الحمد لله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله ، وبعد.........
في المشاركة الماضية قمنا باستعراض العديد من الترجمات لنص تيطس 2:13 والتي فضلت أن يكون لقب الله العظيم يشير إلى الآب وليس المسيح ورفضوا تطبيق قاعدة شارب جملة وتفصيلا.. وهذا كافي لدحض كلام المدعو أبي سطل .. ولكن دعونا نستعرض بعض كلام العلماء الذين رفضوا هذه القاعدة وحكموا بعدم صلاحيتها
العالم مارك ملر في كتابه Nazarene Commentary في تعليقه على النص المذكور ذكر الخلاف بين العلماء المؤيدين للقاعدة المؤلفة الذين يؤيدونها لأسباب لاهوتية وعقائدية وبين العلماء الذين يرفضونها وبينهم مثلثين مؤمنين بلاهوت المسيح ، يقول :
"Of the great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ: The exact phrasing of this verse is disputed with either a Unitarian or Trinitarian bias. The Greek would also allow for either two different persons appearing or it may address Jesus Christ as “mighty God.” The later is not incorrect for the Hebrew Text of Isaiah 9:6 does call Messiah “Mighty God.” Many translations prefer “of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” This would indicate Paul understood Jesus to be “god.” The above rendering is from the RSV which has a footnote as most others do to indicate there is an alternate phrase: “of the great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ.” This would be more consistent with Paul’s normal phraseology as he is careful to always differentiate between The God and Jesus Christ. So, it comes down to punctuation whether there will be a trinitarian or unitarian bias.
Thus, some alternate renderings are: 1934 “of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus” (The Riverside New Testament, Boston and New York); 1935 “of the great God and of our Saviour Christ Jesus” (A New Translation of the Bible, by James Moffatt, New York and London); 1950 “of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus” (New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures); 1957 “of the great God and of our Savior Jesus Christ” (La Sainte Bible, by Louis Segond, Paris); 1970 “of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus” (The New American Bible, New York and London); 1972 “of the great God and of Christ Jesus our saviour” (The New Testament in Modern English, by J. B. Phillips, New York)"
ثم ساق بعضا من كلام الفريق الرافض لهذه القاعدة:
" An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, by C. F. D. Moule, Cambridge, England, 1971, p. 109, the sense “of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ… is possible in koi·ne’ Greek even without the repetition [of the definite article].”
The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays, by Ezra Abbot, Boston, 1888, pp. 439-457 (page 452): “Take an example from the New Testament. In Matt. xxi. 12 we read that Jesus ‘cast out all those that were selling and buying in the temple,’ [tous po·loun’tas kai a·go·ra’zon·tas]. No one can reasonably suppose that the same persons are here described as both selling and buying. In Mark the two classes are made distinct by the insertion of tous before agorasontas; here it is safely left to the intelligence of the reader to distinguish them. In the case before us [Tit 2:13], the omission of the article before [so·te’ros] seems to me to present no difficulty, – not because soteros is made sufficiently definite by the addition of [he·mon’] (Winer), for, since God as well as Christ is often called ‘our Saviour,’ [he do’xa tou me·ga’lou The·ou’ kai so·te’ros he·mon’], standing alone, would most naturally be understood of one subject, namely, God, the Father; but the addition of I·e·sou’ Khri·stou’ to so·te’ros he·mon’ changes the case entirely, restricting the soteros hemon to a person or being who, according to Paul’s habitual use of language, is distinguished from the person or being whom he designates as ho The·os’, so that there was no need of the repetition of the article to prevent ambiguity. So in 2 Thess. i. 12, the expression ka·ta’ ten kha’rin tou The·ou’ he·mon’ kai ky·ri’ou would naturally be understood of one subject, and the article would be required before kyriou if two were intended; but the simple addition of I·e·sou’ Khri·stou’ to ky·ri’ou makes the reference to the two distinct subjects clear without the insertion of the article.”
Henry Alford, in The Greek Testament: “I would submit that [a rendering that clearly differentiates God and Christ, at Titus 2:13] satisfies all the grammatical requirements of the sentence: that it is both structurally and contextually more probable, and more agreeable to the Apostle’s way of writing.” (Boston, 1877, Vol. III, p. 421)
A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Moulton-Turner, 1963): “The repetition of the art[icle] was not strictly necessary to ensure that the items be considered separately.” Dr. Nigel Turner: “Unfortunately, at this period of Greek we cannot be sure that such a rule [Sharp’s] is really decisive.” (Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, 1965) Professor Alexander Buttmann: “It will probably never be possible, either in reference to profane literature or to the N[ew] T[estament], to bring down to rigid rules which have no exception… ” (A Grammar of the New Testament Greek)"
يتبع إن شاء الله ....
رد مع اقتباس
ضوابط المشاركة
المفضلات