LOGOS

Joe A. Friberg JoeFriberg at email.msn.com
Thu Feb 24 09:40:01 EST 2000


Dear Steven:

You focus on a theological question which is almost out of place here.
Nevertheless, I believe I can answer in such a way as to keep the focus on
the issues that concern B-Greek.

In fact, I welcome the fact that you brought up this issue, because it gives
me the chance to clarify severl things.

First of all, I introduced teh language 'preincarnate Christ' so as to have
theological metalanguage terminology to use to identify a specific
concept--it provides a term which is outside both Gk and what I would hold
up as the goal of translation: common English!  I could have, for the sake
of discussion, used 'logos' (lower case) or some contrivance such as 'the
L-concept', but I used a term that I hold to be a less confusing (as
compared to 'logos') and more transparent (as opposed to 'L-concept') and
accurate, simply 'preincarnate (and preexisting--I used both) Christ'.  So,
that was my motivation for using the term.

Though you have raised this as a theological question, let me turn it back
to the proper realms of B-Greek:

First of all, my choice of terms illustrates my discussion of the proceedure
for choosing technical terms:

1. The appropriateness of 'preexistent': Jn 1.1,2,3 specifies that the LOGOS
existed (HN) before all created things.  At least I take EN ARXHi to imply a
point anterior to all of space-time; the fact that the event of the totality
of creation (PANTA EGENETO) came about DI AUTOU supports the antecedence of
the LOGOS to creatoion.

2. The appropriateness of 'preincarnate': Jn 1.14 states KAI hO LOGOS SARC
EGENETO KAI ESKHNWSEN EN hHMIN, which implies that the LOGOS became flesh
(as a person) as an event of transformation; hence there was a
state-of-existence of the LOGOS anterior to carnation.

3. The appropriateness of 'Christ' in connection with the
preincarnate/preexistent LOGOS:
a. Jn 1.9 asserts teh existence of TO FWS TO ALHQINON and its impingement on
TON KOSMON.  in 1.4b, John identifies TO FWS with hH ZWH, which was already
(1.4a) connected back to the LOGOS by EN AUTWi.  The genitival qualifier TWN
ANQRWPWN (1.4) and the relative clause hO FWTIZEI PANTA ANQRWPWN (1.10)
confirms the identity of TO FWS in these two verses.  At this point there is
simply connection (via hH ZWH) between LOGOS and FWS, perhaps the first is
the source of the latter, or the latter an attribute of the former.
b. 1.10b asserts that the creation event (hO KOSMOS EGENETO) came about DI
AUTOU, essentially identical language to the assertion of creation via hO
LOGOS (1.3); hence it appears that TO FWS is actually ontologically
identical with hO LOGOS.
c. 1.10c uses a masculine pronoun AUTON for TO FWS, so that it appears the
manner in which TO FWS has impinged on the created order (hO KOSMOS) is in
human (and in particular, male) form.  1.11 confirms this conclusion since
it refers to his own people did not receive him: hOI IDIOI AUTON OU
PARELABON.
d. 1.12 conditions reception of 'him' and the consequent right to become
God's children on believing in his name (TOIS PISTEUOUSIN EIS TO ONOMA
AUTOU) (cf. 1.7), which becomes a major theme and major issue in the Gospel.
It is reiterated and connected with beilief in the person of Jesus Christ
throughout the Gospel (3.5-18, 5.38, 6.29, 8.24, et al.).  Hence, we have
the first connection between hO LOGOS and TO FWS and between TO FWS and the
person of Christ is made by verbal connections between the actions of or
actions toward these three referents, and ontological identity can be
concluded.
e. 1.14 provides the simplest connection between hO LOGOS and Christ, for it
states directly that hO LOGOS became a human being.  This parallels items
a.-c. above.  Further parallels, which confirm the ontological identity of
hO LOGOS with TO FWS are found in the witness of John the Baptist
(1.7-8,15).  John's witness concerning the incarnate LOGOS confirms the
particularity of the reference to a specific man: hOUTOS HN hON EIPON, and
also the ontological anteriority of this incarnate LOGOS: hOTI PRWTOS MOU
HN.
f. This same person who is identified with the incarnate LOGOS is described
consistently in 1.14-16, is the same person John the Baptist preached about,
and is identified explicitly by John in 1.17: hH XARIS KAI hH ALHWEIA DIA
IHSOU XRISTOU EGENETO.  Hence the identified incarnate LOGOS is connected
back to and ontologically identical to the preincarnate LOGOS.
g. 1.18 again confirms the ontological identity of Jesus Christ back to the
preincarnate LOGOS as found in 1.1-2 by its conceptual similarity (hO WN EIS
TON KOLPON TOU PATROS parallels PROS TON QEON).
h. Finally, the term 'Christ' applied to Jesus is applicable not because he
was a man/human, but *because* of his connection to hO LOGOS (by his
identity with the incarnate LOGOS).  Hence, I find it appropriate use the
term 'Christ' in connection with LOGOS, and to use 'preincarnate/preexistent
Christ' as an equivalent of 'preincarnate/preexistent LOGOS', and have done
so, as stated above, in order to approriate a metalanguage term.


