Tuesday, May 19, 2020

The Most Popular Scripure That Non-Witnesses Ask Jehovah's Witnesses to Defend Is?

Greek: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.

NIV: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

I have not taken a formal poll or studied this question scientifically, but it seems that the verse I've been asked about, more than any other, is John 1:1, particularly, John 1:1c.

Now we all know John 1:1c has been beaten to death kinda like a dead horse; therefore, I'm not going to keep flogging it, but let's briefly consider John 1:1a. Exactly what does Ἐν ἀρχῇ potentially mean? How should we understand this part of the verse?

The consensus among scholars is that John 1:1 references the same beginning as Genesis 1:1 does. That passage in the LXX states: ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν

Scholars debate just what "the beginning" of Gen. 1:1 is, but the important consideration here is that it's likely not some indefinite past or eternal past referenced in the verse. Genesis 1:1 is likely about the beginning of creation, that is, the initial point of the physical universe. Even if someone wants to question the Genesis 1:1/John 1:1 connection, it's still a fact that Greek grammar cannot settle the question pertaining to the timing for the Johannine Ἐν ἀρχῇ.

https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2016/04/john-11ff-work-in-progress.html

45 comments:

T said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Duncan said...

https://biblehub.com/text/luke/3-2.htm

Duncan said...

"The grammar of John 1:2-3 does not tell us whether a person is in view or not. All we can say in verse 2 is that the Word was with God in the beginning. And all we can say in verse 3 is that all things were created through the Word mentioned in verse 1. Neither of these two words can tell us that the Word is a person, nor can they tell us the Word isn't a person."

So the real question is - why attach and hinge so much on the prologue?

Duncan said...

Not a few scholars have noted that John's Gospel is about the new creation since he routinely uses Genesis creation imagery. Indeed, the new creation of God is the reconciliation of the Genesis creation. The ministry of Jesus is the beginning of the new creation of God.

Edgar Foster said...

I don't want to tread familiar ground, but ῥῆμα in Luke 3:2 seems different than Logos: one is grammatically neuter, but the other is grammatically masculine. ῥῆμα has other nuances that Logos does not and vice versa.

When read in the light of the entire Prologue and whole Gospel, the probability that John is identifying the Word/Logos as a person increases. It is not simply a matter of grammar but of general Johannine usage.

It's funny that Unitarians want to use gender arguments when it suits them, but ignore grammatical gender at other points. They also should read the discourse as a whole--within context. The Word (masculine) was with God in the beginning like the Word with God in v. 1. If pros ton theon comes anywhere close to having the significance M.J. Harris and others think it has, that would be an argument in favor of a personal Logos.

I disagree that we can't discern the personal Word's agency in creation. The verse can certainly be read that way in light of other texts and when compared with the concept of Logos, Wisdom, and Memra, etc. At any rate, understanding the Prologue is essential to comprehending the Fourth Gospel.

As I've posted before, it's possible to read John 1 as an unfolding/explanation of the original and new creation. Not a few scholars read the verse that way.

See Craig Keener, Marianne Meye Thompson, C.K. Barrett, Gerald Borchert, and many more.


Edgar Foster said...

Concerning the point about creation imagery, see https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/creation-imagery-in-the-gospel-of-john/?clearSearch

Notice what the abstract states.

Of course, I posted this entry to answer a question pertaining to arche and whether it has to be understood as an eternal or indefinite past. From the standpoint of grammar, it does not have to be construed thus. All the other stuff is window dressing for now.

Duncan said...

"in light of other texts" - and we have been here before.

Edgar Foster said...

Yes, we have. But like I said before or within the current discussion, multiple criteria actually support the idea that John was talking about a personal Logos. Is it possible to contend for another view like Unitarians do? I don't think we can rule out the Unitarian view entirely, I just find it highly unlikely, but either way--grammar alone cannot solve the problem. Hence, the reason why I say in the light of other texts whether those texts are other Johannine verses, GNT passages or words of Tanakh. Texts should not be read in bare isolation from other texts/contexts. Furthermore, texts are forms of discourse produced by discourse (phatic) communities: only the postmodernists believe otherwise.

