An inspection of John 1:1

Greek Koine and Biblical and Medieval Greek
21

Although I believe he is from eternity, I did not argue that this passage shows eternity, I’ve mentioned in one of the previous posts that he was AT the beginning. That is, this passage shows us that when the beginning (That is creation) happened he was there. We’d be hard-pressed from this passage alone, to deduce that he was there before the beginning. I am just simply pointing out that “Beginning” refers to creation, and ο λογος was there. If you want to argue that ο λογος was created, you have to deduce that he was created before the beginning of creation. This point being aside, as we are discussing that ο λογος is ο υιος before the incarnation.

From your perspective of impersonality, do you believe ο λογος to be eternal?

[quote-“Isaac Newton”]A noun with an adjective sense is not (and should not be confused for) an adjective.[/quote]

looks like I’ve got some more reading to do :slight_smile: I’ll also have to look and see if I can find an adjective in a PN construction somewhere. If I can’t, then I’ll stop using my Θειος argument!

ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων.

Your interpretation here is dependent on punctuation. I’ve never seen the importance of this issue until now, thank you! Let me elaborate if your not aware of the textual issue.

If we place the full stop after “ἕν” in vs 3 than the life in vs 4 would then refer to life as something Jesus received when he became flesh (like Adam, receiveing life from God in Genesis). if the full stop appears as it does above, then the life would refer to eternal life (ζωη has often been used alone in the gospels to refer to eternal life) which Jesus has for all those who would believe in him. Since the early manuscripts were written mostly without punctuation, it is difficult to say where the punctuation should actually be, hence theology is often used to determine the punctuation (rightly or wrongly). I took a quick look at Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, Sinaticus has the punctuation as I’ve quoted it above, and Vaticanus has none. At most it means either the Ssinaiticus scribe seen it in a previous manuscript, or has inserted the punctuation based on his understanding, either way, Sinaticus is certainly not definitive on this. Looks like something that would be interesting to look into :slight_smile:

looks like Im out of time for today. Time to run off to work.

22

Hi Uberdwane,

Not really, since λογος is the first born of creation. See Col. 1:15.


From your perspective of impersonality, do you believe ο λογος to be eternal?

Frankly, I don’t know how to even begin addressing this question. We could even in a sense argue that the elect are “eternal” since God foreknew them before they were born …

ὅτι οὓς προέγνω, καὶ προώρισεν συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς·

Romans 8:29

I think the question you want to ask is whether λογος is an eternal being, and to this I can offer a resounding no answer.




Your interpretation here is dependent on punctuation. I’ve never seen the importance of this issue until now, thank you! Let me elaborate if your not aware of the textual issue.


If we place the full stop after “ἕν” in vs 3 than the life in vs 4 would then refer to life as something Jesus received when he became flesh (like Adam, receiveing life from God in Genesis). if the full stop appears as it does above, then the life would refer to eternal life (ζωη has often been used alone in the gospels to refer to eternal life) which Jesus has for all those who would believe in him. Since the early manuscripts were written > mostly > without punctuation, it is difficult to say where the punctuation should actually be, hence theology is often used to determine the punctuation (rightly or wrongly). I took a quick look at Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, Sinaticus has the punctuation as I’ve quoted it above, and Vaticanus has none. At most it means either the Ssinaiticus scribe seen it in a previous manuscript, or has inserted the punctuation based on his understanding, either way, Sinaticus is certainly not definitive on this. Looks like something that would be interesting to look into > :slight_smile:

looks like Im out of time for today. Time to run off to work.

The consensus of the textual experts is that ὃ γέγονεν goes with what comes after…

1:3-4 oude en. o gegonen

Should the words o gegonen be joined with what goes before or with what follows? The oldest manuscripts (. . .) have no punctuation here, and in any case the presence of punctuation in Greek manuscripts, as well as in versional and patristic sources, cannot be regarded as more that the reflection of current exegetical understanding of the meaning of the passage.

A majority of the Committee was impressed by the consensus of ante-Nicene writers (orthodox and heretical alike) who took o gegonen with what follows. When, however, in the fourth century Arians and the Macedonian heretics began to appeal to the passage to prove that the Holy Spirit is to be regarded as one of the created things, orthodox writers preferred to take o gegonen with the preceding sentence, thus removing the possibility of heretical usage of the passage.

The punctuation adopted for the text is in accord with what a majority regarded as the rhythmical balance of the opening verses of the Prologue, where the climactic or “stair-case” parallelism seems to demand that the end of one line should match the beginning of the next.

— Bruce M. Metzgar, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament

23

Hi Isaac,

This all depends on how you take the genitive construction and the definition of πρωτότοκος. Again we consult the BDAG Lexicon, which has 2 entries for this word.

1)lit. pert. to birth order, firstborn
2)pert. to having special status associated with a firstborn

Even Thayer recognized an idea of “Supreme rank” with this word, and as you probably know, he was a unitarian as well.

My point here is that, there is solid grounds to see πρωτότοκος as a status, and not necessarily “birth order,” We then see two options for the interpretation of “πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως”. The first is to take it as a partitive genitive, which then would put him as the first thing of all created things, but a created thing nonetheless. That is using the first definition in BDAG. The Second, is to see this as a “genitive of Subordination” which would make him the most important in all creation. which would be partial to the second definition BDAG offers us.