Now, as to your specific objections, I hold quite simply that the use of
LOGOS in the passages you cited as distinct from the use of LOGOS in the
Prologue (Note that I referred only to the use of LOGOS in the *Prologue* in
my first post!)  Jn uses LOGOS in a variety of ways, both as a common term
and technical term.  Sometimes it refers simply to a predictive statement
(2.22, 4.50, 12.38, 15.25, 18.9), or to some other specific statement (6.60,
et al.),  or to the Hebrew Scriptures (10.35).  So, it is quite possible
that Jn uses LOGOS differently in the proof-texts you cite, and I offer the
following evidence in support of my conclusion:

1. the specific verbal frame of LOGOS in the Prologue is consistently hO
LOGOS in the absolute--no modifier but the definite article.  In the
passages you cite:
----- Original Message ----- (only texts referenced are retained)
From: "Steven Craig Miller" <scmiller at www.plantnet.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 8:26 PM
> "I do know him and I keep his word" (Jn 8:55c NRSV).

> "Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; and the word that you
> hear is not mine, but is from the Father who sent me" (Jn 14:24 NRSV).

> "I have given them your word" (Jn 17:14a NRSV).

the frame consistently contains a possessive modifier:
TON LOGON AUTOU (8.55)
hO LOGOS...OUK ESTIN EMOS ALLA...PATROS (14.24)
TON LOGON SOU (17.14)

elsewhere the most common frame is '*my* word': hO LOGOS hO EMOS, hO EMOS
LOGOS, or hO LOGOS EMOU.  In context, the specific frame may vary.

This use of LOGOS is translated quite naturally by 'my message', or if the
context calls for added emphasis on the compeling force of his message, ' my
true message' or 'my message of truth'.

Jesus identifies the message he preaches as coming from the Father; this is
the actual import of the proof-texts you cited.

This message comes from teh Father and from Jesus; it does not have an
independent existence so as to be called hO LOGOS in an absolute sense.  And
of course, Jesus' message is not ontologically identical with himself!

2. The specific contexts in which LOGOS occurs in Jn 2-21 (i.e., Gospel
minum Prologue) connect LOGOS with specific acts of speaking or preaching.

3. The Genre of the Prologue (1.1-18) is unique.  It is a cosmic exposition,
with some elements of temporal narration embeded (1.6-7, 1.14-15).  In this
cosmic context, it is not so surprising to find LOGOS used in the absolute
to denote a super-cosmic entity.  It is the super-cosmic that is here first
identified and expounded and then related to the created cosmos.  Since John
limits himself to the common language (creating a technical term as opposed
to creating a metalanguage term), it can be expected that multivalency will
result, and it is not surprising to find that he does not draw upon the
super-cosmic term later in the Gospel.

4. Considering the layers in the Gospel--the sources and the redaction of
the sources--again it is not surprising that the language and terms of the
Prologue differ from the main narrative of the Gospel.  It seems certain to
me that the historical Jesus never appropriated the philosophical term
LOGOS, defined it in a super-cosmic sense, and applied it to himself.  It
was the author of the Gospel (John for convenience) who defined and applied
this appellation to the person of Jesus Christ in his Prologue.

Enough for now!

God Bless!
Joe A. Friberg






More information about the B-Greek mailing list