ManyBibles

ヨハネによる福音書 9

7の翻訳 · 12つの教派を通して読む.

NCB · 新コンセンサス聖書

1And passing by, he saw a man blind from birth. 2And his disciples asked him, saying, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” 3Jesus answered, “Neither this man sinned nor his parents, but that the works of God might be revealed in him. 4We must work the works of the one who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work. 5While in the world I am, light I am of the world.” 6Having said these things, he spat on the ground and made mud from the spittle, and he smeared the mud on the eyes of the blind man, 7and said to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which is interpreted Sent). Therefore he went away and washed, and came back seeing. 8Therefore the neighbors, and those seeing him before that he was a beggar, were saying, “Is this not the one who was sitting and begging?” 9Others were saying, “This is he.” Others were saying, “No, but he is like him.” He kept saying, “I am he.” 10Therefore they said to him, “How then were your eyes opened?” 11He answered, “The man called Jesus made mud and smeared my eyes, and said to me, ‘Go to the pool of Siloam and wash.’ Therefore having gone away and washed, I received sight.” 12And they said to him, “Where is that one?” He says, “I do not know.” 13They bring him to the Pharisees, the once blind man. 14Now it was a Sabbath on the day when Jesus made the mud and opened his eyes. 15Therefore again the Pharisees also were asking him how he received his sight. And he said to them, “He put mud on my eyes, and I washed, and I see.” 16Therefore some of the Pharisees were saying, “This man is not from God, because he does not keep the Sabbath.” But others were saying, “How can a sinner man do such signs?” And there was a division among them. 17Therefore they say to the blind man again, “What do you say about him, since he opened your eyes?” And he said, “He is a prophet.” 18Therefore the Jews did not believe concerning him that he had been blind and received sight, until they called the parents of the one who received sight, 19and asked them, saying, “Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then does he see now?” 20Therefore his parents answered them and said, “We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind; 21but how he now sees we do not know, or who opened his eyes we do not know. Ask him; he is of age, he will speak concerning himself.” 22These things his parents said because they were afraid of the Jews; for the Jews had already agreed that if anyone should confess him as Christ, he would be put out of the synagogue. 23Because of this his parents said, “He is of age, ask him.” 24Therefore they called a second time the man who had been blind, and said to him, “Give glory to God; we know that this man is a sinner.” 25Therefore that one answered and said, “Whether he is a sinner I do not know; one thing I know, that being blind, now I see.” 26Therefore they said to him again, “What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?” 27He answered them, “I told you already, and you did not hear. Why do you want to hear it again? You do not also want to become his disciples, do you?” 28And they reviled him and said, “You are a disciple of that one, but we are disciples of Moses. 29We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this one, we do not know where he is from.” 30The man answered and said to them, “Why, in this is the amazing thing, that you do not know where he is from, and yet he opened my eyes. 31We know that God does not hear sinners, but if anyone is a God-worshiper and does his will, this one he hears. 32Since the age began it was never heard that anyone opened the eyes of one born blind. 33If this one were not from God, he could do nothing.” 34They answered and said to him, “You were born wholly in sins, and you teach us?” And they cast him out outside. 35Jesus heard that they cast him out outside, and having found him, he said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” 36He answered and said, “And who is he, Lord, that I may believe in him?” 37And Jesus said to him, “You have both seen him, and the one speaking with you is that one.” 38And he said, “I believe, Lord,” and he worshiped him. 39And Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, so that those not seeing may see, and those seeing may become blind.” 40Those of the Pharisees who were with him heard these things, and said to him, “Are we also blind?” 41Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, ‘We see,’ therefore your sin remains.”

人間の翻訳ではなく、AIによる生成テキストです。 「ヨハネによる福音書 9」を新コンセンサス聖書で全文読む →

各教派が一致している点

It is widely agreed that the blind man's evolving recognition of Jesus models the progressive spiritual illumination of a believer. Broadly, traditions affirm that the man's congenital condition represents humanity's innate state of original sin, ordained not as punitive retribution but to sovereignly manifest God's glory, while his transformed life serves as a model of experiential testimony against skepticism. It is also broadly held that Jesus' judgment on the Pharisees proves that those who… サインインして共通理解の全文を読む →

すべてではないが、大半が支持している点

  • The condition of being born blind represents humanity's innate state of original sin and spiritual inability. (5 affirm)
  • God sovereignly ordains congenital conditions and suffering to manifest His glory rather than merely as punitive retribution. (6 affirm)
  • The blind man's undeniably transformed life serves as the primary model for experiential testimony against theological or institutional skepticism. (7 affirm)
  • Jesus' judgment on the Pharisees demonstrates that those who proudly claim spiritual sight while rejecting Christ remain in their sin. (9 affirm)

各教派の相違点

  • The blind man's passivity in the initiation of his healing illustrates monergistic regeneration.

    lutheran: AFFIRM; reformed: AFFIRM; baptist: AFFIRM; methodist: DENY; restorationist: DENY

  • The command to wash in the pool of Siloam prefigures the spiritual illumination granted in the sacrament of Baptism.

    catholic: AFFIRM; orthodox: AFFIRM; oriental-orthodox: AFFIRM; anglican: AFFIRM; lutheran: AFFIRM; restorationist: QUALIFY

  • Jesus' use of physical elements to heal the man establishes a paradigm for sacramental realism, where God conveys spiritual grace through material means.

