A PROBLEMATIC MISSIONARY TEXT: ‟JOHN 20:23” AND THE ISSUE OF THE TRANSLATION OF THE TWO MAIN CLAUSES (‟ἀφίενται” AND ‟kεκράτηνται”) / UN TEXT MISIONAR PROBLEMATIC: ‟IOAN 20, 23” ȘI ACURATEȚEA TRADUCERII CELOR DOUĂ VERBE PRINCIPALE (‟ἀφίενται” ȘI ‟κεκράτην)
Keywords:
perfect tense, indicative present, sacerdotalism, scribal errors, modern translations [EN];, modul perfect, indicativul prezent, sacerdotalism, erori scribale, traduceri moderne [RO].Abstract
One of the most central theological themes of Orthodoxy is sacerdotalism, the mystery of priesthood and its roots growing from this Johannine verse, in which apostles are sent to mission after they were invested with power to forgive the sins. The problem that occurs refers to the translation of the perfect that is found in the main clause in both sentences: ἀφίημι (to let go, forgive) and κρατέω (to retain, to grasp), which in some manuscripts of the New Testament (Codex Sinaiticus; Codex Alexandrinus; Codex Bezae) and in a few uncials and critical editions of the Greek New Testament (Westcott and Hort; Nestle’s Greek New Testament), appears to be perfect tense. According to Greek New Testament grammars, the perfect tense pictures a past action, the result of which was present to the speaker or writer. So Jesus warned the disciples that they were to treat as forgiven only those that were already forgiven by God. According to this scenario, their entire mission summarizes the acts of authenticating the things that have already been made for them (in their name) and for the people. Our research deals with this issue, underlines the value of indicative present mood of this two verbs, as we encounter them in the byzantine manuscripts of the New Testament and also in Codex Vaticanus. The large context of the story deals with the action of breathing the Holy Spirit over the disciples, transforming them into a new existence and receiving power by this, to forgive or retain everyone’s sins, that is why I see the perfect tense as the result of a scribal error. The difference between the present ἀφίενται and the perfect ἀφέωνται consist of two letters changed, an error that might have occured among the scribs. Establishing the indicative present of the action is an urgent task for the world of orthodox biblical studies, because according to this prerequisite, our whole missionary agenda earns credits.
Una dintre temele centrale ale Ortodoxiei este sacerdotalismul, taina preoției ce reiese din acest text ioaneic, în care apostolii sunt trimiși la misiune, investiți fiind cu puterea de a lega sau dezlega păcatele oamenilor. Problema care se ridică este legată de traducerea celor două perfecte ἀφίημι (a lăsa, a ierta) și κρατέω (a ține), care în unele manuscrise ale Noului Testament (Codex Sinaiticus; Codex Alexandrinus; Codex Bezae), în câteva lecționare și în unele ediții critice (Westcott and Hort; Nestle’s Greek New Testament), apar a fi verbe la perfect. Potrivit gramaticii limbii Noului Testament, perfectul prezintă o acțiune trecută și încheiată pentru observator. Astfel că Iisus îi înștiințează pe apostoli că vor trebui să-i ierte pe toți aceia care au fost deja iertați. Potrivit acestui scenariu, întreaga lor misiune se rezumă la autentificarea acțiunilor care s-au consumat deja în numele lor pentru binefacerea poporului. Cercetarea de față se concentrează asupra acestei problematici, subliniind rolul indicativului prezent al celor două verbe principale precum sunt întâlnite ele în tradiția bizantină a manuscriselor Noului Testament și în Codex-ul Vaticanus. Contextul lărgit al versetului prezintă suflarea Duhului Sfânt peste apostolii prezenți, de către Hristos Cel Înviat, transformându-i pe aceștia într-o creație nouă, specifică post-pascală, oferindu-le prin aceasta puterea și autoritatea necesară de a ierta păcatele. De aceea consider că prezența perfectului în logica acestui text, nu poate fi decât rezultatul unor greșeli ale scribilor. Diferența dintre prezentul ἀφίενται și perfectul ἀφέωνται este dată de schimbarea a două litere în interiorul cuvântului, o eroare care s-ar fi putut înregistra în lumea scribilor Noului Testament. Stabilirea indicativului prezent al acțiunii, devine o sarcină stringentă în lumea ortodoxă a studiilor biblice, deoarece în logica acestei moșteniri patristice, întregul nostru program misionar câștigă credit.
References
Abbott, Edwin A. Johannine Grammar. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1906.
Aland, Barbara and Kurt, et al. The Greek-English New Testament. Wheaton: Crossway, 282012.
Aland Barbara et al. The Greek New Testament. Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 52014.
Ambrose. Concerning Repentance 1.2.6-7, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, vol. 10, ed. Philip Schaff et al. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 31994.
Anania, Bartolomeu Valeriu. Biblia sau Sfânta Scriptură. Cluj-Napoca: Editura Renaşterea, 2009.
Aronet, Caesar. “Ungerea în contextul Iacob 5,” Teologie şi Viaţă 22, 2012.
Beasley-Murray, George R. John, in Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 36, ed. Bruce M. Metzger et al. Dallas: Word Books Publisher, 1999.
Bernard, J.H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John, vol. 2, in The International Critical Commentary, ed. Alfred Plummer et al. Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 21976.
Blass, Friedrich. Grammar of New Testament Greek. New York: Macmillan and Co., 1905.
