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

your translation of the prologue of Joh

Expand Messages
  • R. Robert Jenkins
    Bill, I see that you ve refused to answer Dr. Gibson. But will you give me your reply to the questions that Dr. Gibson asked? I don t see the lexicons I have
    Message 1 of 4 , May 8, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Bill,

      I see that you've refused to answer Dr. Gibson. But
      will you give me your reply to the questions that Dr.
      Gibson asked?

      I don't see the lexicons I have in my local libray
      confirming either what you say lexicons indicate a
      LOGOS is or what "hO LOGOS" (LOGOS with the definite
      article) means. So what are the lexicons you used? And
      is "utterance" the only meaning they give for both
      LOGOS and hO LOGOS?

      R. Robert Jenkins



      Yahoo! Mail
      Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
      http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
    • Bill Ross
      I trust this has been addressed. My primary appeal is to the Gen 1 context, supported by the lexicons which show the usage of utterance as legit. Here is my
      Message 2 of 4 , May 8, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        I trust this has been addressed.

        My primary appeal is to the Gen 1 context, supported by the lexicons which
        show the usage of "utterance" as legit.

        Here is my original response:

        <Jeffrey>
        >>Why "utterance" for LOGOS?

        <Bill>
        This appears to be a reference to Genesis 1: "Let there be..." and "Let us
        make..." where God is accompanied by, well, utterance - speech - "Let there
        be..."

        If I am correct that the context of the prologue is Gen 1 (EN ARKH) then
        John's statement has a ready referent in the utterance. There is no
        justification for ignoring the context and leaping into Philo or Augustine.

        Bill Ross

        -----Original Message-----
        From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
        [mailto:johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of R. Robert Jenkins
        Sent: 05/08/2005 3:24 PM
        To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [John_Lit] your translation of the prologue of Joh

        Bill,

        I see that you've refused to answer Dr. Gibson. But will you give me your
        reply to the questions that Dr.
        Gibson asked?

        I don't see the lexicons I have in my local libray confirming either what
        you say lexicons indicate a LOGOS is or what "hO LOGOS" (LOGOS with the
        definite
        article) means. So what are the lexicons you used? And is "utterance" the
        only meaning they give for both LOGOS and hO LOGOS?

        R. Robert Jenkins



        Yahoo! Mail
        Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
        http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html



        SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
        UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
        MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages
        Yahoo! Groups Links
      • Jeffrey B. Gibson
          ... First off, your claim that your contention about the meaning of LOGOS in Jn 1:1 is supported by the lexicons (plural) is overstated, since you only
        Message 3 of 4 , May 9, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
           

          Bill Ross wrote:

          > I trust this has been addressed.
          >
          > My primary appeal is to the Gen 1 context, supported by the lexicons which
          > show the usage of "utterance" as legit.

          First off, your claim that your contention about the meaning of LOGOS in Jn 1:1
          is supported by "the lexicons" (plural) is overstated, since you only produced
          evidence from **one** lexicon -- the online LSJ.

          Secondly, this lexicon adduces a plethora of **other** meanings for LOGOS,
          "utterance" being noted as not one of its primary ones.

          Third, the particular connotation of the English word "utterance" that you wish
          to see as the meaning of LOGOS in Jn 1:1 is NOT supported by this Lexicon.

          Fourth and most importantly, you curiously left out the section of the entry in
          LSJ that not only deals with the meaning of articular LOGOS (hO LOGOS) in
          general  and of LOGOS in Jn 1:1 in particular, but which notes that "utterance"
          is NOT the meaning of LOGOS in Jn 1:1. To wit"

          X. the Word or Wisdom of God, personified as his agent in creation and
          world-government, ho pantodunamos sou l. LXX Wi.18.15 ; ho ek noos phôteinos l.
          huios theou Corp.Herm.1.6 , cf. Plu.2.376c; l. theou di' hou kateskeuasthê [ho
          kosmos] Ph.1.162; tês tou theou sophias: hê de estin ho theou l. ib.56; l.
          theios . . eikôn theou ib.561, cf. 501; ton tomea tôn sumpantôn [theou] l.
          ib.492; ton angelon hos esti l. ib.122: in NT identified with the person of
          Christ, en archêi ên ho l. Ev.Jo.1.1 , cf. 14, 1 Ep.Jo.2.7, Apoc.19.13; ho l.
          tês zôês 1 Ep.Jo.1.1 .