    anglican: AFFIRM; lutheran: AFFIRM; restorationist: DENY

  • The blind man's washing in the pool demonstrates that water baptism is the necessary point of obedience at which God removes the blindness of sin.

    lutheran: DENY; restorationist: AFFIRM

  • Jesus' command to wash in the pool of Siloam demonstrates that accessing divine grace requires human obedience to cooperate with divine initiative.

    lutheran: DENY; reformed: DENY; methodist: AFFIRM; pentecostal: AFFIRM; restorationist: AFFIRM

  • Christ's healing on the Sabbath vindicates the performance of works of mercy on the Lord's Day, opposing rabbinic additions rather than abolishing the law.

    reformed: AFFIRM; adventist: QUALIFY

各教派による解釈

各解釈は独立して生成されており、他の教派の回答は参照されていません。

Catholic

The narrative recounts Jesus healing a man blind from birth by making mud with his saliva, applying it to the man's eyes, and instructing him to wash in the pool of Siloam. Because this healing occurs on a Sabbath, the Pharisees launch a formal interrogation. The passage details the mounting division among the Jewish leaders, the fear of the man's parents, and the blind man's own courageous defense of Jesus, which ultimately results in his expulsion from the synagogue. The chapter concludes with Jesus finding the outcast, revealing himself as the Son of Man, receiving the man's worship, and delivering a discourse on spiritual sight and the culpability of the willfully blind. Reception: Catholic reception approaches this chapter through profound sacramental and creation typology, drawing on both the Latin and Eastern Fathers. Irenaeus reads the making of clay as a recapitulation of Genesis; Christ acts as the Creator, restoring the physical defect by forming eyes from the earth, just as Adam was originally formed. Augustine's reading deeply shapes the Latin sacramental understanding: the man born blind represents the entire human race suffering the darkness of original sin. The spittle mixed with earth signifies the Word made flesh, and the washing in Siloam is the sacrament of Baptism, historically termed 'Illumination.' John Chrysostom emphasizes that Jesus' denial of the man's or his parents' prior sin (v. 3) refutes pagan notions of the pre-existence of souls and strict karmic retribution, establishing instead a theology where human suffering permits the manifestation of God's glory. Thomas Aquinas highlights the gradual illumination of the blind man's intellect, tracing his progression from calling Jesus 'a man' (v. 11), to 'a prophet' (v. 17), to someone 'from God' (v. 33), culminating in his confession and adoration of Jesus as the 'Son of God' (v. 35-38).

Eastern Orthodox

John 9 recounts the narrative of Jesus healing a man born blind. Prompted by His disciples' question regarding the cause of the blindness (verses 1-2), Jesus explains that it serves to manifest God's works (verse 3). He then makes mud with His saliva, anoints the man's eyes, and commands him to wash in the pool of Siloam (verses 6-7). The resulting physical healing provokes a series of intense interrogations by the neighbors and the Pharisees. The Pharisees fixate on the healing occurring on the Sabbath, leading to a division among them. They question the healed man and his parents, who evade answering out of fear of expulsion from the synagogue (verses 18-23). The blind man boldly defends Jesus as a prophet and from God, resulting in his excommunication by the religious authorities (verses 24-34). Jesus then seeks the man out, revealing Himself as the Son of God, which leads to the man's worship (verses 35-38). The chapter concludes with Jesus contrasting the progressive spiritual sight of the healed man with the culpable, chosen spiritual blindness of the Pharisees (verses 39-41). Reception: The Eastern Orthodox tradition receives John 9 as a profound revelation of Christ as the Creator and as a foundational text for the theology of Baptism, known as 'Holy Illumination.' Central to the patristic consensus is the interpretation of Jesus making mud (clay) from His spittle and the earth (verse 6). Irenaeus of Lyons and John Chrysostom both read this as a deliberate recapitulation of the creation of man in Genesis. Because the man was born blind, he lacked fully formed eyes; Christ the Word, who formed Adam from the dust, uses the same material (clay) to complete the missing part of human nature, thus proving His divinity as the original Creator. Furthermore, the washing in the pool of Siloam (verse 7) is universally recognized by the Fathers, such as Cyril of Alexandria, as a type of Christian Baptism. Just as the waters of Siloam washed away the clay to grant physical sight, the waters of Baptism wash away sin to grant spiritual illumination. Chrysostom also addresses the disciples' question about sin (verses 2-3), emphasizing that Christ's answer refutes both the pagan idea of the pre-existence of souls and the strict assignment of generational punishment, reframing the man's suffering as a unique arena for the manifestation of divine glory. The chapter traces the man's progressive theosis: he begins by knowing 'a man called Jesus' (verse 11), confesses Him as a 'prophet' (verse 17), defends Him as being 'from God' (verse 33), and finally receives the revelation of the 'Son of God,' culminating in worship (verse 38).

Oriental Orthodox

The narrative recounts Jesus healing a man born blind by making clay from spittle, applying it to the man's eyes, and instructing him to wash in the pool of Siloam. The chapter follows the ensuing controversy as the healed man is interrogated by the Pharisees, cast out of the synagogue, and later sought out by Jesus. It structurally contrasts the physical healing and emerging faith of the blind man with the willful spiritual blindness and hardening of the religious authorities. Reception: Within the Oriental Orthodox communion, this chapter is a paramount Christological and typological text. The miaphysite Christology of the tradition reads the act of making clay from spittle and dust (John 9:6) as a definitive demonstration of the hypostatic union and the one incarnate nature of God the Word. Cyril of Alexandria argues that Jesus used His own spittle to show that His holy flesh is intrinsically life-giving and possesses divine power, refusing to separate the divine healing action from the physical human body. Furthermore, the tradition deeply connects this miracle to the Genesis creation account. Syriac and Coptic fathers describe Christ here as the original Potter, using the same earthly dust mixed with the moisture of His own mouth to create new eyes, thereby supplying what was missing in the original creation and affirming that the Redeemer is the Creator. The man's washing in Siloam (John 9:7) is universally received as a type of the Mystery of Baptism, which brings spiritual illumination.

