Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [John_Lit] Re: Word and Spirit in the prologue

Expand Messages
  • GustavSym@aol.com
    In a message dated 2/5/2003 10:42:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, ... Dear Kym: I am distinctly not suggesting that the Logos was always in the flesh. I have
    Message 1 of 17 , Feb 5, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 2/5/2003 10:42:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,
      khs@... writes:

      > It seems to me that you are saying that the Word / Son /
      > Jesus was always in the flesh.

      Dear Kym:

      I am distinctly not suggesting that the Logos "was always in the flesh."

      I have limited and continue to limit my remarks to the prologue. My point was
      conceptually far simpler than the one you conclude. I simply observe that
      there is no image, no trope in the prologue that justifies asserting a motion
      of descent: the Logos comes from a locus in time--metaphorically: God has no
      beginning (the text merely notes the presence of God and the Logos in/at the
      beginning--not in space (e.g., from above, from heaven, etc). Hence, the
      Logos does not enter flesh from above, nor does it take on the mere
      appearance of flesh as if it could unzip and step out of its human cloak.
      When the Logos becomes flesh, it does so by divine sonship (cf. John 1:34,
      and, for example, 1 John 5:1-5; another list-member has already commented on
      1 John as a gloss for the prologue) "in time." The evangelist will soon speak
      of "the mother of Jesus" [Jn. 2:1], and presumably he means biological
      motherhood. While God certainly had options before him on just how the
      incarnation might occur, Jesus does not simply materialize on Earth in human
      adulthood--the process of becoming flesh is apparently by having a human
      mother. John's gospel offers no evidence that the Logos enters the body of a
      man named Jesus, using his body as a Hollywood "alien" might take over the
      body of a human being.

      >>I can understand if, by that, you
      mean that it was always part of the Father's plan for him to
      become one with us in our humanity.<<


      Christologically speaking, the second person of the Trinity (it is prudent to
      bear in mind that the fourth evangelist could not articulate a Nicaean
      Trinity), is co-eternal with the first person, and John expresses this
      principle in 1:2-3: the Word is God and is present with God at creation. The
      incarnation not is necessitated by the fall of man, but God's infinite love
      and unceasing seeking of man allows the incarnation as a means for God to
      reconcile himself to the world (divine love moves God to become incarnate as
      the Logos becomes flesh [cf. John 3:16]); there is no coherent theological
      basis for the incarnation "always" being a part of the divine plan. Such a
      theology cannot account for "free will" and the possibility that the
      pre-lapsarian state could have been maintained. The Trinity reveals something
      about the immutable nature of the Godhead, and a divine plan for the
      incarnation from "the beginning" implies a change in that nature necessitated
      by the fall (A unitarian God splitting into three to rescue fallen humanity).

      >>However, that is different
      from saying that he was `flesh' from `the beginning' (eternally?),
      `before Abraham...'. I understand that he took on flesh – or the
      appearance of flesh – to appear to Abraham (e.g. Gen 18), but
      that is different from `becoming flesh'.

      Agreed. When Jesus says "before Abraham, I AM" he is speaking as the second
      person of the Trinity in unity with the first person (and reiterates John
      1:2-3); Jesus does not imply that he, in the hypostatic union, was before
      Abraham--he refers only to his pre-existence as the Word. The "apparition at
      Mamre" is tantalizingly trinitarian ( several Fathers had noted this
      typologically), yet such a reading requires some complex retrojection.
      Nonetheless, Abraham addresses one, sees three, and the three respond as one.
      The language is admittedly difficult in this passage from Gen. 18.

      Sorry for the confusion. I hope I have not complicated matters more.

      Joe C.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Peter Phillips
      A couple of posts have picked up on Gnostic imagery of Logos and Arche as emanations of the divine principle. I hope that we are not going to go down the line
      Message 2 of 17 , Feb 6, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        A couple of posts have picked up on Gnostic imagery of Logos and Arche as
        emanations of the divine principle. I hope that we are not going to go down
        the line of saying that such traditions pre-date the Prologue and so inform
        the Prologue.

        John Lupia's translation of John 1.1a where arche becomes the first
        principle is both wrong in terms of its understanding of the Greek and in
        its understanding of both the Basilidean and Valentinian Gnostic
        cosmological myths.