Duncan said...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_of_the_Holy_Spirit

Edgar Foster said...

A blog reader identified as "T" posted a G-drive link for John 1:1 versions, but I deleted it when I should not have. But I think this is the link that provides the info I removed: https://drive.google.com/file/d/12raIcg7lDHYsYw78kr9I1Yttq6aSu13N/view

My apologies, but I want all links submitted to be safe.

Duncan said...

http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity/articles/trinscholars.html

Roman said...

Just to add a little point (the prologue as been done to death, and frankly I think almost everything has been already said many times that can be said, and this little point has also been said many times) the term "Logos" has possible/(in my mind plausible) philosophical implications that hreyma just doesn't have.

Saying "well we can't discnern any direct contact with Philo or middle-platonism" doesn't really avoid the point ... I have no direct connection with neo-liberal economic circles, or Arthur Laffer or Milton Friedman, but if I say the phrase "supply-side economics doesn't work," the fact that I have no connection to the Chicago school or Neo-classical school of economics doesn't mean that you can't interpret the term "supply-side" using those schools of thought as a background, especially given the way I use the term.

This is just simple use of language, it's contextual and its context is cultural, it's not dependent on specific ideological affiliations or direct connections (if it was language wouldn't actually work as it does).

Edgar Foster said...

I would agree that Logos has implications of which rhema does not: maybe even philosophical implications. And this is another issue that most articles about the Logos discuss: whence John's use of the word Logos? I like William Barclay's discussion in his John commentary and many others have fine analyses of the subject including John Burnet, Stanley Porter, and Gerald Borchert.

Okay, let's table the Philo connection, and I understand your illustration about supply side economics, even if you have no connection to those particular economic schools. But one thing I would suggest is that words have different meanings within disparate contexts and among varying groups.

For example, Paul likely meant something different when he used pleroma in Colossians although the term possibly evoked other usages. One thing that's always puzzled me about John, however, is that I've wondered how a fisherman (busy with his trade and being "ordinary") could have been theoretically sophisticated.

I'm not saying that a fisherman can't philosophize or read analytical literature: I once did it as a janitor. But times are different now since the Enlightenment has come and gone along with the Protestant Reformation (not in that order, I realize). Furthermore, literacy has increased exponentially since the 1st century CE--so our situation today is not the same as 1st century Palestine.

This reply is getting longer than I wanted it to be, so let me just end by setting forth what has been said by some Johannine scholars: the Johannine Logos probably came from texts like Ps. 33:6 and Genesis 1. Other Jewish works speak about Torah tabernacling with Israel, etc. Either way, as you say, the Logos of John would have resonated with many people, including ancient Greeks.

Edgar Foster said...

Romans, see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2014/12/there-is-substantial-evidence-that.html

Duncan said...

Greek is not the only potential influence of the period.

https://www.ifih.org/GreekLogosandVedicVac.htm

Edgar Foster said...

Duncan, we already know that Sanskrit and Greek have much in common, but why? The most popular hypothesis is that both Sanskrit and Greek originated from Indo-European. But there are other views: see https://www.academia.edu/1898458/Greek_influence_on_Sanskrit

I have no problem believing that Greek and Sanskrit have many things in common. See A.T. Robertson's big Greek grammar and the 4 volume work by Moulton, Howard, and Turner. I'm also slowly reading A.N. Jannaris now; he discusses these issues too.

One problem though is how a 1st century Palestinian fisherman would have been directly influenced by Hinduism or something of the sort. I've yet to see a convincing argument for this hypothesis.

Duncan said...

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27900363?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

Duncan said...

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Bare-Necessities%3A-Ascetic-Indian-Sages-in-'Life-McVane/7efd1f2a7d0b5c13769383401d73ba2ef6d46dfa

Edgar Foster said...

