[B-Greek] logos of John 1--A person or a plan?

Jason Rankins jrankins at yahoo.com
Sat Nov 3 17:51:21 EDT 2007


> 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.

I am very unfamiliar with the all caps method of citation--I'll have to get used to it.  Perhaps
the moderator let it slip because I am new.

> 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.

I might not have clearly stated my issue, because it does seems like a question of
translation--which it is effectively--but it is aimed at the rules that govern the grammar that
guide the translations.  In other words, is it grammatically compulsory to translate hO LOGOS of
John 1:1-14 with the inference that LOGOS is a person (since most translations capitalize the "W"
in the Word, implying that it is a personal designation--like God capital "G").

> 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.

Well, I make this statement because hO LOGOS is capitalized and then referred to as "him"/"he"
throughout the prologue of John.  My question more concerns the grammatical treatment of hO LOGOS
as a person throughout the entire passage (sorry I should have been more specific).  

Please explain to me how the qualitative semantic force of QEOS in John 1:1c gives an inference of
personhood to hO LOGOS--speaking purely grammatically.  The way that I understand the semantic
force of a Greek qualitative noun is that it stresses the qualities of the noun in question (like
a prepositional phrase with an adjectival force--qualities of X).  IOW, "The word was the
qualities of God" where the individual "God" is in view (probably from John 1:1b), but as to His
qualities, not as an identity--please correct me if I am wrong, and feel free to berate me in
detail.  Since this usage is foreign to English semantics, any further clarification would be
enlightening.

> 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 certainly appreciate the intent of the translation that you state above to render the meaning of
hO LOGOS (in lieu of personalizing it), "In the beginning God expressed himself . . .",  but that
certainly falls more to the side of an impersonal hO LOGOS.

And you mention John 1:14, Καὶ ὁ λόγος
σὰρξ ἐγένετο [KAI hO LOGOS SARX
EGENETO], makes the question of personhood more urgent, but in what sense?  Does the grammar
necessitate a one-to-one identification of one thing that became (EGENETO) another (can a plan
become flesh? or, put another way, a plan become realized in an individual), or does the grammar
necessitate that hO LOGOS be the person who was SARX--thereby making hO LOGOS a person due to the
personhood of the only-begotten Son?

This of course ignore the questions of personhood in between vv. 1 and 14, where AUTOS is
translated "him" because of the belief that hO LOGOS is a person.  Which is yet another question,
is the AUTOS of John 1:2 a grammatical "him" or "it", or is either possible grammatically? 

> I have found no
> Greek grammatical rule that would necessitate the ho logos be  
> considered a person.

>>Nor do I think that you will.

So, are you saying that the grammar does not imply personhood, and so the translation becomes a
matter of dogma instead of grammar?

>  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)

I agree, but how can I possibly know if someone is qualified to give an answer that I can trust is
reasonably accurate, compared to an answer that is completely fallacious? 

Jason M. Rankins
Department of Layman, University of Hard Knocks

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



More information about the B-Greek mailing list