Re: John 1:1
- If there were just two of them - Adam and the word - and Eve was a
wife and mother - the word must have been "Dinner!". But all she had
was an apple, and she didn't yet have kids. How'd she do it? She
must have been very sexy.
--- In email@example.com, "David Hindley" <dhindley@...> wrote:
> Chris & Sean,
> This subject, too, should probably be pursued on a NT criticism
> I will suggest, Sean, that you see how this idea of yours might
interconnect with Gnostic interpretations. Perhaps, QEOS could be
taken to correspond to a masculine aeon and LOGOS to a feminine aeon,
etc. Good luck, though, trying to find a board that would deal with
this matter intelligently. You might be forced to consult the
secondary literature on Gnostic theology in general.
> Dave Hindley
> Newton Falls, Ohio USA
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sentto-1293705-2598-1194068382-dhindley=compuserve.com@...
On Behalf Of Chris Weimer
> Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 1:40 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: [lxx] Re: John 1:1
> (sorry about the weird first post)
> Not if you accept the second Î¸ÎµÎ¿Ï (theos) as an adjective (i.e.,
> the word was divine), like some Greek nouns are able to do (cf.
> Î±Î¸ÎµÎ¿Ï atheos - without god, an adjective).
> If you accept the argument that the second Î¸ÎµÎ¿Ï (theos) is a
> noun (i.e., the word was God), then I guess grammatically it makes
> sense. One noun for another.
> You might also run into trouble with ÏÏÎ¿Ï (pros), though there
> was always some contention about how John was using it.
> And that's merely the linguistic side. I would argue vehemently
> the idea that John is making the Î»Î¿Î³Î¿Ï (logos) Eve and
> Î¸ÎµÎ¿Ï (God) Adam, although I do not doubt some commentator
> somewhere has tried to make the connexion.
> All the best,
> Chris Weimer
> U. Memphis
> --- In email@example.com, "Sean" <rhoadess@> wrote:
> > Dear Lxx group
> > Because many of you are scholars and know the Greek language
> > I was just looking at John 1:1 and wondering if I could substitute
> > "Word" with "Woman" and "God" with "Adam", and get the same sense
> > its original meaning, at least grammatically. That is, that Eve is
> > Adam, in that she comes out from Adam, and so the Word can be God
> > that he too comes out from God.
> > Sean 1:1 In the beginning of Mankind, was the Woman, and the
> > was with Adam, and the Woman was Adam.
> > Genesis 5:1-2 KJV This is the book of the generations of Adam.
> > day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 2
> > and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their
> > Adam, in the day when they were created.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
- The first two words of the LXX and of John 1:1 are identical, and to my
thinking, form a striking allusion - not only by the word choice but the
word order - first in the entire scroll. There seems to be no question that
the "beginning" referred to in John 1 is not "in eternity past" as is often
suggested but rather Genesis 1.
Further, the suggestion that Philo's musings about LOGOS serve as the
backdrop for this passage are unnecessary. Clearly the LOGOS in view is none
but the "let there be" of Genesis 1.
The LXX background completely illuminates the text, rescuing it from the
gross misinterpretations it is usually subjected to.
Bible Shockers! A collection of disturbing observations of and about the
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@...>
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 5:41 AM
Subject: Re: [lxx] Re: Why NT topics on LXX?
> On Nov 29, 2007, at 8:54 PM, Chris Weimer wrote:
>> The New Testament makes use of the Septuagint. As long as the
>> questions are directly relevant to the LXX, I personally see no harm.
>> Within reason, no?
> I've no problem with that; where the text of the LXX can illuminate
> questions raised in a NT text, that's fine -- but the lengthy thread on
> John 1:1 seemed to me to have a very tenuous or tangential
> relationship to the LXX at best and to be sustained not by light
> thrown by the LXX on questions about the LOGOS, but by the
> never-ending fascination with the text of John 1:1 itself.
>> Chris Weimer
>> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@...> wrote:
>> > Why is so much of the discussion on this LXX list focused on matters
>> > that relate to the GNT and not to the LXX? Isn't there any oversight
>> > of this forum?
>> > Carl W. Conrad
>> > Department of Classics, Washington University (Ret)
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics, Washington University (Ret)
> Yahoo! Groups Links