Compare https://books.google.com/books?id=UrpQDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq=links+between+buddhism+and+christianity+and+roman+trade&source=bl&ots=YZiKV3Qpnw&sig=ACfU3U19JSd1IlhSlTZrRxeCLMyxxMVD0g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwivtYmAtMrpAhXCY98KHS35Cd84ChDoATAFegQICxAB#v=onepage&q=links%20between%20buddhism%20and%20christianity%20and%20roman%20trade&f=false

Edgar Foster said...

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1457141?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

Duncan said...

https://sreenivasaraos.com/tag/vac-tattva/

Vac is tied to wisdom.

Edgar Foster said...

The Greek Orthodox normally understand Logos primarily as "reason" in John 1:1, not "word." The Romans defined Logos as ratio et ratio.

Roman said...

That thing about John being a fisherman also perplexes me. But even in his Epistles he is very sophisticated, and in the book of revelation.

One answer that I have thought of (I have not looked into it a lot though) is that John was clearly held in extremely high regard, we have traditions from the fragment of Papias that people would visit John and learn from him, supposedly Polycarp and Ignatius were Johns disciples, so perhpaps, John had discussions with educated Christians who learned form him and also gave him philosophical tools by which he could express things.

At the same time I understand your point there ... I mean reading Jesus in the synoptics is extremely clear he comes from the lower classes and spoke to the lower classes, that doesn't take anything away from his genius, it's just those were the linguistic and conceptual tools he used (Douglass Oakman has done great work on this in Jesus and the Peasants, as well as other scholars who reconstruct Jesus from a socio-economic perspective), whereas you can tell Paul is educated and from a higher social status.

As for John, either he got this philosophical sophistication over his lifetime, or I am over reading the similarities to Philo, or they are explained some other way that I havn't continued.

I will definately look into William Barcley's discussion though.

Thanks for the discussion brother.

T said...

Here’s a document of over 180 different bible translations of John 1:1c that doesn’t have the traditional rendering of John 1:1c as “the Word was God.” https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DI1gb5lCRPSnYh99pE30sn5ujnFcdBiu/view?usp=drivesdk

Here’s a couple interesting article on John 1:1c
1) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ri5kmAmsFlGIodl5TBcMNfrC_JP8Q0x9/view?usp=drivesdk

2) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RpvzRVOGYp_BbHUEatEUAHJqGzR5f5xF/view?usp=drivesdk

3) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sYt1UvtOO1RPeRjsR4UnoIYBeEKpggr6/view?usp=drivesdk

Edgar Foster said...

Thanks, T.

Anonymous said...

After watching this YouTube video on John 1:1 https://youtu.be/NR2Q2Jf44dE a trinitarian, Drew Tucker, posted this in the bible study debate group on Facebook:

“This is for all you Arians (Jehovah Witnesses) out there. I wanted to take the time to share with you an educated view of John 1:1. I have Doctoral level training in Greek Exegesis and it is part of my job to understand, use, and research the New Testament Greek text. I’m not an expert but I have been doing it for 20 years and I am no novice and I’m pretty good at what I do.

Grammar may be boring to some but grammar is the law of language. And if you don’t care to understand it or follow it you will come to false conclusions.

John 1:1 “the Word was God.”

First: Qualitative nouns are not definite or indefinite

The grammatical structure of this statement can neither be “the Word was the God” nor can it be “the Word was a God.” Neither are correct. Why? Because the “Word” is the Subject and “God” is the Predicate Nominative which precedes the verb. And when the Predicate Nominative precedes the verb 80% of the time this is communicating a qualitative noun. It is describing the value, condition, or state of something or someone. In other cases the noun can be definite or indefinite depending on the context or natural reading of the English language. So here in John 1:1, John is communicating that the Word (Jesus) is God quality and condition.

John 1:14 is a good example. If the New World Translation was consistent with how they translated John 1:1, John 1:14 would read “the Word became a flesh”. Here “flesh” is the predicate nominative and in the Greek it precedes the verb “became.” Therefore we know it is communicating a qualitative noun. So it is translated the Word became flesh (quality) not the Word became “a” flesh. But if the New World translators were consistent with their interpretation of Greek grammar 1:14 would say “a flesh” just as 1:1 says “a god” in their bible.