Secondly, I think its a stretch to say Paul was talking about the λογος in this passage, his non use of the term makes it inconspicuous and leads me to think that he views the Beloved Son, and the word as the same. In vs 13 of this chapter he calls Him “του υιου της αγάπης αυτου” and that very thought carries through right to the end of the chapter, if you doubt that, you can read it for yourself. With the immediate context in mind, there is no doubt that Paul is referring to “του υιου της αγάπης αυτου” when he mentions “πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως”. One would have to extend complicated explanations to say that he is not.

Thirdly, his clearly parallel wording to John 1 does not prove that he was talking about “the word” as a non being, especially as mentioned above, paul says of Him “του υιου της αγάπης αυτου.” This undoubtedly shows that he views o λογος and ο υιος as the same.

I have two things to say about this.

  1. Consensus doesn’t always mean right, nor does it mean everyone was in full agreement, and
  2. by consensus, you probably mean, consensus of those on the NA committee.

There are a number of other well learned men who have worked the issues, to name a few:
Wilbur N Pickering, Maurice. A Robinson & William G. Pierpont, Zane Hodges & Arthur Farstad, F.H.A Scrivener. This is just a few and there are certainly more.

We also have a number of Historical editions of the greek NT that contain the stop after γεγονεν, and dispite the little use of punctuation in the early manuscripts, there are still a number of them that contain the stop afterwards (I have a UBS 4 reader and it names a number of manuscripts). You can check sinaiticus yourself: http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=36&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0.

I want to look at some more manuscripts, but I havn’t had the time to.

My point is, a consensus of a single committee does not prove it is right. There are still unknowns and often when this is the case, we see an appeal to Changes made on purpose to combat such and such a heresy. This in itself is unproveable, and considering the esteem with which scripture was held, I find it hard to believe that this would happen as often as it is proposed to, and my view (subjective as it is) is that most scribal variations are the result of accidents.

24

Hi Uberdwane,

Thanks for your thoughts and your time. I appreciate your attempts at offering other possibible interpretations of the verses that we’re discussing, but I want to take a moment to put things into perspective here.

The onus probandi is with those who assert. In other words, it is not enough for those who assert something (in this case, that the bible declares the Deity of Christ) to simply argue that the bible does not deny the Deity of Christ. Rather, what you must do is offer verses which prove the Deity of Christ. Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit.

25

The topic of discussion was not the “deity of Christ,” but that the person of the son existed before the birth of Jesus. Although I believe his full deity, this was not the topic of the conversation.

I have offered evidence of the pre-incarnate existence of the Son on this basis:

  1. The historical use of the word λογος as it pertains to the usage in John 1. See BDAG under Λογος. There are references to “a way of thinking that was widespread… the concept of the Logos, the independent, personified ‘Word’ (of God)”. BDAG then cites Jewish wisdom literature and Philo as sources of this way of thinking.

  2. I referenced Philippians 2 to show that Jesus Made a “pre-incarnate” decision to become man, and that impersonal things do not make decisions.

  3. I cited BDAG and Thayers Lexicon to show that a very plausible translation of “πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως” in Colossians could be translated with subordination in mind rather than a partitive Idea. And in This same passage Paul refers to the “beloved son” when he mentions “πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως”

  4. I’ve offered sources to show that John 1:3-4 has been punctuated in the past and present with the full stop after γεγονεν. And also showed that, although the NA committee made a consensus (doesn’t mean all agreed), many other biblical scholars who were not on the committee don’t agree, I’ve offered names, and I could even give you a number of editions of the GNT that put the stop after γεγονεν.

If your looking for “Hard Facts” the reality is, hard facts are always bent to the bias of the interpreter. For Every source that you say support your idea, I could bring an equal amount of sources to say that they support mine. The reason my interpretation looks wrong to you, is that you come to the table with preconceived ideas about the nature of Christ. I am guilty of the same, so don’t feel bad :slight_smile:

At this point, it becomes less about greek, and more about opionion. With that being said, this will be my last post on the topic. This of course, better to be debated in theology forum elsewhere.

26

We’re inspecting John 1:1 in this thread, so the “Deity” of Christ is certainly fair game since this verse is one of the premier trinitarian texts in this regard…

But, as you wish. What proof (I’ve not seen any yet) can you proffer from the bible that a man can literally exist prior to his conception in his mother’s womb ? According to the bible, human beings come into existence at conception. What you’re suggesting is that Jesus, a man, not only literally pe-existed, but that he eternally existed prior to his conception. But Genesis 1:27 tells us that a man is a creature, and that the very first man came into existence on the 6th day of creation. So if Jesus existed prior to the creation of Adam, it cannot reasonably be argued that he is “a man”. So something has to give.


What I’m looking for is explicit , and irrefutable declaration of Christ’s “Deity” in the GNT . For example, no one can reasonably deny that John 17:3 calls the Father “the only true God” (an indisputable epithet of God) . So a verse which calls Christ “the only true God” would cut it. Or something like this would also do :

  1. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son > almight> y, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

  2. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty

Athanasian Creed, around 600CE

27

Isaac, im new on this forum, from which source do you have the quote? Im curious, because i know this reading is showing up in medieval bibles in italian, occitan, spanish, catalan etc.