>>Like Jeffrey Gibson, i must also ask why you translate logos as utterance.
It has to do with the lexicons. It has to do with the context. The lexicons
I have referred to seem to indicate that a LOGOS is an utterance. The
context, a direct reference to Genesis 1, and creation, refer not to any 4th
century Roman born Trinity, no Greek idea of "logic" (despite the
etymological fallacy so commonly invoked), no appeal to Philo - John is
immersing himself in Gen 1. Moses. Torah. He is a Jew.
Is this too biased a reading? I think not. The LXX is the primary Jewish
text, not Philo. Not even in the 1st century.
>>i have just completed a book entitled The Testimony of the Fourth
Evangelist to the Johannine Community: We Know His Witness is True (
Trafford Publishing, 2004). In chapter 7, i deal with The Logos.
Congratulations. I have deep respect for anyone who completes a book! Bravo!
(No, I am not being the least bit sarcastic).
>>Obvisouly, Logos is the Greek word used in this Greek document, but its
use i believe is related to the Hebrew "davar" and the Aramaic "memra".
Do you think John translated EN ARKH from Hebrew? Might he not have used the
most proper Greek word extant to refer to the utterance in Gen 1? You are
drawing firm conclusions from tenuous assumptions. The text we have is
Greek. The entire NT is Greek. The scriptures quoted in the NT are LXX. John
alludes to the LXX specifically in the first 2 words.
But again, sure - DAVAR and MEMRA may be out there - how does that trump the
LXX and the Greek lexicons? He said O LOGOS - he said EN ARKH - he refers to
the making of the PANTA "by means of" this LOGOS. What a mountain of
evidence of a direct reference to Gen 1 is being ignored because of a
specious assumption of an Aramaic or even Hebrew linguistic background that,
conincidentally, do not preclude a reading of "utterance!"
>>The Targums are full of the use of "memra" in association with "the Memra
of God". All of these uses are in reference to not an "utterance", but a
dynamic statement such as that used in Genesis to refer to the power of God
in creation by His spoken commands.
Hmm. This distinction eludes me. What is the difference between "utterance"
and "dynamic statement"? If you are merely arguing that "spoken commands" is
more germane to the meaning of DAVAR or MEMRA, I am not upset, as you are
really just adding an intensive aspect. If you are asserting that a "dynamic
statement" or a "spoken command" is belied by the use of "utterance" - I am
at a loss to understand why you prefer "word?"
>>I will mention only two other 'translations' you made as "the utterance
was divine". i believe the writer of John did not mean "divinity" which is
really defined as "having the attributes of God", but "deity" which is
defined as being God.
"I believe" is not relevant. Mounce argues that the construction is related
to quality, not identification. Luther (as well as Mounce) rejected your
reading as Seballianism.
>>There is no doubt in my mind that the Fourth Gospel stresses the Deity of
Interestingly, the verse in question makes no mention of Jesus or of a
Trinity. The whole of the 4th gospel makes no assertion that Jesus is God.
This prooftext, I have demonstrated, is clearly referring to the utterance
of God in Gen 1.
>>Lastly, translating "kosmos" into the term "lost community" is moving here
to a theological translation. Kosmos is the world in which we live, and as
Newman and Nida note in "A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of John"
(page 16), "the light that comes to the people in the world".
So how do you translation KOSMOS in John? Is it "the people in the world"?
If so, does it include saints? For example, how do you read this?:
Joh 7:7 The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of
it, that the works thereof are evil.
Joh 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but
because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world,
therefore the world hateth you.