Blass, F. and A. Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961.
Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel According to John (XIII-XXI), in The Anchor Bible, vol. 29A, ed. William Foxwell Albright et al. New York: Doubleday, 1970.
Buch-Hansen, Gitte. It is the Spirit that Gives Life. A Stoic Understanding of Pneuma in John’s Gospel, in Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche, vol. 173, ed. James D.G. Dunn et al. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010.
Burgon, John William. The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels. London: George Bell and Sons, 1896.
Burton, Ernest de Witt. Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1898.
Cadbury, Henry J. “The Meaning of John 20: 23, Matthew 16: 19 and Matthew 18: 18,” Journal of Biblical Literature 58, 1939.
Carson, D.A. The Gospel According to John, in The Pillar New Testament Commentary, edited by D.A. Carson, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991.
Chiril al Alexandriei, Comentariu la Evanghelia Sfântului Ioan, PSB 41, Bucureşti: EIBMBOR, 2000.
Cooke, G.A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel, in International Critical Commentary, ed. J.A. Emerton et al. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1951.
Craig, Clarence T. “Sacramental Interest in the Fourth Gospel,” Journal of Biblical Literature 58, 1939.
Dodd, C.H. Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965.
Duff, Jeremy. The Elements of New Testament Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Ehrman, Bart D. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Elliott, Keith and Ian Moir. Manuscripts and the Text of the New Testament: An Introduction for English Readers. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995.
Elowsky, Joel C. John 11-21, in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, vol. IVb, ed. Thomas C. Oden et al. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2007.
Enslin, Morton S. “The Perfect Tense in the Fourth Gospel,” Journal of Biblical Literature 55, 1936.
ESV Study Bible, ed. Lane T. Dennis et al. Wheaton: Crossway, 2008.
Fanning, Buist M. Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990.
France, R.T. The Gospel of Matthew, in The New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Ned B. Stonehouse et al. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing House, 2007.
Freedman, David Noel and David Miano. “Slip of the Eye: Accidental Omission in the Masoretic Tradition”, in The Challenge of Bible Translation, ed. Glen G. Scorgie et al. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 2003.
Gregory of Nazianzus. Dogmatic Hymns VII, PG 37.
Gregory the Great. Forty Gospel Homilies, in: Cistercian Studies Series, vol. 123, edited by M. Basil Pennington, Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1973.
Happ, Erich et al. Grammatik. Lautlehre, Formenlehre, Satzlehre. München: Bayerischer Schulbuch Verlag, 1981.
Hendriksen, William. The Gospel According to John, vol. 2, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953.
John Chrysostom. Six Books on the Priesthood. Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1984.
Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of John: A Commentary, vol. 2, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003.
Kruse, Colin G. Ioan: Introducere şi comentariu. Oradea: Editura Scriptum, 2010.
Lake, Kirsopp. Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1911.
Mantey, J. R. “The Mistranslation of the perfect Tense in John 20:23, Mt 16:19 and Mt 18:18,” Journal of Biblical Literature 58, 1939.
Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. London: United Bible Societies, 1971.
Metzger, Bruce M. and Bart D. Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament. Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 42005.
Michaels, J. Ramsey. The Gospel of John, in The New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Ned B. Stonehouse et al. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010.
Robinson, Maurice A. and William G. Pierpont. The New Testament in the Original Greek. Byzantine Textform. Southborough: Chilton Book Publishing, 2005.
Royse, James R. Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri, in New Testament Tools, Studies and Documents, vol. 36, ed. Bart D. Ehrman et al. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Scott, J.M.C. John, in Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, ed. James D.G. Dunn et al. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2003.
Scrima, André. Comentariu Integral la Evanghelia după Ioan. Bucureşti: Humanitas, 2008.
The New Testament in Greek IV: The Gospel According to St. John, in The American and British Committees of the International Greek New Testament Project, vol. 2: The Majuscules, ed. U.B. Schmid et al. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
The Orthodox Study Bible, ed. Eugen Pentiuc et al. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2008.
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on John 7.20, in Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, fourth series, vol. 3, ed. Bernard Coulie et al. Louvain: Université catholique de Louvain, 1903.
Tischendorf, Constantinus. Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine. Hermann Mendelssohn, 1858.
Tofană, Stelian. Introducere în studiul Noului Testament: Evangheliile după Luca şi Ioan. Problema sinoptică. Cluj-Napoca: Presa Universitară Clujeană, 2001.
———. “Jesus Appeareance to the Ten Disciples and its Theological Dimension (John 20: 19-23). An Orthodox exegetical perspective,” Studia Universitatis Babeş-Bolyai Theologia Orthodoxa 52, 2007.
———. “Centralitatea Evangheliei lui Iisus Hristos în viaţa lumii – o perspectivă biblică”, in Credinţă şi Mărturisire. Istorie şi Actualitate, ed. Valer Bel et al. Cluj-Napoca: Presa Universitară Clujeană, 2012.
Voorst, Robert E. Van. Building your New Testament Greek Vocabulary. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 32001.
Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996.
Zimmermann, Ruben. “Symbolic Communication between John and His Reader: The Garden Symbolism in John 19-20”, in Anatomies of Narrative Criticism: The Past, Present and Futures of the Fourth Gospel as Literature, ed. Tom Thatcher et al. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2015 Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai Theologia Orthodoxa
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
ISSN (print): 1224-0869, ISSN (online): 2065-9474, ISSN-L: 2065-9474