さらに9の教派がこの章を読んでいます。

サインインして全12件を読む →

すべての翻訳

7のパブリックドメイン訳による同じ章。

WEB · World English Bible

1As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. 2His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” 3Jesus answered, “This man didn’t sin, nor did his parents, but that the works of God might be revealed in him. 4I must work the works of him who sent me while it is day. The night is coming, when no one can work. 5While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” 6When he had said this, he spat on the ground, made mud with the saliva, anointed the blind man’s eyes with the mud, 7and said to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which means “Sent”). So he went away, washed, and came back seeing. 8Therefore the neighbors and those who saw that he was blind before said, “Isn’t this he who sat and begged?” 9Others were saying, “It is he.” Still others were saying, “He looks like him.” He said, “I am he.” 10They therefore were asking him, “How were your eyes opened?” 11He answered, “A man called Jesus made mud, anointed my eyes, and said to me, ‘Go to the pool of Siloam and wash.’ So I went away and washed, and I received sight.” 12Then they asked him, “Where is he?” He said, “I don’t know.” 13They brought him who had been blind to the Pharisees. 14It was a Sabbath when Jesus made the mud and opened his eyes. 15Again therefore the Pharisees also asked him how he received his sight. He said to them, “He put mud on my eyes, I washed, and I see.” 16Some therefore of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, because he doesn’t keep the Sabbath.” Others said, “How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?” So there was division among them. 17Therefore they asked the blind man again, “What do you say about him, because he opened your eyes?” He said, “He is a prophet.” 18The Jews therefore didn’t believe concerning him, that he had been blind and had received his sight, until they called the parents of him who had received his sight, 19and asked them, “Is this your son, whom you say was born blind? How then does he now see?” 20His parents answered them, “We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind; 21but how he now sees, we don’t know; or who opened his eyes, we don’t know. He is of age. Ask him. He will speak for himself.” 22His parents said these things because they feared the Jews; for the Jews had already agreed that if any man would confess him as Christ, he would be put out of the synagogue. 23Therefore his parents said, “He is of age. Ask him.” 24So they called the man who was blind a second time, and said to him, “Give glory to God. We know that this man is a sinner.” 25He therefore answered, “I don’t know if he is a sinner. One thing I do know: that though I was blind, now I see.” 26They said to him again, “What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?” 27He answered them, “I told you already, and you didn’t listen. Why do you want to hear it again? You don’t also want to become his disciples, do you?” 28They insulted him and said, “You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses. 29We know that God has spoken to Moses. But as for this man, we don’t know where he comes from.” 30The man answered them, “How amazing! You don’t know where he comes from, yet he opened my eyes. 31We know that God doesn’t listen to sinners, but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does his will, he listens to him. 32Since the world began it has never been heard of that anyone opened the eyes of someone born blind. 33If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.” 34They answered him, “You were altogether born in sins, and do you teach us?” Then they threw him out. 35Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and finding him, he said, “Do you believe in the Son of God?” 36He answered, “Who is he, Lord, that I may believe in him?” 37Jesus said to him, “You have both seen him, and it is he who speaks with you.” 38He said, “Lord, I believe!” and he worshiped him. 39Jesus said, “I came into this world for judgment, that those who don’t see may see; and that those who see may become blind.” 40Those of the Pharisees who were with him heard these things, and said to him, “Are we also blind?” 41Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, ‘We see.’ Therefore your sin remains.

KJV · King James Version

1And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. 2And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? 3Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. 4I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. 5As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world. 6When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay, 7And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing. 8The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged? 9Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he. 10Therefore said they unto him, How were thine eyes opened? 11He answered and said, A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash: and I went and washed, and I received sight. 12Then said they unto him, Where is he? He said, I know not. 13They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind. 14And it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes. 15Then again the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. He said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see. 16Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them. 17They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet. 18But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight. 19And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see? 20His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind: 21But by what means he now seeth, we know not; or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: he is of age; ask him: he shall speak for himself. 22These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue. 23Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him. 24Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner. 25He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see. 26Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes? 27He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples? 28Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses’ disciples. 29We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is. 30The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes. 31Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth. 32Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. 33If this man were not of God, he could do nothing. 34They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out. 35Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? 36He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? 37And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. 38And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him. 39And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind. 40And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also? 41Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

