Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
  • Bill Ross
    ... It has to do with the lexicons. It has to do with the context. The lexicons I have referred to seem to indicate that a LOGOS is an utterance.
    Message 1 of 3 , May 7, 2005
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      >>Like Jeffrey Gibson, i must also ask why you translate logos as utterance.

      I have referred to seem to indicate that a LOGOS is an utterance. The
      context, a direct reference to Genesis 1, and creation, refer not to any 4th
      century Roman born Trinity, no Greek idea of "logic" (despite the
      etymological fallacy so commonly invoked), no appeal to Philo - John is
      immersing himself in Gen 1. Moses. Torah. He is a Jew.

      Is this too biased a reading? I think not. The LXX is the primary Jewish
      text, not Philo. Not even in the 1st century.

      >>i have just completed a book entitled The Testimony of the Fourth
      Evangelist to the Johannine Community: We Know His Witness is True (
      Trafford Publishing, 2004). In chapter 7, i deal with The Logos.

      Congratulations. I have deep respect for anyone who completes a book! Bravo!
      (No, I am not being the least bit sarcastic).

      >>Obvisouly, Logos is the Greek word used in this Greek document, but its
      use i believe is related to the Hebrew "davar" and the Aramaic "memra".

      Do you think John translated EN ARKH from Hebrew? Might he not have used the
      most proper Greek word extant to refer to the utterance in Gen 1? You are
      drawing firm conclusions from tenuous assumptions. The text we have is
      Greek. The entire NT is Greek. The scriptures quoted in the NT are LXX. John
      alludes to the LXX specifically in the first 2 words.

      But again, sure - DAVAR and MEMRA may be out there - how does that trump the
      LXX and the Greek lexicons? He said O LOGOS - he said EN ARKH - he refers to
      the making of the PANTA "by means of" this LOGOS. What a mountain of
      evidence of a direct reference to Gen 1 is being ignored because of a
      specious assumption of an Aramaic or even Hebrew linguistic background that,
      conincidentally, do not preclude a reading of "utterance!"

      >>The Targums are full of the use of "memra" in association with "the Memra
      of God". All of these uses are in reference to not an "utterance", but a
      dynamic statement such as that used in Genesis to refer to the power of God
      in creation by His spoken commands.

      Hmm. This distinction eludes me. What is the difference between "utterance"
      and "dynamic statement"? If you are merely arguing that "spoken commands" is
      more germane to the meaning of DAVAR or MEMRA, I am not upset, as you are
      really just adding an intensive aspect. If you are asserting that a "dynamic
      statement" or a "spoken command" is belied by the use of "utterance" - I am
      at a loss to understand why you prefer "word?"

      >>I will mention only two other 'translations' you made as "the utterance
      was divine". i believe the writer of John did not mean "divinity" which is
      really defined as "having the attributes of God", but "deity" which is
      defined as being God.

      "I believe" is not relevant. Mounce argues that the construction is related
      to quality, not identification. Luther (as well as Mounce) rejected your
      reading as Seballianism.

      >>There is no doubt in my mind that the Fourth Gospel stresses the Deity of
      Jesus Christ.

      Interestingly, the verse in question makes no mention of Jesus or of a
      Trinity. The whole of the 4th gospel makes no assertion that Jesus is God.
      This prooftext, I have demonstrated, is clearly referring to the utterance
      of God in Gen 1.

      >>Lastly, translating "kosmos" into the term "lost community" is moving here
      to a theological translation. Kosmos is the world in which we live, and as
      Newman and Nida note in "A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of John"
      (page 16), "the light that comes to the people in the world".

      So how do you translation KOSMOS in John? Is it "the people in the world"?
      If so, does it include saints? For example, how do you read this?:

      it, that the works thereof are evil.

      therefore the world hateth you.

      Bill Ross