        Pete Phillips
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: <khs@...>
        To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 3:40 AM
        Subject: [John_Lit] Re: Word and Spirit in the prologue


        Dear Joe C.

        I am concerned about the frequency with which I am posting to
        this list and the time involved in doing so. However, I wonder if
        you could say a little more about what you wrote, especially the
        second half which I have enclosed with [[[-]]]?

        <<<Jeff Hodges' metaphorical sense of "descent" informs all
        Christologies "from above," even though the prologue offers no
        such motion explicitly. Only from subsequent pericopes( intra-, or
        para-textually) do we learn of such motion, and these are the
        pericopes that function as a lens through which the prologue is
        read. *Egeneto* implies no descent, no vector, no direction from
        which the "Word" comes; rather it gently implies a *time*.
        [[[Dimensionally then, the word became flesh not from above but
        from the beginning (*arche*). Perhaps the structurally essential
        pericope (as a lens for reading the prologue) is not the "bread
        from heaven," but the stunning image of time in Jesus' most
        succinct rebuttal: "before Abraham was, I AM" [Jn. 8:58].]]]>>>

        Now I am a `bear-of-little-brain' and often miss the subtleties that
        most see at a glance so perhaps I just can't grasp what you
        mean. It seems to me that you are saying that the Word / Son /
        Jesus was always in the flesh. I can understand if, by that, you
        mean that it was always part of the Father's plan for him to
        become one with us in our humanity. However, that is different
        from saying that he was `flesh' from `the beginning' (eternally?),
        `before Abraham...'. I understand that he took on flesh - or the
        appearance of flesh - to appear to Abraham (e.g. Gen 18), but
        that is different from `becoming flesh'.

        Thankyou,

        Kym Smith
        Adelaide
        South Australia
        khs@...



        SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
        UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com

        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      • kymhsm <khs@picknowl.com.au>
        Dear Joe C. Thankyou for the expansion and clarification. In the first and third parts of your response I think we are mostly in agreement. In the second part,
        Message 3 of 17 , Feb 6, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Joe C.

          Thankyou for the expansion and clarification. In the first and third
          parts of your response I think we are mostly in agreement. In the
          second part, quoted below to avoid confusion, I think there is
          much we could discuss. However, that would be a theological
          debate rather than one that is strictly Johannine and, besides the
          fact that I do not have time for it at the moment, it would not be
          appropriate for this list.

          Thanks again,

          Kym Smith

          Adelaide
          South Australia
          khs@...

          <<<Christologically speaking, the second person of the Trinity (it
          is prudent to bear in mind that the fourth evangelist could not
          articulate a Nicaean Trinity), is co-eternal with the first person,
          and John expresses this principle in 1:2-3: the Word is God and
          is resent with God at creation. The incarnation not is
          necessitated by the fall of man, but God's infinite love and
          unceasing seeking of man allows the incarnation as a means
          for God to reconcile himself to the world (divine love moves God
          to become incarnate as the Logos becomes flesh [cf. John
          3:16]); there is no coherent theological basis for the incarnation
          "always" being a part of the divine plan. Such a theology cannot
          account for "free will" and the possibility that the pre-lapsarian
          state could have been maintained. The Trinity reveals something
          about the immutable nature of the Godhead, and a divine plan
          for the incarnation from "the beginning" implies a change in that
          nature necessitated by the fall (A unitarian God splitting into
          three to rescue fallen humanity).>>>
        • John Lupia
          ... Dear Gustav: This theological conclusion is 13th century Scotistic doctrine. Gustav wrote: Such a ... You have arrived at a non sequitor here. For your
          Message 4 of 17 , Feb 7, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Kym Smith wrote:
            > >>I can understand if, by that, you
            > mean that it was always part of the Father's plan
            > for him to
            > become one with us in our humanity.<<


            GustavSym@... wrote:
            > Christologically speaking, the second person of the
            > Trinity (it is prudent to
            > bear in mind that the fourth evangelist could not
            > articulate a Nicaean
            > Trinity), is co-eternal with the first person, and
            > John expresses this
            > principle in 1:2-3: the Word is God and is present
            > with God at creation. The
            > incarnation not is necessitated by the fall of man,
            > but God's infinite love
            > and unceasing seeking of man allows the incarnation
            > as a means for God to
            > reconcile himself to the world (divine love moves
            > God to become incarnate as
            > the Logos becomes flesh [cf. John 3:16]); there is
            > no coherent theological
            > basis for the incarnation "always" being a part of
            > the divine plan.