さらに5の翻訳を並べて比較できます。

サインインして全7件を比較する →
意味が変わる相違点 (73)
  • v2 [lexical]: translates the title either as 'Rabbi' or 'Master' — “Rabbi” (WEB, ASV, YLT, DARBY, DRC) vs “saying Master” (KJV, WEBSTER)
  • v2 [grammatical]: translates the past action as simple past or present perfect — “sinned” (WEB, ASV, DARBY, WEBSTER) vs “did sin” (KJV, YLT) vs “hath sinned” (DRC)
  • v2 [grammatical]: translates the result clause using the subjunctive or indicative — “should be” (ASV, YLT, DARBY, DRC) vs “was” (WEB, KJV, WEBSTER)
  • v3 [grammatical]: translates the negative action of sinning with slight syntactic and lexical variations — “man sinned” (KJV, DARBY, WEBSTER, DRC) vs “didn’t sin” (WEB) vs “sin” (ASV) vs “one sin” (YLT)
  • v3 [grammatical]: (vv 3, 36) translates the modal verb of purpose — “should” (KJV, ASV, DARBY, WEBSTER, DRC) vs “might” (WEB) vs “may” (YLT)
  • v3 [lexical]: translates the revealing of God's works as 'made manifest', 'manifested', or 'revealed' — “made manifest” (KJV, ASV, WEBSTER, DRC) vs “manifested” (YLT, DARBY) vs “revealed” (WEB)
  • v4 [grammatical]: translates the relative pronoun referencing God — “that” (KJV, ASV, WEBSTER, DRC) vs “who” (WEB, YLT) vs “has” (DARBY)
  • v4 [grammatical]: translates the arrival of night in simple or continuous present — “cometh” (KJV, ASV, WEBSTER, DRC) vs “is coming” (WEB, DARBY) vs “doth come” (YLT)
  • v4 [stylistic]: translates the subject and the ability to work — “man can” (KJV, ASV, WEBSTER, DRC) vs “one” (WEB, DARBY) vs “one is able to” (YLT)
  • v5 [grammatical]: translates the temporal conjunction introducing the clause — “As long as” (KJV, DARBY, WEBSTER, DRC) vs “When” (ASV, YLT) vs “While” (WEB)
  • v6 [lexical]: (vv 6, 14) translates the substance made from saliva as 'clay' or 'mud' — “clay of” (KJV, ASV, YLT, WEBSTER, DRC) vs “mud with” (WEB) vs “mud” (DARBY)
  • v7 [lexical]: translates the explanation of the name — “is by interpretation” (KJV, ASV, WEBSTER) vs “interpreted” (YLT, DARBY, DRC) vs “means” (WEB)
  • v8 [textual]: follows different Greek manuscripts which read 'blind' or 'a beggar' — “blind” (KJV, YLT, WEBSTER) vs “a beggar” (ASV, DARBY, DRC) vs “before” (WEB)
  • v8 [grammatical]: translates the relative clause describing the man's past habit of sitting — “that sat” (KJV, ASV, WEBSTER, DRC) vs “who” (WEB) vs “who is sitting” (YLT) vs “was sitting” (DARBY)
  • v9 [lexical]: translates the comparison as 'is like' or 'looks like' — “is” (KJV, ASV, YLT, DARBY, WEBSTER, DRC) vs “looks” (WEB)
  • v10 [stylistic]: translates the action of speaking and its connecting conjunction — “said therefore to” (YLT, DARBY, DRC) vs “therefore were asking” (WEB) vs “unto” (KJV) vs “said therefore” (ASV) vs “said to” (WEBSTER)
  • v10 [grammatical]: translates the opening of the eyes with varying tense forms and pronouns — “were thine” (KJV, YLT) vs “thy” (WEBSTER, DRC) vs “your” (WEB) vs “then” (ASV) vs “have” (DARBY)
  • v11 [lexical]: translates the substance and the action applied to the eyes — “clay and anointed mine” (KJV, ASV) vs “my” (WEBSTER, DRC) vs “mud my” (WEB) vs “rubbed my” (YLT) vs “mud” (DARBY)
  • v11 [stylistic]: translates the sequence of going and washing using participles or coordinated verbs — “So away” (WEB, ASV) vs “and I went and” (KJV, WEBSTER) vs “having gone away having” (YLT) vs “having gone” (DARBY) vs “I” (DRC)
  • v11 [lexical]: translates the resulting action of seeing or receiving sight — “received sight” (WEB, KJV, ASV, YLT, WEBSTER) vs “saw” (DARBY) vs “see” (DRC)
  • v12 [stylistic]: translates the introduction to the question — “said therefore to” (YLT, DARBY) vs “asked” (WEB) vs “unto” (KJV) vs “said” (ASV) vs “to” (WEBSTER) vs “said to” (DRC)
  • v12 [grammatical]: (vv 12, 21) translates the negative statement of knowledge — “know not” (KJV, ASV, WEBSTER, DRC) vs “don’t” (WEB) vs “have known” (YLT) vs “do know” (DARBY)
  • v15 [lexical]: translates the substance applied to the eyes as 'clay' or 'mud' — “my” (YLT, WEBSTER, DRC) vs “clay upon mine” (KJV, ASV) vs “mud on my” (WEB) vs “mud” (DARBY)
