[B-Greek] B-Greek discussion of John 1:1
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Oct 6 11:32:38 EDT 2006
Carlton Winbery, my co-chair for this forum, has just offered what I
think is a splendid suggestion. The way he put it is this: Anyone who
wishes to start a new thread or post on the subject of John 1:1 (and
most especially John 1:1c) should be obliged to engage in a
preliminary reading of all prior BG messages on John 1:1. After
thinking about this, it rather seems to me that it would be quite
sufficient to require that such potential posters read only the
correspondence from 2006 on that subject: it would require some hours
of effort and it just might make one think twice about the likelihood
of saying something new on the matter that hasn't been aired
previously (and repeated ad nauseam!).
I am, of course, being facetious (do I need to draw a ;-) ?).
Discussions of this topic are representative, nay, emblematic,
perhaps the very "Inbegriff" of the inherent peril involved in open
discussion of the Greek text of the Bible. The ways that B-Greekers
view the Biblical text in its very nature as inspired Word of God, as
a literary text, as a historical text, etc., etc. range across a very
broad spectrum with list-members to be found at widely divergent
points in that spectrum. Difficult as it is for some to conceive that
there is any other meaningful perspective on the Biblical text than
the one that he or she actually holds, the fact is that there does
exist such divergence, and that divergence is the reason why
discussions of the Biblical text, especially when the text concerns
some matter that is vital to one's own faith-commitment, can easily
degenerate into shouting matches or what is ordinarily called in
internet parlance, "flame wars." And that is the reason why the
moderators of B-Greek endeavor to restrain list-discussion within
such lines as keep the focus upon the Greek language and the Greek
text and AWAY from discussions of theological implications of any
particular Biblical text or hermeneutical assertions of how -- apart
from grammatical analysis -- one ought to interpret the import of a
Biblical text after the meaning of the Greek text is grasped as
surely and clearly as possible. Most of the time it is not difficult
to keep the discussion within these parameters, but sometimes the
effort becomes very arduous: nothing can bring on a headache quicker
than recognition of a brand-new thread on John 1;1c, a discussion
that seems almost inevitably driven by theological agendas which take
the form (sometimes) of grammatical principles never found or applied
elsewhere in the entire literary corpus of Koine Greek; perhaps we
should talk about "grammatical theology" or "theological grammar." We
all KNOW what the text really means (even if what we individually
know is different from what others individually know), and
consequently our endeavor is to discover the grammatical principles
which will prove that our own understanding of the text is valid not
only theologically but grammatically.
Please do NOT reply to this message on-list! But take note: the next
message calling for discussion of John 1:1c is likely to evoke an
admonition to consult the previous whole year's archives for
discussions of KAI QEOS HN hO LOGOS.
Carl W. Conrad
Co-Chair, B-Greek List
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu or cwconrad2 at mac.com
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list