[B-Greek] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?
Eric Weiss
papaweiss1 at yahoo.com
Thu Oct 5 16:16:52 EDT 2006
It looks to me like Irenaeus seems to be arguing against the gnostics, not the Arians
(the point James Spinti was making, I think). Also, the gnostics (or whomever
Irenaeus is discussing) don't seem to be claiming an "a god" meaning for John 1:1 - at
least not in the excerpt you cite.
The statement "'and the Word was God,' of course, for that which is begotten of God
is God" does seem to support a default understanding by Irenaeus that "a god" was
never intended by St. John - which, I think, does not conflict with James Spinti's point.
Isn't Logos great for this stuff? ;^)
George Somsel wrote:
> Ask and you shall receive. Unfortunately, I only have an English translation to offer
> (Well, no matter since most of Irenaeus is a translation in any case). Irenaeus,
> _Against Heresies_, i.8
>
> 5. Further, they teach that John, the disciple of the Lord, indicated the first Ogdoad,
> expressing themselves in these words: John, the disciple of the Lord, wishing to set
> forth the origin of all things, so as to explain how the Father produced the whole,
> lays down a certain principle,that, namely, which was first-begotten by God,
> which Being he has termed both the only-begotten Son and God, in whom the
> Father, after a seminal manner, brought forth all things. By him the Word was
> produced, and in him the whole substance of the Aeons, to which the Word himself
> afterwards imparted form. Since, therefore, he treats of the first origin of things, he
> rightly proceeds in his teaching from the beginning, that is, from God and the Word.
> And he expresses himself thus: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
> with God, and the Word was God; the same was in the beginning with God. Having
> first of all distinguished these threeGod, the Beginning, and the Wordhe again
> unites them, that he may exhibit the production of each of them, that is, of the Son
> and of the Word, and may at the same time show their union with one another, and
> with the Father. For the beginning is in the Father, and of the Father, while the
> Word is in the beginning, and of the beginning. Very properly, then, did he say, In
> the beginning was the Word, for He was in the Son; and the Word was with God,
> for He was the beginning; and the Word was God, of course, for that which is
> begotten of God is God. The same was in the beginning with Godthis clause
> discloses the order of production. All things were made by Him, and without Him
> was nothing made;  for the Word was the author of form and beginning to all the
> Aeons that came into existence . . .
>
> Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, A. C. (1997). The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol.I :
> Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. The apostolic fathers
> with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. (328). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.
>
> george
> gfsomsel
> _________
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: James Spinti <JSpinti at Eisenbrauns.com>
>> To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>> Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2006 3:27:28 PM
>> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?
>>
>> As I asked the last time this whole thing came up--maybe 3 weeks ago?
>> Why does no one who is arguing for the "a god" translation go back to
>> the early church fathers who knew Greek? Is this verse ever used as an
>> argument in any of their treatises (both for and against Arianism)? <snip>
Eric S. Weiss
---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list