  • v15 [grammatical]: translates the present tense assertion of sight — “I” (WEB, ASV, YLT, DARBY, DRC) vs “do” (KJV, WEBSTER)
  • v16 [lexical]: translates the preposition denoting origin — “from” (WEB, ASV, YLT, WEBSTER) vs “of” (KJV, DARBY, DRC)
  • v16 [lexical]: translates the word for miraculous acts and the connecting conjunction — “miracles And” (KJV, WEBSTER, DRC) vs “signs” (ASV, YLT, DARBY) vs “signs So” (WEB)
  • v17 [stylistic]: translates the verb of speaking and connecting adverbs — “asked” (WEB) vs “say unto” (KJV) vs “therefore” (ASV) vs “said to” (YLT) vs “therefore again to” (DARBY) vs “to” (WEBSTER) vs “therefore to” (DRC)
  • v17 [stylistic]: translates the phrasing of the inquiry about the man's opinion — “sayest thou of” (KJV, ASV, WEBSTER, DRC) vs “dost say” (YLT, DARBY) vs “do you say about” (WEB)
  • v18 [stylistic]: translates the connecting particle — “therefore” (ASV, YLT, DARBY) vs “did not” (KJV, WEBSTER) vs “therefore didn’t” (WEB) vs “then” (DRC)
  • v18 [grammatical]: translates the past state of being blind as simple past or past perfect — “had been” (WEB, KJV, ASV, WEBSTER, DRC) vs “was” (YLT, DARBY)
  • v18 [stylistic]: translates the past action of receiving sight — “had” (WEB, ASV, DARBY, DRC) vs “received his” (KJV, WEBSTER) vs “did receive” (YLT)
  • v18 [grammatical]: translates the relative pronoun referring to the person — “that had” (KJV, ASV, DARBY, WEBSTER, DRC) vs “who” (WEB, YLT)
  • v19 [grammatical]: translates the relative clause concerning the son — “who ye” (KJV, ASV, WEBSTER) vs “of whom” (YLT, DARBY) vs “whom you” (WEB) vs “you” (DRC)
  • v19 [grammatical]: translates the auxiliary verb — “doth” (KJV, ASV, WEBSTER, DRC) vs “does” (WEB, DARBY) vs “now” (YLT)
  • v21 [lexical]: translates the interrogative phrase regarding the manner of his seeing — “how” (WEB, ASV, DARBY, DRC) vs “But by what means” (KJV, WEBSTER) vs “and how” (YLT)
  • v21 [stylistic]: translates the parents' deflection to ask the son himself — “know not he” (KJV, WEBSTER) vs “don’t” (WEB) vs “ask him” (ASV) vs “have known himself” (YLT) vs “do know” (DARBY) vs “ask himself” (DRC)
  • v21 [lexical]: translates the preposition regarding who he speaks for — “for” (WEB, KJV, ASV, WEBSTER, DRC) vs “concerning” (YLT, DARBY)
  • v22 [lexical]: translates the verb for the Jews' prior agreement — “had agreed already” (KJV, ASV, WEBSTER) vs “agreed” (WEB, DARBY) vs “together” (YLT) vs “agreed among themselves” (DRC)
  • v22 [grammatical]: translates the modal verb in the conditional clause — “should” (KJV, ASV, DARBY, WEBSTER, DRC) vs “would” (WEB) vs “may” (YLT)
  • v22 [lexical]: translates the action of expulsion from the synagogue — “put out of” (WEB, KJV, ASV, YLT, WEBSTER, DRC) vs “excommunicated from” (DARBY)
  • v23 [grammatical]: translates the object pronoun referring to the son — “him” (WEB, KJV, ASV, YLT, DARBY, WEBSTER) vs “himself” (DRC)
  • v24 [grammatical]: translates the relative clause identifying the previously blind man — “that was” (KJV, ASV, WEBSTER) vs “who” (WEB, YLT) vs “who had been” (DARBY) vs “again had been” (DRC)
  • v24 [lexical]: translates the description of the man as a noun or adjective — “a sinner” (WEB, KJV, ASV, YLT, WEBSTER, DRC) vs “sinful” (DARBY)
  • v25 [grammatical]: translates the verb of knowing — “know” (KJV, ASV, DARBY, WEBSTER, DRC) vs “do” (WEB) vs “have known” (YLT)
  • v25 [grammatical]: translates the description of the past state of blindness — “whereas I was” (KJV, ASV, WEBSTER, DRC) vs “being” (YLT, DARBY) vs “though” (WEB)
  • v26 [stylistic]: translates the verb of speaking and its conjunction — “said” (WEB, YLT, DARBY, WEBSTER) vs “to” (KJV) vs “said therefore unto” (ASV) vs “said then” (DRC)
  • v26 [grammatical]: translates the phrasing of the question about opening the eyes — “opened” (KJV, ASV, DARBY, WEBSTER) vs “did” (WEB, YLT, DRC)
  • v26 [stylistic]: translates the repetition of the verb and pronoun — “thine” (KJV, ASV, DARBY) vs “open your” (WEB) vs “open” (YLT) vs “thy” (WEBSTER) vs “open thy” (DRC)
  • v27 [lexical]: translates the temporal adverb marking past action — “already” (WEB, KJV, YLT, DARBY, WEBSTER, DRC) vs “even now” (ASV)