Anonymous said...

Second: NWT does not place an “a” before other nouns or God in other places like they do in John 1:1

Just because a noun lacks a Greek article does not mean you put an “a” in front of it most of the time. If that were true John 1:1-2 would be ‘A’ beginning John 1:4 should be ‘A’ life; John 1:6 should be ‘A’ God; John 1:6 should be ‘A’ John; and John 1:18 should be ‘A’ God. But the New World Translation does not put an “a” in front of any of these nouns in John chapter 1 but it chooses to do so only in John 1:1. There is a reason the main translators of English Bibles do not take seriously the New World translation because it is painfully obvious the bias and it’s failure to follow Greek grammar and be consistent with it.

There are 282 occurrences of “Theos” without an article in the New Testament and out of that 282 times the New World Translation has either “a god, god, gods, or godly.” Sixteen out of 282 is only 6% of the time the NWT translators were consistent with how they treated John 1:1. This is inconsistent based on an obvious theological position not driven by the Greek language.

Third: Theos is not a word for a lower God

The translators are inconsistent for good reason because the word “Theos” is not just used for Jesus as a lower god as they claim. “Theos” is used to refer to Yahweh as well. So the claim that “Theon” is for the Father, while “Theos” denotes a lesser God is unfounded because “Theos” is used to refer to God the Father as well (John 3:2; 3:16; 3:17; 3:33; 3:34; 4:24; 6:27; 8:42; 9:29 etc.). By the way Theos does not have an article in John 8:54 and it refers to Yahweh. And these are examples only in the book of John, there are many other in the NT.

The term “theos”, “theon” or “theou” all different cases of the SAME EXACT Greek word just in different grammatical positions. They are found 8 times in John 1 alone. The Greek article for “the” is only present in 2 of those 8 words for God. Yet the New World Translation only places an “a” in front of theos in John 1:1. Not consistent because they are not following grammar and context but a tenacious belief that Jesus is not God.

Fourth and Finally: just a little something extra . . verb tense

Furthermore, “in the beginning WAS” is in the Imperfect tense. This tense communicates an indefinite amount of time in the past. If this was communicating the Word began at some point in time it would have used the Aorist tense. This grammar denotes the Word simply WAS indefinitely and not that He began at some point.”
https://m.facebook.com/groups/scriptureandtruth/?ref=m_notif&notif_t=group_comment

Anonymous said...

^ this is highly misleading and shows the person hasn't done their research or is being wilfully ignorant.
(I would say this is why this hasn't been responded too)

as Bowman once stated "some good(?) information, but in my opinion not entirely accurate"

Anonymous said...

My apologies Edgar it was not Barclay but rather A.T Robertson:
A.T Robertson has previously pointed out:

"Hence we need not insist that [en](John 1:1)is strictly durative always(imperfect). It may be aorist also."-A Grammar of the N.T. in the Light of Historical Research, p.883.

Anonymous said...

and I will link the source as well: https://archive.org/details/grammarofgreekne00robeuoft/page/882/mode/2up

Edgar Foster said...

Thanks, will check it out. Got to doze now

Edgar Foster said...

Hi Anonymous, I read that part of Robertson and he's talking about "doubtful imperfects" in the context of the part you quoted. One thing to remember is that Robertson contains much fine information but his discussions about aspect/tense are dated. However, according to the context, he's also talking about the form of verbs and not just their aspect. At the end of the day, I think he views en as imperfect in John 1:1.

Here is what Robertson writes in Word Pictures about Jn 1:1:

Was (ην). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of ειμ to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (εγενετο, became) appears in verse 14 for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. See the distinction sharply drawn in 8:58 "before Abraham came (γενεσθα) I am" (ειμ, timeless existence).

The copy I'm using has typos, but I think the point is clear.

