[B-Greek] Getting a Little Doctrinal, but Anyway... Re: Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?
frjsilver at optonline.net
frjsilver at optonline.net
Wed Oct 4 20:12:09 EDT 2006
Dear Friends --
The examples adduced here employ QEOS in oblique cases as qualifiers, but in no sense can the word QEOS itself ever be considered an adjective, _a fortiori_ in JN 1:1.
The cognate adjective is QEIOS, which even before the first Christian century was pronounced *very* differently from QEOS, so scribal error, at least by people who spoke Greek then, is not an issue.
Although it's a fact that no creed (SUMBOLON PISTEOS) was accepted by all Christians prior to AD 325, it's also a fact that all Christians before then were required to make a profession of faith before being baptized. Elements of local practice in this regard were considered by the first ecumenical synod at Nikaia: the 'Nicene Creed' didn't appear from nowhere, nor was it composed from scratch, since it's attestable that the 'baptismal creed of Rufinus' and the baptismal creed proposed by Eusebios of Caesarea contributed whole phrases to the version adopted for the Church at Nikaia in 325. An additional final coda was added by the second ecumenical synod at Constantinople in 387, and that's all there is. Later local creeds are unhelpful.
But each of the pre-Nikaian local statements of Christian belief included an expression of being baptized EIS TO ONOMA TOU PATROS KAI TOU hUIOU KAI TOU hAGIOU PNEUMATOS -- a reflection not only of the Gospel but also of the most ancient rites of Christian baptism, preserved to this day.
Not a single one of the early Fathers of the Church believed anything different. In fact, anyone who taught that there were NOT three divine Persons in one God, and that Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God and Son of the virgin Mary, was one of those three Persons, and _ipso facto_ divine, would not be considered a 'Father of the Church', but a heretic, as was Areios, whose then widely believed theories caused the crisis which resulted in the synod at Nikaia which once and for all refuted them and established the Church's triadic understanding of God.
This includes a _sine qua non_ that, in order to be Christians, people must believe that Jesus is indeed God, and become a human being for our sake, joining our human nature to His own divine nature. The Greek text of the Scriptures amply attests this, and patristic writings and the liturgy confirm it.
I hope this helps a little, and isn't offensive or TOO beyond this most helpful group's parameters. (I know I'm skating on thin ice, but the ice was thinned by someone else before I got my skates on.)
Peace and blessings to all.
Father James Silver
Monk James
Orthodox Church in America
----- Original Message -----
From: mike.murphy at pb.com
Date: Wednesday, October 4, 2006 4:12 pm
Subject: [B-Greek] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?
To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> Hi. I am going to ask a controversial question, and I am hoping
> for a simple, COMMON SENSE answer rather than necessarily a
> "doctrine safe" traditional answer.
>
> In short, I am asking you all to consider this with a "fresh set
> of eyes" as it were. In many cases, valuable -- even fundamental
> -- doctrines such as immersion baptism and spiritual gifts have
> been recovered by the rejection of long estabish academic
> tradition in favor of a simple literal reading of the New
> Testament without bias of creed.
>
> In that spirit, I am curious if an alternate reading of John 1:1
> is possible using "theos" as an adjective at the end of the
> sentence.
>
> (Joh 1:1) In(1722) the beginning(746) was(2258) the(3588)
> Word,(3056)
> and(2532) the(3588) Word(3056) was(2258) with(4314)
> God,(2316)
> and(2532) the(3588) Word(3056) was(2258) God.(2316)
>
> The word "theos" is translated as "godly" in the King James
> Version at least 5 times, (1 Tim 1:4, 2 Cor 1:12, 7:9, 7:11, and
> 11:2). The possible alternate reading would be, "In beginning was
> the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was godly. The
> same was in the beginning with God."
>
> In the case of 1 Timothy 1:4 using "theos" as an ajdective, the
> King James Version does so clearly. (1Ti 1:4) Neither3366 give
> heed4337 to fables3454 and2532 endless562 genealogies,1076
> which3748 minister3930 questions,2214 rather3123 than2228
> godly2316 edifying3622 which3588 is in1722 faith:4102 so do.
> *2316=theos as in John 1:1
>
> As you can see, this does not violate "common sense" as it is a
> more natural reading that does not require the substance of God
> to be strangely divided among several persons, most likely a
> completely foreign doctrine to the monotheistic Jewish author.
>
> The use of "theos" as an adjective -- without the definite
> article -- might explain the need for the clarification on the
> following line: "The same was in the beginning with God", so as
> to render the meaning of the previous verse more clearly. (See
> Moffat, '...the word was divine').
>
> In fact, if John did not use "theos" as an adjective in ending
> 1:1, what then does verse 1:2 clarify at all? The lack of the
> definite article on the last "theos" in John 1:1, taking in
> combination with the presence of verse 1:2, seem to possibly
> strengthen this alternative reading.
>
> The only confession of the New Testament is that Jesus Christ was
> the SON OF GOD. It is never clearly and umambiguously stated that
> he was personally GOD except in controversial passages with
> alternate readings, such as Acts 20:28 and 1 Timothy 3:16. What
> the Bible does teach is that "God was in Christ", because God had
> poured his spirit on him without measure and raised him from the
> dead. What is certain is that corruption of the text is known to
> have taken a Nicene form, e.g. 1 Jn 5:7-9
>
> That the confession, "Jesus is the Son of God" alone is
> considered orthodox by John:
>
> (1Jo 4:14) And we have seen and testify that the Father sent the
> Son to be the Savior of the world. (1Jo 4:15) Whoever shall
> confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwells in him and he in
> God.
>
> (1Jo 5:5) Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes
> that Jesus is the Son of God?
>
> Therefore, it seems that John considered Jesus to be God's Son
> prior to coming into the world, perhaps in a literal sense, and
> that he was not considered to be the same person as God the
> Father whatsoever.
>
> (Joh 8:16) And yet if I do judge, My judgment is true; for I am
> not alone, but I and the Father who sent Me. (Joh 8:17) It is
> also written in your Law that the testimony of two men is true.
>
> This fits other creeds outlined the APostolic teaching:
>
> (Act 2:32) God raised up this Jesus, of which we all are
> witnesses. (Act 3:26) Having raised up His son Jesus, God sent
> Him to you first, to bless you in turning every one of you away
> from his iniquities.
>
> (Heb 5:7) For Jesus, in the days of His flesh, when He had
> offered up prayers and supplications with strong cryings and
> tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard
> in that He feared, (Heb 5:8) though being a Son, yet He learned
> obedience by the things which He suffered.
>
> What is required for a Christian to belief? That Jesus is God?
> No...
>
> (Joh 20:31) But these are written so that you might believe that
> Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you might
> have life in His name.
>
> If the early fathers did not consider any Trinity Creed needful
> for salvation, perhaps they also did not prefer a Nicene reading
> of John 1:1.
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list