  • v27 [stylistic]: (vv 27, 34) translates the phrasing of the rhetorical question — “it again will ye” (KJV, WEBSTER) vs “do” (YLT, DARBY) vs “You don’t” (WEB) vs “would” (ASV) vs “you” (DRC)
  • v27 [lexical]: translates the verb for becoming a disciple — “be” (KJV, WEBSTER) vs “become” (ASV, DRC) vs “wish to become” (YLT, DARBY) vs “want to become” (WEB)
  • v28 [lexical]: translates the verb for verbal abuse — “reviled” (KJV, ASV, YLT, WEBSTER, DRC) vs “insulted” (WEB) vs “railed at” (DARBY)
  • v28 [grammatical]: translates the statement or command about being a disciple — “Thou art” (KJV, ASV, YLT, DARBY, WEBSTER) vs “You are” (WEB) vs “Be” (DRC)
  • v29 [grammatical]: translates the tense of God speaking to Moses — “spoke to” (DARBY, WEBSTER, DRC) vs “has spoken to” (WEB) vs “spake unto” (KJV) vs “hath spoken” (ASV) vs “hath spoken to” (YLT)
  • v29 [stylistic]: translates the contrasting conjunction phrase — “But” (WEB, ASV, YLT) vs “as for” (KJV, WEBSTER) vs “but to” (DARBY, DRC)
  • v29 [lexical]: translates the demonstrative noun or pronoun referencing Jesus — “man” (WEB, ASV, DARBY, WEBSTER, DRC) vs “fellow” (KJV) vs “one” (YLT)
  • v29 [lexical]: translates the phrase regarding origin — “is” (KJV, ASV, YLT, DARBY, WEBSTER, DRC) vs “comes from” (WEB)
  • v31 [lexical]: translates the verb describing God's reception of sinners — “heareth not” (KJV, ASV, WEBSTER) vs “doth hear” (YLT, DRC) vs “doesn’t listen to” (WEB) vs “does hear” (DARBY)
  • v31 [grammatical]: translates the verb for doing God's will — “doeth” (KJV, WEBSTER) vs “do” (ASV, DARBY) vs “does” (WEB) vs “may do” (YLT) vs “doth” (DRC)
  • v31 [lexical]: translates the verb describing God's reception of the devout — “heareth” (KJV, ASV, WEBSTER, DRC) vs “listens to him” (WEB) vs “doth hear” (YLT) vs “hears” (DARBY)
  • v32 [grammatical]: translates the temporal scope and tense of the phrase 'since the world began' — “has never been” (WEB) vs “not” (KJV) vs “was never” (ASV) vs “was” (YLT) vs “has been” (DARBY) vs “been” (WEBSTER) vs “hath been” (DRC)
  • v32 [grammatical]: translates the indefinite pronoun functioning as the subject — “any man opened the” (KJV, WEBSTER) vs “one” (ASV, DARBY) vs “anyone” (WEB) vs “one did open” (YLT) vs “hath” (DRC)
  • v33 [lexical]: translates the conditional conjunction — “If” (WEB, KJV, ASV, YLT, DARBY, WEBSTER) vs “Unless” (DRC)
  • v33 [grammatical]: translates the expression of potential or ability — “could” (WEB, KJV, ASV, WEBSTER) vs “were not able to” (YLT) vs “would be able to” (DARBY) vs “not” (DRC)
  • v33 [grammatical]: translates the negative object of ability — “nothing” (WEB, KJV, ASV, DARBY, WEBSTER) vs “anything” (YLT) vs “any thing” (DRC)
  • v34 [lexical]: translates the intensive adverb regarding being born in sin — “Thou wast altogether” (KJV, ASV, WEBSTER) vs “You were” (WEB) vs “In sins” (YLT) vs “hast been wholly” (DARBY) vs “wholly” (DRC)
  • v34 [lexical]: translates the verb for expulsion — “cast” (KJV, ASV, YLT, DARBY, WEBSTER, DRC) vs “threw” (WEB)
  • v35 [grammatical]: translates the action of finding him using a participle or temporal clause — “when he had found” (KJV, WEBSTER, DRC) vs “finding” (WEB, ASV) vs “having” (YLT, DARBY)
  • v35 [lexical]: (vv 35, 36) translates the preposition following 'believe' — “on” (KJV, ASV, DARBY, WEBSTER) vs “in” (WEB, YLT, DRC)
  • v37 [grammatical]: translates the identification of Jesus speaking with him — “thee” (KJV, ASV, WEBSTER, DRC) vs “is he” (YLT, DARBY) vs “you” (WEB)
  • v38 [interpretive]: interprets the action as showing reverence, bowing, or worshiping — “worshiped” (WEB, WEBSTER) vs “he worshipped” (KJV, ASV) vs “bowed before” (YLT) vs “did” (DARBY) vs “falling down adored” (DRC)
  • v40 [grammatical]: translates the pronoun identifying which Pharisees heard — “And some” (KJV, DARBY, WEBSTER, DRC) vs “Those” (WEB, ASV, YLT)
  • v41 [grammatical]: translates the conditional conclusion about having sin — “would” (ASV, WEBSTER) vs “you would” (WEB) vs “ye should have no” (KJV) vs “were not having had” (YLT) vs “would not” (DARBY) vs “you not” (DRC)

