From: Steven Cox (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Feb 10 1998 - 09:12:49 EST
><< The point remains, that when time began (EN ARCHi) the LOGOS, who was
> QEOS, was already existing (HN) with TON QEON. So, we have two persons
> face to face when time began, the LOGOS who was QEOS and One who is
> identified anaphorically as the well-known God of the Old Testament (TON
> QEON). >>
>John 1:1 says nothing about "time." The Bible frequently uses ARCH to refer to
>the beginning of the physical universe. Now, if you mean time as counted from
>that point forward, then there is merit to your position.
Well fair enough, I guess "The Bible" here means LXX:
EN ARCHi EPOIHSEN hO QEOS TON OURANON KAI THN GHN etc.
It's probably also fair to say that Matthew uses ARCH
to refer to the beginning of the physical universe,
although KTIZW in 19:4 and KOSMOU in 24:21 supply this
meaning rather than ARCH itself.
I'm not so certain that John does though. Looking at
the 19 uses of ARCH in Gospel and Epistles one almost
gets the impression that the avoidance of a Genesis
or Matthean ARCH [KTISEWS] is deliberate, even if
8:44 and probably refers to Gen 4, and 1J3:8 to Gen3.
Mark doesn't either, at least not without the the qualifier
ARCH KTISEWS to distinguish from ARCH TOU EUAGGELIOU of 1:1.
Do we think the author of John 1:1 was familiar with the
ARCH of Mark 1:1? (or "Q"1:1 if you prefer)
It also seems unlikely that 1John1:1 AP' ARCHS .. h0
EWRAKAMEN TOIS OFQALMOIS hHMWN and Luke 1:2 AP' ARCHS
AUTOPTAI were written entirely independantly of each
other (though I won't speculate on the sequence).
Given the above, I doubt John 1:1 was intended by the
author as a chronology even if EN ARCHi as a set phrase
does obviously parallel Genesis.
Anyone ever done any thorough study on this?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:02 EDT