            Dear Gustav:

            This theological conclusion is 13th century Scotistic
            doctrine.

            Gustav wrote:
            Such a
            > theology cannot account for "free will" and the
            > possibility that the
            > pre-lapsarian state could have been maintained.


            You have arrived at a non sequitor here. For your
            convenience I am including a link to a very lucid
            article by Seamus Mulholland OFM on this Scotistic
            doctrine.

            http://orders.anglican.org/ssf/2001jan-mulholland.html

            John

            =====
            John N. Lupia, III
            31 Norwich Drive
            Toms River, New Jersey 08757 USA
            Phone: (732) 341-8689
            Email: jlupia2@...
            Editor, Roman Catholic News
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News

            __________________________________________________
            Do you Yahoo!?
            Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
            http://mailplus.yahoo.com
          • John Lupia
            ... Dear Rev. Phillips: I was surprised to see your take on what I wrote was so far afield from what was intended. The philological sense of the phrase EN
            Message 5 of 17 , Feb 7, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              --- Peter Phillips <p.m.phillips@...>
              wrote:
              > A couple of posts have picked up on Gnostic imagery
              > of Logos and Arche as
              > emanations of the divine principle. I hope that we
              > are not going to go down
              > the line of saying that such traditions pre-date the
              > Prologue and so inform
              > the Prologue.
              >
              > John Lupia's translation of John 1.1a where arche
              > becomes the first
              > principle is both wrong in terms of its
              > understanding of the Greek

              Dear Rev. Phillips:

              I was surprised to see your take on what I wrote was
              so far afield from what was intended. The
              philological sense of the phrase "EN ARCH" *can mean*
              "first principle" as in the "first principle and cause
              of all creation" Can you demonstrate how this is a
              wrong understanding of the Greek? Or is the entry
              under "ARCH" in LSJ wrong and the citation of
              Aristotle spurious based on a text critical analysis
              that the use is not his but some anachronistic
              interpolation?

              Cordially,
              John

              =====
              John N. Lupia, III
              31 Norwich Drive
              Toms River, New Jersey 08757 USA
              Phone: (732) 341-8689
              Email: jlupia2@...
              Editor, Roman Catholic News
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News

              __________________________________________________
              Do you Yahoo!?
              Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
              http://mailplus.yahoo.com
            • Pete Phillips
              John, Sorry to have upset. I was simply suggesting that you take Arche out of its preositional phrase and so make it parallel with Logos. The two lexemes
              Message 6 of 17 , Feb 8, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                John,

                Sorry to have upset. I was simply suggesting that you take Arche out of its
                preositional phrase and so make it parallel with Logos. The two lexemes
                have different syntagmatic roles. Yes, you are completely right that ARCHE
                can mean first principle. It can also mean ruler, source, origin,
                beginning. It is a polysemous word which is not exclusively coterminous
                with our 'beginning'. However, if it did mean First Principle, then the
                Prologue would read:

                In the First Principle was the Logos, and the Logos was with God and the
                Logos was God.

                Such a translation would entail a differentiation between three
                ntities -FP, Logos and God. Now the Logos is dealt with in the
                contradiction between being with God and God and we can't get away from that
                one, well, not without some fancy footwork which no doubt lots of
                contributors will be capable of, but the other differentiation seems to put
                us into a lot of trouble. Note that there is nothing else to suggest
                throughout Johannine cosmology that there is anything like a FP. However,
                the Gnostics did think that there was an FP but they did not use ARCHE to
                designate this FP - usually it was known as the Father or Propater. Arche
                tended to be reserved for one of the later emanations or even for Barbelo.

                That's my problem with your translation...

