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

RE: [John_Lit] John 1:1-10 - my proposed translation

Expand Messages
  • Bill Ross
    ... Which is your preferred lexicon of Koine? ... This is not a discussion of my motives. What does your preferred lexicon provide for
    Message 1 of 34 , May 7, 2005
      >>I agree with the others in that your translation of LOGOS to "utterance" is not correct.

      Which is your preferred lexicon of Koine?

      >>You appear to have two motives for translating it as such: 1) you want to move those who would interpret this word as a reference to Philo's writings away from that interpretation; and 2) you want to argue against it being used as a reference to the Second Person of the Trinity.

      This is not a discussion of my motives. What does your preferred lexicon provide for the usage of LOGOS? Why do you assume that rather than referring to the utterance in Gen 1, he is referring to "The Second Person of The Trinity?"

      >>...I believe you err in not seeing Logos as a reference to the Second Person of the Trinity. John 1:14 clearly refers to Jesus as the Logos (see below).

      Not at all. Jesus is EGENETO by the LOGOS , and indwelt by the Logos:

      Joh 1:14 Καὶ ὁ Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας.

      If Jesus were the LOGOS of God he would not fudge about his authority!:

      Joh 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in union with the Father and the Father is in union with me? The things I say to you men I do not speak of my own originality; but the Father who remains in union with me is doing his works.

      >>I agree with Jeffrey in what he states- again, as I have argued in my paper- that John is responding to the Jewish claim that it was through the pre-existent Torah that God made the world, claiming himself that it was through Jesus (=the Logos) that God made the world.

      In neither Gen 1 nor John 1:1-3 is there any mention of Jesus. John is making a weak, baseless polemic? No, he is speaking of the utterance of God - the very utterance clearly and unequivocally present with God EN ARKH. The idea that John is arguing Trinity is eisegesis (pronounced "I-See-Jesus").

      >>This is seen more clearly in John 1:6-9. There we discover a statement that John the Baptist is a witness, and a witness only, to the One that would come after him. John the Baptist is not Israel’s salvation. He came only to serve as a witness to the One who would be Israel’s salvation.

      Israel's salvation is not in view, but that of the lost community. John is witness to the life that is EGENETO by the LOGOS, the life that becomes the light of all men.

      >>...they have not understood that the character John the Baptist is being used by the author as a personification of the Law and the Prophets...

      This is reading narrative as metaphor. This can be fun but is not a replacement for the normal hermeneutic of "playing the ball where it lays" - as narrative. This is supposed to all be fact set forth with a plain meaning.

      >>...John the Baptist, who is really the Law, "cries out", "Behold, the Lamb of God!". The Law, who demands that a sacrifice be made for sin, calls Jesus that perfect sacrifice.

      This is eisegesis of Calvinism, not exegesis of John. The lamb was not a player in the sacrficial system. The lamb image is a military figure. John does not expect a sacrifice but rather an axe.

      >>...Jesus is the Christ, the sacrificial offering for humanity.

      There is no "sacrificial offering" in John or the NT. John proposed justification by faith.

      Bill Ross
    • R. Robert Jenkins
      ... Can you provide us with any evidence for this statement? I have some handbooks on the Gospel of John written by translators, some commentaries in which the
      Message 34 of 34 , May 9, 2005
        --- Bill Ross <BillRoss@...> wrote:

        > <B>
        > My stated premise for my translation of "utterance"
        > has not been addressed.
        > Let my restate it for closer scrutiny...
        > When John says "EN ARKH" ISTM that most translators
        > understand him to be
        > saying "Once upon a time..."

        Can you provide us with any evidence for this
        statement? I have some handbooks on the Gospel of John
        written by translators, some commentaries in which the
        commentators give their own translations and discuss
        what they mean by them, and some works by John scolars
        like C.H. Dodd who discuss Jn. 1:1, and none of them
        give any hint that they have the understanding you say
        "most translators" do.

        So could you produce something from a translator that
        shows that "Once upon a time" is what ytasnaltors
        understand John to be saying in 1:1?

        whereas I hear him
        > saying "Ladies and
        > gentlemen, if you would, please turn in you
        > Septuagint to page 1. I am going
        > to tell you who is being referred to by the word
        > "us" in "Let us make
        > man...".

        Now I'm really confused. Are you saying that it is
        John's intent to say that God made the world through
        the male and the female he created in Gen 1:26?

        > The main think that John is expounding, I believe,
        > is that in Gen 1,
        > everything that was made, without exception, was
        > made in conjunction with
        > the utterance, "let there be...".

        But this is expressly what he does not say about
        "man". There is a conspicuous absence of the let
        there be phrase in the section of Gen 1 where God
        creates "man, both male and female" in his image.

        > In the course of this discussion, I realize that my
        > objection to "the word"
        > (non-capitalized only) is not so much linguistic as
        > it is to the baggage
        > that the term is made to carry - that it is a
        > reference to something from
        > Greek philosophy rather than God's word(s).
        > So, I ask, is my fundamental interpretation, that EN
        > ARKH refers us to Gen
        > 1, and "PROS TON THEON" refers us to "let us
        > make..." and "by means of hO
        > LOGOS everything was made" refers us to "Let there
        > be..."?

        You are missing a clause here. Is your fundamental
        interpretaion what? Reasonable? I don't see how it
        could be. What possible lingusitic or allusive
        connection could there be between "he was with God"
        and the divibe declaration of intent to make humankind
        in God's image in Gen 1:26? And it becomes even more
        unlikely given how Dr. Gibson has shown how all that
        John says about the LOGOS in John 1:1 is what Jews
        were saying about the Torah.

        R. Robert Jenkins

        Discover Yahoo!
        Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out!
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.