このページの背景

原文。 Greek (TAGNT, public-domain critical text). Public domain Greek text (Nestle-Aland/SBL style).

神の御名: Theos (God), Kyrios (Lord)。

参照されたが、共通理解には含まれないもの

Academic textual-historical analysis

Academic textual analysis of John 9 focuses on its highly stylized literary structure and significant textual variants. The chapter is constructed as a dramatic narrative across seven scenes, using the physical healing of the blind man as a 'sign' to underscore Jesus's declaration as the 'light of the world' (John 9:5). The narrative turns on profound dramatic irony, culminating in the reversal where the blind man achieves spiritual sight and the sighted religious authorities are pronounced blind (John 9:39-41). Textual criticism highlights two major variants in this chapter. In John 9:4, early papyri (such as P66 and P75) strongly support the plural reading 'We must work the works' rather than the singular 'I must work'. In John 9:35, the earliest manuscript witnesses favor 'Son of Man' over 'Son of God', aligning with typical Johannine usage regarding the figure of eschatological judgment.

Jewish interpretation

The narrative details Jesus encountering a man blind from birth and rejecting the premise that the blindness was caused by the man's or his parents' sin (John 9:1-3). Jesus heals the man by making mud with saliva, applying it to his eyes, and having him wash in the pool of Siloam (John 9:6-7). Because this act occurs on the Sabbath, it provokes an investigation by the Pharisees, who are divided over whether Jesus can be from God if he violates the Sabbath (John 9:14-16). The man's parents evade questioning due to fear of being expelled from the synagogue (John 9:22). The blind man defends Jesus as a prophet from God, resulting in his expulsion by the Pharisees (John 9:30-34). Jesus then asserts that he brings judgment, differentiating those who admit their blindness from the Pharisees who claim to see (John 9:39-41).

Latter-day Saint

The narrative centers on Jesus healing a man blind from birth by making clay with spittle, applying it to his eyes, and instructing him to wash in the pool of Siloam. Because this healing occurs on the Sabbath, it provokes an intense interrogation by the Pharisees. The man's parents, fearing expulsion from the synagogue, refuse to defend him, leaving the man to rely solely on his undeniable lived experience of being healed. After the Pharisees cast the man out, Jesus finds him, leading the man to confess Him as the Son of God and worship Him. Jesus concludes by contrasting the man's newfound physical and spiritual sight with the willful spiritual blindness of the Pharisees.

Jehovah's Witnesses

John 9 recounts Jesus restoring sight to a man blind from birth. When disciples ask whether the man or his parents sinned, Jesus clarifies that neither is the specific cause, but rather the situation provides an opportunity for the works of God to be made manifest (John 9:1-3). Jesus heals him on the Sabbath, prompting an intense interrogation by the Pharisees. The healed man logically defends Jesus as a prophet doing God's will (John 9:17, 30-33). Fearing expulsion from the synagogue, the man's parents defer to their son (John 9:20-23). The Pharisees ultimately cast the man out, after which Jesus finds him. The man expresses faith in Jesus as the Son of God (or Son of man) and bows before him (John 9:35-38), while Jesus pronounces spiritual judgment on the willfully blind Pharisees (John 9:39-41).