                Pete
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "John Lupia" <jlupia2@...>
                To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 4:47 AM
                Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Re: Word and Spirit in the prologue


                > --- Peter Phillips <p.m.phillips@...>
                > wrote:
                > > A couple of posts have picked up on Gnostic imagery
                > > of Logos and Arche as
                > > emanations of the divine principle. I hope that we
                > > are not going to go down
                > > the line of saying that such traditions pre-date the
                > > Prologue and so inform
                > > the Prologue.
                > >
                > > John Lupia's translation of John 1.1a where arche
                > > becomes the first
                > > principle is both wrong in terms of its
                > > understanding of the Greek
                >
                > Dear Rev. Phillips:
                >
                > I was surprised to see your take on what I wrote was
                > so far afield from what was intended. The
                > philological sense of the phrase "EN ARCH" *can mean*
                > "first principle" as in the "first principle and cause
                > of all creation" Can you demonstrate how this is a
                > wrong understanding of the Greek? Or is the entry
                > under "ARCH" in LSJ wrong and the citation of
                > Aristotle spurious based on a text critical analysis
                > that the use is not his but some anachronistic
                > interpolation?
                >
                > Cordially,
                > John
                >
                > =====
                > John N. Lupia, III
                > 31 Norwich Drive
                > Toms River, New Jersey 08757 USA
                > Phone: (732) 341-8689
                > Email: jlupia2@...
                > Editor, Roman Catholic News
                > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News
                >
                > __________________________________________________
                > Do you Yahoo!?
                > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
                > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
                >
                > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                >
                >
                >
              • GustavSym@aol.com
                In a message dated 2/8/2003 4:39:17 AM Eastern Standard Time, ... Dear Pete: Inasmuch as arche is in a prepositional phrase which is parallel with Logos, a
                Message 7 of 17 , Feb 8, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  In a message dated 2/8/2003 4:39:17 AM Eastern Standard Time,
                  p.m.phillips@... writes:

                  > . I was simply suggesting that you take Arche out of its
                  > preositional phrase and so make it parallel with Logos. The two lexemes
                  > have different syntagmatic roles.

                  Dear Pete:

                  Inasmuch as "arche" is in a prepositional phrase which is parallel with
                  "Logos," a certain parallelism is inescapable. I am not suggesting that "in
                  the beginning was the word" and "the beginning was the word" are equivalent
                  readings, nor am I muting the morphemic importance of "in" (*en*); I am
                  allowing for the simple mathematical relationships to come to bear on
                  reading: something about "beginning" is parallel to the "Logos." I think my
                  exchange with Kym intersects with your exchange with John--both discussions
                  dance around "beginning" as *topos*. The evangelist locates the Logos not is
                  space but in time, admittedly a "place" in time. Nonetheless, the question
                  of what makes *arche* monosemous (or to retain your term, "less 'polysemous'
                  ") is an interesting one, and doubtless underlies this very discussion.

                  John Lupia's comments permit a certain fluidity of context that discomfits
                  your analysis, which (forgive me if I misread) implies that syntagmatic
                  relationships trump paradigmatic relationships. You hypothesize about John
                  L's paradigm shift by writing it into a translation:

                  "In the First Principle was the Logos, and the Logos was with God and the
                  Logos was God."

                  This is a pointedly awkward translation. If I were to deemphasize the
                  syntagmatic pattern of the lexemes into a paradigmatic pattern, perhaps other
                  readings emerge:

                  "In the beginning" WAS "the Logos."

                  (and) "the logos" WAS " with God."

                  (and) "God" WAS "the logos"

                  I have placed the *kai* (and) in parentheses to decompress the syntagmatic
                  force that is central to your reading, and I have shouted the *ayn* (WAS) to
                  charge the paradigmatic force that points away from your reading. As you have
                  already noted, "the contradiction between being with God and God" is a
                  contradiction created by locating *ton theon* within a prepositional phrase
                  (i.e., in relation to *pros*). It is only in the third paradigm that we are
                  able to read identity, and the Greek syntagmatic order is lost in your
                  translation (not just yours--everyone's). Regardless, any pretense to
                  syntagmatic fidelity is lost the moment any translator, bowing to a pretense
                  to "parallelism," translates the last independent clause as "and the Word was
                  God." Furthermore, the fluidity of prepositions (here, *[h]en* and *pros*)
                  and their translations implies a palpable instability of context: perhaps
                  prepostions lack the power to enclose intertexuality. I am suggesting,
                  therefore, that rhetorical parallelism is not a telos in the fourth gospel,
                  but an arche. I am further suggesting that any semantic analysis must balance
                  its reading of the syntagmatic and paradigmatic axes (cf. Barthes
                  _Semiology_, esp. pp 53ff.).

