[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 three—God, the Beginning, and the Word—he 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 God”—this 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