triffidfood

Okay, this is probably a really stupid question, but the NIV version of John 1:41 says:

The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, "We have found the Messiah" (that is, the Christ).

.. what did this verse actually originally say (originally, as in the Greek)?

Given that "Christ" IS apparently a translation of "messiah" ~ that is, a Greek translation of the Hebrew for 'anointed' (as opposed to universal/divine/redeemer saviour) ~ how could the above verse originally have made sense?

... "We have found the anointed" (that is, the anointed)?

Amaleq13

I think (and our local experts will no doubt correct me if I'm wrong) that the first word is the Greek transliteration of "Messiah" while the second is the Greek word for "annointed".

Julian

The Greek text says:

ευρισκει ουτος πρωτον τον αδελφον τον ιδιον Σιμωνα και λεγει αυτω, Ευρηκαμεν τον Μεσσιαν ο εστιν μεθερμηνευομενον Χριστος

I bolded the appropriate words. As can be seen, the first word is Messiah and the second word is Christ. That very long word indicates that Messiah is being interpreted as Christ.

The NIV translation is okay except the text doesn't say Andrew but uses an indirect reference since he appears in the previous verse. In this case it should read 'this one' instead of Andrew but the meaning is the same.

Julian

ETA: Christ meaning 'anointed,' of course.

Julian

Just wanted to add the NIV has changed the tense of the verbs, as well. This is an example of historical present, i.e. the use of present tense in a situation happening in the past. The correct translation should be

This one [Andrew] first finds his own brother Simon and says to him, "We have found the Messiah," that is being translated [as] Christ.

There. I am sure someone will be right along to correct my translation.

Julian

S.C.Carlson

I'm happy to oblige. It's not really changing the tense of the verb because a historical present refers to a past event. It's more of a question of how the present tense form works in English, and a lot of translators don't think that the historical present works the same way in English as in Greek, so they use an English past tense form instead to be truer to what is meant. (The NIV presents itself as a "dynamic equivalence" translation.)

I suspect the real reason is that using the historical present in English makes the text too colloquial for most translators' tastes.

Stephen

Chris Weimer

The Greek word actually meant the oil, not the one being oiled, until the LXX translations which oddly changed the meaning.

DramaQ

Jesus Crisco?

Chris Weimer

It does put the current War in Iraq in perspective...

Hallandale

I was sitting at my keyboard eating when I read your post: Jesus Crisco.
I made a mess while I was laughing.
Now I have tomato sauce in between the keys.

Nick Hallandale
enterprisestrategy@earthlink.net

judge

The greek version is a translation from the Aramaic version.

Here is the original Aramaic of John 1.
It should be obvious which is translated from which.

As happens elsewhere in John the greek translator provides an explanation for the foreign word.

The Aramaic just has it all in Aramaic.