                  I would be remiss if I did not state where I stand on the matter of reading
                  the opening phrases of the prologue. I see no reason to posit any Gnostic
                  elements in the Prologue. I ultimately disagree with John Lupia's suggestions
                  (even as I am sympathetic to his methodology) and I hold with Raymond Brown
                  (see his _An Introduction to the New Testament_, pp. 371ff.) that the origins
                  of the fourth Gospel are strongly tapped into a 1st century Palestinian
                  context (as evidenced by similar concepts annunciated in the Qumran texts),
                  and there is no need to identify Hellenistic sources to ascertain the
                  linguistic competence of the fourth evangelist's audience.

                  Best Regards,

                  Joe C.







                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • GustavSym@aol.com
                  Dear John: ... Such a ... You have arrived at a non sequitor here. For your convenience I am including a link to a very lucid article by Seamus Mulholland OFM
                  Message 8 of 17 , Feb 8, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear John:

                    You wrote:

                    >>Gustav wrote:
                    Such a
                    > theology cannot account for "free will" and the
                    > possibility that the
                    > pre-lapsarian state could have been maintained.


                    You have arrived at a non sequitor here. For your
                    convenience I am including a link to a very lucid
                    article by Seamus Mulholland OFM on this Scotistic
                    doctrine.<<

                    Not so much a non-sequitur as a new twist on an old idea. Thanks for the
                    article.

                    Seamus Mulholland, in...wrote:

                    >>The Incarnation, then in Duns Scotus, becomes the unrepeatable, unique, and
                    single defining act of God’s love. God, says Scotus, is what he is: we know
                    that God exists and we know what that existence is: Love. Thus, if Man had
                    not sinned Christ would still have come, since this was predetermined from
                    all eternity in the mind of God as the supreme manifestation of his love for
                    the creation he brings about in his free act. The Incarnation is the effect
                    of God freely choosing to end his self-isolation and show who and what He is
                    to that creation. The Incarnation, therefore, in Franciscan spirituality is
                    centred on Love and not sin.<<

                    Of course Christ/Logos would have still come; humans need to be redeemed in
                    order to return to the Father. The second person of the Trinity would not
                    have come in the context in which he did, however: death on a cross would be
                    illogical and morbid. He could have come as one of us, but would that not be
                    redundant if "man had not sinned?" This is as highly speculative on my part
                    as it is on Duns Scotus and Mr. Mulholland's.

                    Mulholland continues:

                    >>Redemption is an act of love first and foremost, not an act of saving us
                    from sin, and the first act of redemption is the Incarnation. God foresees us
                    in union with him before he sees how sin disrupts that relational dynamic
                    between He and us. Scotus makes it clear that the first movement is from God,
                    a revelatory movement wherein God freely chooses to move beyond his own
                    self-loving and share that loving with something other than himself – namely
                    creation, and this process is epitomised in the Incarnation.<<

                    I have no difficulty with this formulation. I do have a richer sense of the
                    grammatical shape of redemption than perhaps you give me credit for. The
                    non-sequitur arises when redemption is conceived of as solely mediated by
                    incarnation. We all stipulate that "God foresees us in union" prior to the
                    Fall. But the Fall is, among other things, a unilateral break from that
                    union. The distance between God and humans becomes so great that only
                    something of the creative magnitude of the incarnation could reestablish it.
                    In the absence of such a distance (in the pre-lapsarian state), redemption
                    could, and likely would, have a different grammar. That is all that I was
                    noting.

                    But let me be forthright at the outset: I am no speculative theologian. And I
                    have come here to speak of the fourth Gospel.

                    Best Regards,

                    Joe C.











