[B-Greek] logos of John 1--A person or a plan?
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Nov 3 07:08:48 EDT 2007
On Nov 3, 2007, at 6:42 AM, Jason Rankins wrote:
> Hello B-Greek participants,
>
> This is my first submission here on B-Greek, and I have a question
> that has been asked of me that
> I will relay here.
Welcome to the list. You should read our FAQ at http://
www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/faq/html -- it explains procedures and
protocols for posting on B-Greek and also the rules governing
citation of Greek text.
> In John 1:1, the consensus translation of John 1:1 has been:
>
> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
> Word was God.
We deal primarily with the Greek text rather than translations here.
Text: John 1:1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ
λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς
ἦν ὁ λόγος.
EN ARCHi HN hO LOGOS, KAI hO LOGOS HN PROS TON QEON, KAI QEOS HN hO
LOGOS.
> Now, this translation assumes the ho logos to have an identity--to
> be a person.
Actually I think it's questionable whether that translation implies
that hO LOGOS is a person; I think that's an inference from the last
clause, KAI QEOS HN hO LOGOS. And that's a clause about which a great
deal of electronic ink has been laid on thickly on B-Greek for more
than a decade of the list's existence. There's considerable question
about the grammatical function and usage of QEOS in that third clause.
> My question is
> this, is it grammatically compulsory to view the ho logos as a
> person? Or is it more or less
> legitimate to understand the ho logos as the divine word (i.e. the
> divine plan).
I don't know that there's any reason to decide the matter one way
rather than the other. One version of John 1:1 that I have always
liked was, "In the beginning God expressed himself …, " The question
becomes more urgent, I'd think, when we get to verse 14, Καὶ ὁ
λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο [KAI hO LOGOS SARX EGENETO].
It's hard to understand verse 14 other than as indicating that the
Logos was -- or became -- a person.
> I have found no
> Greek grammatical rule that would necessitate the ho logos be
> considered a person.
Nor do I think that you will.
> Please, I would appreciate if only those with academic credentials
> respond to this post. Not that
> one cannot be adequately self educated in this regard, but how
> could I be sure. Unfortunately,
> degrees and credentials attest to ones legitimacy in the modern
> academic arena.
I wish that were so, but as a holder of a degree (credential?)
myself, I can only say that I've seen questionable evidence or
argumentation set forth in defense of many a proposition -- and I've
also seen propositions affirmed by holders of degrees who thought
they didn't need to adduce evidence or arguments for the propositions
they affirm. So in my estimation, anyone arguing a proposition who
brings evidence and cogent argument to a proposition deserves a
hearing whether or not he or she holds an academic degree.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Ret)
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list