[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