                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Big_Mart_98 <big_mart_98@yahoo.com>
                    Pete, Forgive my presumption, my degree is in Russian and I am a pure amateur at Greek, but something about the opening of John has been missed by almost
                    Message 9 of 17 , Feb 8, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Pete,
                      Forgive my presumption, my degree is in Russian and I am a pure
                      amateur at Greek, but something about the opening of John has been
                      missed by almost everyone. Ancient Greek did not have an indefinite
                      article, but did have a definite article: "a" in SMG is rendered by
                      the numeral "one", suitably declined. If you render "theos" without
                      an article as "a god", you get, "The Word was with God and the word
                      was a god". Could it be that the writer was comfortable with the idea
                      of both gods and a Supreme God?
                      Mart.
                    • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                      ... You might want to find a Greek grammar and work through what is known as Colewell s rule regarding what an anarthrous noun after a copulative verb
                      Message 10 of 17 , Feb 8, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        "Big_Mart_98 " wrote:

                        > Pete,
                        > Forgive my presumption, my degree is in Russian and I am a pure
                        > amateur at Greek, but something about the opening of John has been
                        > missed by almost everyone. Ancient Greek did not have an indefinite
                        > article, but did have a definite article: "a" in SMG is rendered by
                        > the numeral "one", suitably declined. If you render "theos" without
                        > an article as "a god", you get, "The Word was with God and the word
                        > was a god". Could it be that the writer was comfortable with the idea
                        > of both gods and a Supreme God?

                        You might want to find a Greek grammar and work through what is known as
                        Colewell's rule regarding what an anarthrous noun after a copulative verb
                        indicates.

                        JG
                        --

                        Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

                        1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
                        Chicago, IL 60626

                        jgibson000@...
                      • Henry Sturcke
                        Hello Mart et al. This is my first posting after lurking on the list for a month. Mart, you may well get a lot of replies to this question. In a word, the
                        Message 11 of 17 , Feb 8, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hello Mart et al.

                          This is my first posting after lurking on the list for a month.

                          Mart, you may well get a lot of replies to this question. In a word, the
                          answer is 'no'.

                          You describe yourself as an amateur in Greek. A useful resource for
                          questions of NT Greek is the handbook by Blass/Debrunner/Rehkopf. It begins
                          to become useful once you've had a semester or two of Greek under your belt,
                          but it doesn't hurt to acquire it as you're starting out. The paragraphs you
                          want to consult to answer this question for yourself are 252 and 254.

                          Best regards,
                          Henry

                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: <big_mart_98@...>
                          To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 7:20 PM
                          Subject: [John_Lit] Re: Word and Spirit in the prologue


                          > Pete,
                          > Forgive my presumption, my degree is in Russian and I am a pure
                          > amateur at Greek, but something about the opening of John has been
                          > missed by almost everyone. Ancient Greek did not have an indefinite
                          > article, but did have a definite article: "a" in SMG is rendered by
                          > the numeral "one", suitably declined. If you render "theos" without
                          > an article as "a god", you get, "The Word was with God and the word
                          > was a god". Could it be that the writer was comfortable with the idea
                          > of both gods and a Supreme God?
                          > Mart.
                          >
                          >
                          > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
                          >
                          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                          >
                          >
                        • LeeEdgarTyler@aol.com
                          In a message dated 2/8/2003 2:07:20 PM Central Standard Time, ... This hasn t been missed by anyone really. It s an elementary point of Greek grammar that is
                          Message 12 of 17 , Feb 8, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            In a message dated 2/8/2003 2:07:20 PM Central Standard Time,
                            big_mart_98@... writes:

                            > Pete,
                            > Forgive my presumption, my degree is in Russian and I am a pure
                            > amateur at Greek, but something about the opening of John has been
                            > missed by almost everyone. Ancient Greek did not have an indefinite
                            > article, but did have a definite article: "a" in SMG is rendered by
                            > the numeral "one", suitably declined. If you render "theos" without
                            > an article as "a god", you get, "The Word was with God and the word
                            > was a god". Could it be that the writer was comfortable with the idea
                            > of both gods and a Supreme God?
                            > Mart.
                            >

                            This hasn't been missed by anyone really. It's an elementary point of Greek
                            grammar that is not discussed in scholarly circles because it's, well, so
                            elementary. It's taken for granted, not "missed."