          >  
          >
          > Here is my original response:
          >
          > <Jeffrey>
          > >>Why "utterance" for LOGOS?
          >
          > <Bill>
          > This appears to be a reference to Genesis 1: "Let there be..." and "Let us
          > make..." where God is accompanied by, well, utterance - speech - "Let there
          > be..."
          >
          > If I am correct that the context of the prologue is Gen 1 (EN ARKH)

          There is no kappa in the Greek word for "beginning".

          > then
          > John's statement has a ready referent in the utterance. There is no
          > justification for ignoring the context and leaping into Philo or Augustine.

          In the first place, it does not follow from admitting that Jn 1:1 contains a
          referent to Gen 1 that (hO) LOGOS can only mean "utterance", especially in the
          light of specific first century Palestinian Jewish discourse about Gen 1 and
          what was "with God" EN ARCH and the means used by God "in the beginning" to
          bring the world and life into being (cf. e.g., the traditions embodied in
          b.Pes., 54a, Bar; .Gn. r., 1, 1 on 1:1)

          And in the second place, your assertion that the clam that hO LOGOS means
          something other than "utterance" is tantamount to "leaping into Philo or
          Augustine (?) and does not reflect what a Jew in the first century would have
          thought when he/she heard hO LOGOS being spoken of in the context of the phrase
          EN ARCH not only is bifurcation, but shows you to be seriously lacking in
          knowledge of how identical all of the assertions made about  hO LOGOS in Jn 1:1
          and following are with claims made in first century Judaism about the Torah --
          which incidentally was specifically designated in Ps. 119 and by the Rabbis as
          "the Word" (see Levy Wört., I, 374a.).

          The Torah  was in the beginning (.b.Pes., 54a, Bar). The Torah was "with God"
          (Midr. Ps. on 90:3 § 12).  What God was the Torah was the Torah was (Lv. r., 20,
          10 on 16:1).All things were made by and through it (.Gn. r., 1, 1 on 1:1).  In
          it was life (S. Dt., 306 on 32:2)..It was the light of men (Esr. 14:20f).  It is
          truth (Midr. Ps. on 25:10 § 11).

          In the light of all this,  it seems highly unlikely that your claims about (1)
          what hO LOGOS means in John in 1:1 and (2) what would have been understood by
          Jews hearing Jn 1:1  EN ARCH HN hO LOGOS, have any credibility

          JG
          --

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

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

          jgibson000@...
           
        • Matthew Estrada
          ... To which Jeffrey Gibson responded with: In the first place, it does not follow from admitting that Jn 1:1 contains a referent to Gen 1 that (hO) LOGOS can
          Message 4 of 4 , May 14, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Bill Ross wrote:

            > >>Why "utterance" for LOGOS?
            >
            >
            > This appears to be a reference to Genesis 1: "Let there be..." and "Let us
            > make..." where God is accompanied by, well, utterance - speech - "Let there
            > be..."
            >
            > If I am correct that the context of the prologue is Gen 1 (EN ARKH)

            > then
            > John's statement has a ready referent in the utterance. There is no
            > justification for ignoring the context and leaping into Philo or Augustine.



            To which Jeffrey Gibson responded with:

            "In the first place, it does not follow from admitting that Jn 1:1 contains a
            referent to Gen 1 that (hO) LOGOS can only mean "utterance", especially in the
            light of specific first century Palestinian Jewish discourse about Gen 1 and
            what was "with God" EN ARCH and the means used by God "in the beginning" to
            bring the world and life into being (cf. e.g., the traditions embodied in
            b.Pes., 54a, Bar; .Gn. r., 1, 1 on 1:1)

            And in the second place, your assertion that the clam that hO LOGOS means
            something other than "utterance" is tantamount to "leaping into Philo or
            Augustine (?) and does not reflect what a Jew in the first century would have
            thought when he/she heard hO LOGOS being spoken of in the context of the phrase
            EN ARCH not only is bifurcation, but shows you to be seriously lacking in
            knowledge of how identical all of the assertions made about hO LOGOS in Jn 1:1
            and following are with claims made in first century Judaism about the Torah --
            which incidentally was specifically designated in Ps. 119 and by the Rabbis as
            "the Word" (see Levy W�rt., I, 374a.).

