[B-Greek] FW: John 1:1c
Barry
nebarry at verizon.net
Wed Jul 5 08:17:44 EDT 2006
-----Original Message-----
From: Barry [mailto:nebarry at verizon.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 8:13 AM
To: 'Rolf Furuli'
Subject: RE: [B-Greek] John 1:1c
> -----Original Message-----
> From: b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org]
> On Behalf Of Rolf Furuli
> Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 1:27 AM
> To: B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] John 1:1c
Rolf, thank you for your recent responses. I am responding here rather than
to your reply to me because you seem to restate your position rather more
concisely. As often in these discussions, I feel that unnecessary layers of
complexity are being added to John's studied simplicity. I will restrict
myself here only to the "linguistic" arguments you present. If you wish to
engage in a more fully orbed exegetical discussion, I would invite you to my
biblical exegesis list (bibexegesis at yahoogroups.com) to continue the
discussion.
> There are many examples where the creator is referred to by QEOS without
the
> article (I mentioned that in my original post).
> This has no bearing on John 1:1, because the use or non-use of the
article
> is context-dependent. The inclusion or exclusion of the article may signal
a
> particular meaning or stress, and this can only be seen in a small
"closed"
> context. John 1:1 is such a small "closed" unit, and the significance of
the
> lack of article before QEOS in 1:1c can only be construed on the basis of
> the words and syntax of this verse alone; other passages are irrelevant.
I agree fully that the use of the article is context dependent. It is
precisely the contextual development in the prologue of John which is
intriguing regarding John's usage of the terms. As pointed out earlier, the
repetition of the key terms (QEOS, LOGOS), and the structure of the passage
(staircase, chiasm), let's us know that John is "up to something." With
regard to the use of the article here, it's omission could be explained in
several ways (the tendency to avoid the use of the article in naming a
predicate, the option of omitting the article in proper names or titles, or,
most likely, the desire to avoid the direct equation of the LOGOS as QEOS
with the first named QEOS). The question then becomes the purpose of this
simple yet highly effective composition, something that may only be answered
as we follow John's development throughout his gospel.
> I try to argue strictly linguistically, and in this connection mysteries
> have no place. Moreover, possible mysteries should be learned on the basis
> the text and should not be read into the text. My main point is this:
In teaching this passage, I have tried to encourage students to put
themselves in the place first century readers (this tactic works best with
Greek students reading the passage for the first time) examining the text
for the first time. What one discovers is a passage that begins with what
can only be deliberate and nearly poetic ambiguity. What is the LOGOS? In
what sense can the LOGOS be identified as QEOS? What an astounding
statement! Why do you use "he" as the pronominal subject of the verb in the
subsequent verses? An ancient Greek reader would not necessarily have made
that association, since LOGOS is the primary referent... Now, part of the
reading strategy for John is to realize that John is being deliberately
provocative in his choice of language and structure, but neither does he
leave it there. To restate what I said above, the further one reads into
John, the more the deliberate ambiguities are resolved. John leads us in a
particular direction according to his purpose in writing.
> The English rendering "And the Word was God" is linguistically impossible
> because:
>
> 1) In English, "God" (with capital "G") is equivalent to a proper noun,
and
> this makes "the Word" and "God" in the clause convertible terms, that is,
> "the Word" and "God" are identical in all respects.
This is, I believe, an assumption that you are reading into the English
translation, and not a necessary interpretation of the English. To
capitalize a bit on an example offered in another post:
Both John and Jane are man."
Now, this is an older usage of the term which to many modern speakers sounds
"sexist," but the meaning is clear, that both John and Jane are human
beings. They are not, however, identical in all respects, but both share
the quality of "manness" or humanity.
> 2) That the words are convertible terms and reciprocate is forbidden by
the
> use of preposition in 1:1b (and suggested by the lack of article before
QEOS
> in 1:1c). It is linguistical nonsense to make a text saying that someone
"is
> with" someone else and at the same time is identical with that one.
Rolf, this is quite amusing, actually. You have just done what you have
stated is linguistically impossible. However, you are introducing an
interpretive rather than a linguistic category here, the term "identical."
I believe that John goes on to demonstrate that the LOGOS shares in the
essential quality of what it means to be QEOS, but also demonstrates that
the LOGOS has certain, shall we say, personal properties which distinguish
him from QEOS as the generically understood hO QEOS. The point here,
however, is that there is nothing inherently impossible about making this
sort of statement, either in Greek or English. The problem is in
understanding what John intends by the statement.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Adjunct Faculty & IT Support
The Center for Urban Theological Studies
http://www.cuts.edu
Classics Instructor, The American Academy
http://www.theamericanacademy.net
And my site:
http://mysite.verizon.net/nebarry
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list