NCBによる翻訳の選択 (80)
  • v1: a man blind from birth — Accurately reflects the source repetition structure initiating the chapter's congenital blindness motif without the added possessive pronoun.
  • v2: Rabbi — Transliterates the precise Greek title used by the disciples.
  • v2: sinned — Standard modern English rendering of the aorist indicative as simple past.
  • v2: that he was born blind — Renders the result clause using standard English indicative mood, avoiding the archaic subjunctive of purpose.
  • v3: Neither this man sinned — Follows the emphatic word order of the Greek text preserving the demonstrative and verb relation.
  • v3: might — Provides a contemporary expression of subjective purpose.
  • v3: revealed — Direct, modern vocabulary for the passive aorist subjunctive indicating public disclosure.
  • v4: We must work — Follows early papyri (P66, P75) establishing the plural verb form reflecting a communal identification with the divine mission.
  • v4: the one who — Translates the articular participle straightforwardly as 'the one who'.
  • v4: work the works — Preserves the cognate repetition of verb and noun present in the original language.
  • v4: is coming — Accurately represents the present tense indicative conveying imminent or arriving action.
  • v4: no one can work — Translates the negative pronoun οὐδεὶς dynamically in relation to the modal δύναται.
  • v5: While in the world I am — Strictly maps the source syntax to preserve the deliberate chiastic wordplay highlighting light and world.
  • v6: mud from the spittle — Uses contemporary vocabulary (mud) while preserving the cognate link between spat and spittle.
  • v6: smeared the mud on the eyes — Accurately conveys the tactile application verb and retains the repetition of the mud.
  • v7: is interpreted — Translates the passive indicative verb exactly.
  • v8: a beggar — Reflects the widely accepted reading of older and more reliable Greek manuscripts.
  • v8: the one who was sitting and begging — Renders the present articular participles as continuous past states linked to the prior narrative frame.
  • v9: is like — Translates the adjective ὅμοιος directly, indicating equivalence rather than merely visual appearance.
  • v10: Therefore they said to — Matches the historical present/aorist translation pattern while incorporating the inferential conjunction.
  • v10: were your — Replaces archaic pronouns with their modern equivalents while preserving the passive verbal structure.
  • v11: mud and smeared my — Consistently matches the vocabulary choices established in verse 6 to maintain textual repetitions.
  • v11: having gone away and — Preserves the aorist participles sequence precisely as structured in the Greek sentence.
  • v11: received sight — The aorist indicative verb signifies the sudden onset of vision.
  • v12: said to — Translates the simple conjunction and verb plainly.
  • v12: do not know — Standard contemporary English negative indicative resolving the chapter's motif of ignorance.
  • v13: the once blind man — Reproduces the concise articular participle phrase accurately.
  • v15: mud on my — Maintains consistency with the translation of mud established in previous verses.
  • v15: I — Translates the present tense verb 'see' directly without the archaic auxiliary 'do'.
  • v16: from — Accurately conveys the preposition indicating origin or source rather than possession.
  • v16: signs — Translates the significant Johannine term σημεῖα denoting works bearing theological revelation.
  • v16: a sinner man — Reflects the exact Greek substantive pairing and contrasts intentionally with 'the man' in the same verse.
  • v17: say therefore to — Renders the historical present verb combined with the inferential conjunction directly.
  • v17: do you say about — Modernizes the pronoun and syntax.
  • v18: Therefore did not — Retains the connective logic of οὖν without using contractions.
  • v18: had been — Reflects the pluperfect aspect contextual to the narrative logic of prior blindness.
  • v18: received — Simply translates the aorist verb directly as the action of gaining sight.
  • v18: who — Updates relative pronouns referring to persons to contemporary English.
  • v19: who you — Uses the emphatic nominative pronoun structure exactly reflecting the Greek interrogation.
  • v19: does — Replaces archaic verbal inflection with modern auxiliary.
  • v21: how — Translates the interrogative adverb strictly without added words.
  • v21: do not know — Maintains formal, uncontracted English to translate the negative verb consistently.
  • v21: concerning — Renders the preposition specifying the subject matter of his speech more exactly.
  • v22: had already agreed — Reflects the pluperfect verb force denoting an action settled prior to the present narrative moment.
  • v22: should — Correctly matches the conditional subjective formulation expected in English for the subjunctive.
  • v22: put out of — Literally translates the compound adjective describing expulsion, avoiding anachronistic ecclesiastical terms.
  • v23: him — Translates the third person personal pronoun literally.
  • v24: who had been — Captures the prior state correctly using a relative pronoun applied to a person.
  • v24: a sinner — Translates the substantive use of the adjective explicitly as a noun.
  • v25: know — Translates the perfect verb with present meaning appropriately.
  • v25: being — Retains the present participle to frame the chiastic contrast of the man's testimony.
  • v26: said therefore to — Brings across the inferential οὖν consistently.
  • v26: did — Reflects the auxiliary necessary to translate the aorist question in English.
  • v26: open your — Updates archaic possessive pronouns to contemporary usage.
  • v27: already — Translates the temporal adverb denoting a completed past action.
  • v27: You do not — Translates the negative interrogative particle anticipating a negative reply without contractions.
  • v27: want to become — Directly translates the verb of volition governing the infinitive.
  • v28: reviled — Strongly conveys the verbal abuse denoted by the Greek verb.
  • v28: You are — Updates archaic singular pronouns to modern equivalents.
  • v29: has spoken to — Renders the perfect tense appropriately indicating past speaking with present ongoing effect.
  • v29: but as for — Highlights the contrasting demonstrative pronoun setting up the logical antithesis.
  • v29: one — Accurately translates the demonstrative pronoun referencing a person without inserting a noun.
  • v29: is from — Directly translates the adverb of origin and the verb 'to be'.
  • v31: does not hear — Modern English rendering of the present active indicative modified by the negative particle.
  • v31: does — Contemporary rendering of the subjunctive continuing the present condition.
  • v31: hears — Maintains consistency with the prior translation of the verb in the same verse.
  • v32: was never — Accurately places the aorist passive verb in the past absolute combined with the negative.
  • v32: anyone — Translates the indefinite pronoun appropriately in a general conditional or negative context.
  • v33: If — Literally translates the conditional particle and negative.
  • v33: could — Standard modern translation of the imperfect verb of ability denoting unreal present potential.
  • v33: nothing — Preserves the double negative structure typical of Greek syntax translated naturally into English.
  • v34: wholly — Translates the intensive adjective modifying the subject's entire state.
  • v34: cast — Provides a slightly elevated vocabulary for the act of physical and social expulsion, maintaining redundancy with 'outside'.
  • v35: having found — Accurately represents the aorist participle indicating the condition required before his speech.
  • v35: in — Translates the preposition εἰς directly in relation to the object of belief.
  • v35: the Son of Man — Adopted based on the earliest manuscript witness and Johannine themes relating to eschatological judgment.
  • v37: you — Substitutes the modern second-person singular pronoun.
  • v38: worshiped — It is widely agreed that the blind man's evolving recognition of Jesus models the progressive spiritual illumination of a believer, making explicit religious devotion fitting contextually.
  • v40: Those — Translates the articular construction determining which specific group of Pharisees heard him.
  • v41: you would — Standard rendering of the potential mood established by the particle ἄν with the imperfect tense.
知っておくべき制限事項
  • This is AI-generated and source-grounded, and it is approved by no community that holds these traditions.
  • The readings were produced in isolated calls that do not see one another. Isolation prevents anchoring; it does not make them independent witnesses.
  • The Nicene-Trinitarian boundary, and the decision not to seat non-denominational Evangelicalism separately (it is a cross-traditional movement already present within several voting profiles), are editorial choices.
  • The roster, the grouping into three families, and the rule that families (not seat counts) carry consensus all shape the result. A different roster would produce a different synthesis.
  • One profile cannot exhaust a tradition; the synthesis reflects what the profiles said, not everything the traditions hold.
  • The non-voting panels (Academic, Jewish) never vote; LDS and Jehovah's Witness readings are a comparative appendix only.
  • Any profiles excluded for this chapter after failing the audit are named on the page and removed from the eligible roster for it.
  • The rendering is unreviewed by any tradition, and every contested wording it settled is listed in Choices Made — where the text forced a decision, the decision is documented rather than hidden behind a claim of preserved ambiguity.

詳細な手順をすべて見る → · AIによる生成 Oct 9, 2026、gemini-3.1-pro-preview (high thinking) — every stage, v4 spec + Addendum B (claim-audited, cross-stage-checked)