the bible: "Πιλᾶτος δὲ ἀκούσας ἐπηρώτησεν εἰ ὁ ἄνθρωπος Γαλιλαῖός ἐστιν"? Ho anthropos is predicate noun because it has an article and galilaios is subject because it has none?

I'm not quite sure I'm following your question, Noren, but let me try to answer what you're asking about. Word order in Koine Greek is quite flexible. In sentences in which a linking verb (is, was, etc.) connects two nouns, thus creating a subject, linking verb, and predicate nominative arrangement, placing the article before one of the nouns customarily indicates that it is the subject and the other is the predicate nominative. In the sentence you cited, Ὁ πατὴρ ἐστὶ δοῦλος, the words Ὁ πατὴρ contain the definite article, indicating that this is the subject, whereas δοῦλος (without the article) is the predicate nominative.

In the scripture from Luke 23 that you mentioned, when Pilate asked whether the man was a Galilean, that same pattern is used---notice the definite article before the man (ὁ ἄνθρωπος) and the absence of the definite article before the predicate nominative (Γαλιλαῖός).

I think you might be confusing the terms "subject" and "predicate nominative", because you seem to be asking the reverse of what I originally said. Hopefully, these examples clarify things for you. The main point of my original post, however, was to vouch for the translation of the Esperanto Bible's rendering of John 1:1 by showing how patently absurd it would be to assume that just because a definite article is NOT used, then an indefinite article should (automatically) be included...a sophomoric assumption at best, and one that would lead to no end of scripture twisting.

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: the Trinity one in essence and undivided. (The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysosotom.)

The Christian God is one God existing in Three Distinct Persons. Each Person is distinct from the other Two. All Three Persons share the same essence (Greek, ousia). Each Person is God in His entirety. The mystery of the Trinity is that three wholes make one whole. 1+1+1=1. That is a mystery. One Orthodox Christian theologian says that the Trinity is a cross for the mind.

Another name for the Son in the Bible is the Word (Greek, Logos). Often in the Old Testament, one may read, "The Word of the Lord came to me, saying." Frequently in the Greek Septuagint, the word translated the Word in such passages is Logos. "The Logos of the Lord came to me, saying." So, in the Gospel according to St. John, one reads, "In the beginning was the Word (Logos) and the Word (Logos) was with God, and the Word (Logos) was God." (John 1:1)

Orthodox Christians believe that Jesus is the Incarnate Word (Logos) of God, who is also God in His entirety, but a distinct Person from the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Another side comment. We believe that there are no personality conflicts among the Trinity. "God is love" (I John 4:8) Each Person of the Trinity loves the other Two Persons with the same self-sacrificial love exhibited by Jesus when He willingly laid down His life for sinners.

The Esperanto translation of John 1:1 appears to be OK to me.

Turning into a preaching fest this thread.

Vestitor:Turning into a preaching fest this thread.

I'm not a believer in these things in any sense but I'm ok with it. The theological meaning seems relevant to the choice of translation in this case.

erinja:

Vestitor:Turning into a preaching fest this thread.

I'm not a believer in these things in any sense but I'm ok with it. The theological meaning seems relevant to the choice of translation in this case.

One of the greatest challenges of translation is capturing the intent of the writer without reading in our own views. It is especially hard not to allow our theological thought to color our interpretation of the scriptures--and to keep that out of our translations. Therefore, as with any other translation task, it helps if we have some idea of the original writer's overall perspective.

It is important to keep in mind that the Apostle John (as well as Jesus Christ and all of the original apostles, for that matter) were all Jews. As such, they were strictly monotheistic to the core, and there's no evidence to suggest that this ever changed throughout the formation of the early Christian church. That must be taken into account in ascribing meaning to John's words.

To translate John 1:1 (or indeed all of the New Testament) from Koine Greek to any other language, we have to be careful not to color our translation by looking at it through the lens of later developments in religious thought...and both Arianism and Trinitarianism were strains of thinking that developed much, much later.

I DO believe that John is ascribing both deity and the humanity to Jesus (as expressed by John 1:1 and John 1:14)--that's obvious, but the notion of God existing eternally in three persons automatically arising from John's words is predicated upon the idea of John believing that God's word was an intelligent person, separate from both God the Father and from the Holy Spirit. Nothing he said here indicates any of that. We can clearly read the story of creation and see what God's word was--it's what God spoke...the outward expression of what was in God's mind.