                            et
                            Ed Tyler

                            http://hometown.aol.com/leeedgartyler/myhomepage/index.html



                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Big_Mart_98 <big_mart_98@yahoo.com>
                            - You might want to find a Greek grammar and work through what is known as ... verb
                            Message 13 of 17 , Feb 9, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              - You might want to find a Greek grammar and work through what is known as
                              > Colewell's rule regarding what an anarthrous noun after a copulative
                              verb
                              > indicates.
                              >
                              > JG
                              > --
                              >I suppose I might.
                            • Big_Mart_98 <big_mart_98@yahoo.com>
                              - ... begins ... your belt, ... paragraphs you ... I ve printed that. fkaristo poli [modern pronunciation: that should really get certain people going].
                              Message 14 of 17 , Feb 9, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                -
                                > You describe yourself as an amateur in Greek. A useful resource for
                                > questions of NT Greek is the handbook by Blass/Debrunner/Rehkopf. It
                                begins
                                > to become useful once you've had a semester or two of Greek under
                                your belt,
                                > but it doesn't hurt to acquire it as you're starting out. The
                                paragraphs you
                                > want to consult to answer this question for yourself are 252 and 254.
                                >
                                I've printed that. 'fkaristo poli [modern pronunciation: that should
                                really get certain people going].
                                Mart.
                              • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                                ... Well, don t you think it would be a good idea, lest you gain the reputation of one who consistently talks through his hat, to at least be certain whether
                                Message 15 of 17 , Feb 9, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  "Big_Mart_98 " wrote:

                                  > - You might want to find a Greek grammar and work through what is known as
                                  > > Colewell's rule regarding what an anarthrous noun after a copulative
                                  > verb
                                  > > indicates.
                                  > >
                                  > > JG
                                  > > --
                                  > >I suppose I might.

                                  Well, don't you think it would be a good idea, lest you gain the reputation of
                                  one who consistently talks through his hat, to at least be certain whether
                                  or not there **has** been a discussion of the subject you make global claims
                                  about, and to familiarize yourself with what has been said if it has been
                                  discussed before you make apodictic pronouncements about what people have and
                                  have not done?

                                  Yours,

                                  JG
                                  .--

                                  Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

                                  1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
                                  Chicago, IL 60626

                                  jgibson000@...
                                • Big_Mart_98 <big_mart_98@yahoo.com>
                                  - ... reputation of ... whether ... global claims ... been ... have and ... (Thinks) Does he talk to to people like that in Chicago?
                                  Message 16 of 17 , Feb 10, 2003
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    -
                                    > Well, don't you think it would be a good idea, lest you gain the
                                    reputation of
                                    > one who consistently talks through his hat, to at least be certain
                                    whether
                                    > or not there **has** been a discussion of the subject you make
                                    global claims
                                    > about, and to familiarize yourself with what has been said if it has
                                    been
                                    > discussed before you make apodictic pronouncements about what people
                                    have and
                                    > have not done?
                                    >
                                    > Yours,
                                    >
                                    > JG
                                    > .--
                                    >
                                    > Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
                                    >
                                    > 1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
                                    > Chicago, IL 60626

                                    (Thinks) Does he talk to to people like that in Chicago?
                                  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                                    ... Whether or not I do, the point remains. Are you going to answer it or are you going to dodge as you ve done here with ad hominem? JG -- Jeffrey B. Gibson,
                                    Message 17 of 17 , Feb 11, 2003
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      "Big_Mart_98 " wrote:

                                      > -
                                      > > Well, don't you think it would be a good idea, lest you gain the
                                      > reputation of
                                      > > one who consistently talks through his hat, to at least be certain
                                      > whether
                                      > > or not there **has** been a discussion of the subject you make
                                      > global claims
                                      > > about, and to familiarize yourself with what has been said if it has
                                      > been
                                      > > discussed before you make apodictic pronouncements about what people
                                      > have and
                                      > > have not done?
                                      >
                                      > (Thinks) Does he talk to to people like that in Chicago?
                                      >

                                      Whether or not I do, the point remains. Are you going to answer it or are you
                                      going to dodge as you've done here with ad hominem?

                                      JG
                                      --

                                      Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

                                      1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
                                      Chicago, IL 60626

                                      jgibson000@...
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.