            The Torah was in the beginning (.b.Pes., 54a, Bar). The Torah was "with God"
            (Midr. Ps. on 90:3 � 12). What God was the Torah was the Torah was (Lv. r., 20,
            10 on 16:1).All things were made by and through it (.Gn. r., 1, 1 on 1:1). In
            it was life (S. Dt., 306 on 32:2)..It was the light of men (Esr. 14:20f). It is
            truth (Midr. Ps. on 25:10 � 11)."



            My response:

            Bill, even as Jeffrey seems to agree, I do not think anyone doubts that the Prologue in John's Gospel, and in particular 1:1, alludes to Genesis 1:1. I think many would even agree with you that the Logos does refer to God's utterances (His communication) in bringing about the creation in Gen 1, but not the only meaning (I state the same in my paper). I would go even a step further than you and state that this communication is God Himself- the second person of the Trinity, and that John is communicating this.

            Now before you or anyone else pounces on me for stating this, I would like everyone to patiently consider what I have before suggested when arguing for my interpretation of the symbolic meaning of "water" in John's gospel, namely, that it symbolizes "the Law and the Prophets". Once one realizes that John has drawn from Exodus and the Synoptics respectively to connect and identify both Moses and John the Baptist with "water", then can one see how the first and greatest of the Law as well as the last and greatest of the Prophets have been combined to symbolize "water = the Law and the Prophets" in John's gospel. Once this has been understood, then can one understand John's comparison/contrast of the Baptist/water with Jesus/Spirit in Jn 1:26, 31, 33; John's comparison/contrast of water (=the Law and the Prophets) with wine (=Holy Spirit) in Jn 2:1-12; John's comparison/contrast of water (=the Law and the Prophets) with Spirit in Jn 3:5; John's comparison contrast of dead water from
            the OT patriarch Jacob's well (= the Law and the Prophets) with the living water of Jesus (= Holy Spirit); and I Jn 5:6-8 where John (if you accept John as author) where the author states specifically in vs 7 that there "are three that testify: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and the three are in agreement" (certain later manuscripts read, "the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one", which is in line with my suggested interpretation of "water" symbolizing "the Law and the Prophets", or the Father's means of revelation; "blood" symbolizing Jesus/the Word; and the Spirit being the Holy Spirit). This is, according to my suggested interpretation, a trinitarian statement.

            What Jeffrey has pointed out above, namely, that the claims that first century Judaism made concerning the Torah and the claims John makes about the Logos are identical (what I tried to point out, in part, in my previous post) is another evidence why we should interpret the character John the Baptist as a personification of "the Law and the Prophets". The author John is placing the Torah/John the Baptist + Moses in a subordinate position to that of the Logos/Jesus throughout his gospel. He does so because "the Jews" (religious leaders in John's day) have given the Torah a status of "divinity". John uses the Baptist, starting in 1:6, as a mouthpiece of the Torah to state that he (= the Law and the Prophets) is not the light, in contrast to what 1st century Judaism was saying about him/the Torah. Instead, John the Baptist (=the Torah) proclaims the Logos as the true Light. John the Baptist (= the Law and the Prophets) states in the same context that he came as a witness, and only as a
            witness, to the Logos. Note that the author has the Baptist say the same thing about his role as a witness concerning Jesus (cf. Jn 1:32, 34, 35), that he is a witness to Jesus. So the Logos is Jesus, and Jesus is the Logos, but more importantly for our understanding of John's gospel, John the Baptist is the Law and the Prophets. I again refer those who would to read patiently through to the end my paper on Joe Gagne's website (http://www.fourthgospel.com/estrada.doc).







            Matthew Estrada

            113 Laurel Court

            Peachtree City, Ga 30269

            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
            http://mail.yahoo.com

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.