RE: [John_Lit] A Grammatico-theological Question
- I've been following this thread over the last couple of days and have
become increasingly perplexed by it. Has anybody read the secondary
material on all this lot? Colwell's article on anarthrous predicates,
Harner's redefinition of Colwell's rule, Wallace's extended discussion in
his Grammar beyond the basics, Blass-Debrunner-Funk. How about the
comments by Bultmann, Brown and Barrett? There is ample reading for the
most avid bookworm in this lot - all defining why the translation should be
"God" rather than "a god" or "the god" or "divine". There is a whole load
of semantic evidence for translating this as a simple pre-verbal
qualitative anarthrous predicate - the decision to translate it as anything
else is the theological spin!
And if we start bringing in Proverbs 8 (and Sirach 24 by the way) then we
also have to bring in all the other resonances - dabar adonai, Logos in
Presocratic philosophy, Philo, Platonism, Stoicism...the Logos is an
element of a good number of religious systems by the Augustan age. John
may well have used it simply as to raise the interest level of his work -
to get people to raise their eyebrows, as it were. Notice that the term is
never used in the same way outside the Prologue - John is just using the
lexeme to introduce Jesus, once he has done that he drops it - it carries
too much unhelpful baggage with it.
And if we talk about pre-existence, as Meg Davies says, (Rhetoric and
Reference in the Fourth Gospel) - there can be no such thing. You cannot
exist before you exist. Eternally existent would be better. The
interesting question is whether you could say that Jesus is eternally
existent. He fits the bill, according to NT theology, post-death - i.e.
traditionally he lives on now and forever, but didn't Jesus come into
existence, according to the nativity myth (no pejorative use intended),
when the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary? So before this was the Logos. But
then there's John 8 - Before Abraham was I am. No there is a rather
interesting use of tenses and a clear indication of eternal existence. But
this is off the point...
New Testament Lecturer and Director of Studies,
Hope Valley, Derbyshire, UK
Tel: +44 1246 582321 x122
Fax: +44 1246 583739
From: Horace Jeffery Hodges [SMTP:jefferyhodges@...]
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 03:20
Subject: Re: [John_Lit] A Grammatico-theological Question
Thanks, Paul, for the grammatical clarifications. Now,
on to other points.
> > Does the term Logos, on the other hand, suggestYou replied:
> > eternal existence? Or does it imply a coming into
> > existence at the moment of creation, when God
> That depends greatly upon a number of things.I suppose that I am more Western here, in the sense
> First, what do you
> understand the Logos of John 1:1ff to be? Second,
> do you see the
> preexistence theme to be a uniquely Hebrew view of
> preexistence, which
> refers to God's foreknowledge of things to come
> rather than the
> western understanding of literally existing before.
that you present it. However, I wonder if "Western"
and "Hebrew" can be split so definitively. It seems to
me that the rabbinical view that God created the world
through the Torah gives the Torah a more significant
pre-existence than those things of which God had
Also, the Judaism of the time of the writer of the
fourth gospel was permeated by Hellenistic ideas, so I
wonder how foreign a "Western" way of thinking was
> Genesis says "In the beginning, God...". He,I would prefer to say that God's existence was prior
> therefore, predates
> "existence". Anything God "thought", therefore,
> would also predate
> "existence". Certainly, He knew His plan for His
> Son before the world
> was created. In that sense, at least, Jesus Christ
> preexisted the
to the creation of the universe. God's thoughts would
certainly also be prior to the creation, I agree. That
still leaves open the question of whether the Son was
prior to creation. I don't know that the answer to
this is found in John's Gospel, however. It may be
implicit, and I would be interested in hearing what
people think on this.
> > If the Hebrew-scripture background here isActually, I was referring to Proverbs 8 or 9 (I don't
> > on the female figure Wisdom, then one would
> > that the Logos came into existence at creation as
> > first of God's creatures.
> > This was certainly a view that became significant
> > in the early church.
> > In my view, it was a corruption of the Hebrew view
> > of preexistence by
> > the Greek influx into the church. To the Jews,
> > Wisdom was a concept,
> > a manifestation of God, if you will, but not a
> > being separate from
> > God. To the Greeks, Wisdom was a heavenly being,
> > existing somewhere
> > between the earth and the God of all, who could
> > not bear to interact
> > directly with the creation.
have a Bible handy), which explicitly personifies
Wisdom as a female figure who is the first of God's
creation. The Wisdom of Solomon also seems to
personify Wisdom -- though there is probably a Greek
influence here (though surely not in Proverbs).
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
SUBSCRIBE: e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org
UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail email@example.com
PROBLEMS?: e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org
- In a message dated 9/18/2000 5:39:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[Responding to Leonard, who wrote:]
<< > Antonio, no matter how highly elevated a creature is, no matter how
> to God a creature comes, he is still infinitely -- yes, infinitelyinferior
> to God. If this were the case for Jesus it would have been incumbent onthe
> NT authors to make this point perfectly clear. Now there are texts inwhich
> they do not do so, and in fact many of them confound Jesus quitedeliberately
> and quite thoroughly with God. If it is true that Jesus is not God, eitherThe only problem is that Luke and the other synoptic writers did not
> these writers were terribly misled, or they are terribly misleading.
have to contend with a 20th century highly orthodox chap from America
who is so infatuated with trinitarianism that he has to force it on the texts
at all price. Leonard, why don't you take a close look at Peter's speech
in Acts 2:22-36 again and see if you find any support at all for your
This is as close to Luke's and the early Jerusalem church's Christology as
we will ever get, and Jesus is never called or likened to God. He is a MAN
(v.22) SENT by God (v.22) to fullfill God's plan for humanity (v.23). God
resurrected him (v24) and MADE him into LORD and MESSIAH (v. 36).
How do you explain that somebody who is God (as you claim Jesus is) has
to be made Lord and Messiah by God? >>
Antonio, it seems you didn't read my post carefully enough (which makes me
wonder how carefully you read the biblical texts that challenge your
understanding). What I said was that "there are texts" in the NT in which
Jesus is thoroughly confounded with God. This is quite compatible, logically,
with the existence of other texts in which he is not (and was carefully
formulated precisely so as to accommodate these). The Acts text you cite is
clearly one such, and, in Chalcedonian terms, it could be said that it is
simply talking about Jesus as man, under which formality he is of course
thoroughly subordinated to, distinct from and inferior to God. My only point
is that there are other texts in which the NT authors, or most of them,
express a kind of fuzzy identity between Jesus and God. So the God-Man
construct of the later patristic writers and church councils seems to me to
do justice the whole of the biblical evidence about Jesus while you seem able
to handle only one side of the paradox. Keep trying though! It is wonderful
that you invest so much mental effort in the search.