Anonymous said...

fair enough, I can admit when I'm wrong and have misquoted someone..

explanation: I interpreted his statement as we could view the en in John 1:1 as an (as he writes it) "aoristic" imperfect. Looking online (recently) others have done the same.
I have my doubts John is trying to convey "timeless existence" as Robertson is trying to make out in Word Pictures - that seems to be out of the range of the word (John 1:10, also ref below) + as Iv said before "the beginning" is referenced by all apostles in every usage as a certain point in the past - never eternity, they use the Greek idiom "into the age of the age" (or the shortened form)for that.
(unless he (Robertson) means non-specified time, but I'm sure he means eternal existence, knowing Robertson in some cases)

Wallace says something similar (I understand it as similar) in GGBTB: "The imperfect is often used to describe an action or state that is in progress in past time from the viewpoint of the speaker."
(pp 540-553 - whole discussion)

In strict terms, like 1 John 5:21, where the action is continuous rather than a snapshot, tense is somewhat misleading. (if you get what I mean)

So then how does the "en" work in John 1:1? (compare John 1:10)

Edgar Foster said...

I'm wrong at least 7 times a day, so you're in good company. Seriously, some of these scholars don't make it easy to decipher their meaning, but I agree with you that the timeless existence idea just stretches how John likely used the imperfect.

I can agree that the imperfect in John 1:1 is continuous or durative, but I don't think it's timeless or points to eternal existence. That's theological conclusion about the imperfect, not a grammatical distinction.

If one sees enough imperfects while reading Greek, then he or she gets a feel for how the imperfect works. For example, look at how John employs en in the Johannine Prologue itself. Btw, John uses en three times in John 1:1. Does each instance denote timeless existence?

Some will argue that John juxtaposes en with ginomai in the Prologue: I don't have time to assess that claim, but I will just point to examples of en for you to analyze:

John 1:2, 4, 8-10; 1:15; 1:28; 1:30, and there's more.

Edgar Foster said...

"Imperfective aspect is the meaning of the present tense, including the so-called imperfect form (augmented present form with secondary endings): the action is conceived of by the language user as being in progress. In other
words, its internal structure is seen as unfolding" (Stanley Porter, Idioms, page 21).

Not that I agree with Porter in every respect, but he might have a point about the imperfect and imperfective aspect.

Anonymous said...

"John uses en three times in John 1:1. Does each instance denote timeless existence?" - I would say no, Origen and Robertson might say so, because its combined with "[the] Beginning"
(but eternity seems out of the range of the word arkhe.)


"the action is conceived of by the language user as being in progress. In other words, its internal structure is seen as unfolding" - so he means (in this case) from "[the] beginning" forward (not backward)? similar to what Wallace says?

"John juxtaposes en with ginomai" - Robertson makes that claim - However its weak, when you consider that Mark and others call "the beginning" the creation of the "heavens and the earth" (whatever that means)* however the angels were created before "the Beginning" and "Wisdom" is said to also exist before the earth, as she was there for the foundation of it.
(stromata 5,6 sort of proves the Witnesses correct, the parallels between that text (and others, Sirach as another) and Jesus are insane)

Hebrews 1 seems to borrow from Wisdom 7

* as in in Mark's head, "the beginning" is when the heavens and the earth were created. (obviously there are exceptions, but they all point to a specific point in the past.)

Edgar Foster said...

I'm going to quote Porter verbatim on the point about what "beginning" possibly means in John 1:1:

"Just as location in a place may be specified with the
preposition EN, so specification of location in time may also be
indicated.
Jn 1.1: EN ARXHi HN hO LOGOS; (in the beginning was the word), probably the most well-known use of this preposition in the NT where
temporal location is designated."

I had to transliterate the Greek characters since they suffered distortion when copied to this combox.

Anonymous said...

So it really says nothing about how long the logos had existed?

sorry I'm not quite understanding

Edgar Foster said...

I didn't have time to check every comment that Porter makes about John 1:1 in his "Idioms" book, but the ones I've read so far just stick to the grammar without really inferring theology from tenses, etc.

Porter believes that Christ (the Logos) is God, so I doubt he thinks that the Word came into existence but he might simply be saying that the imperfect "tense" only tells us so much about the Logos' existence.

Edgar Foster said...

I think people often read theology into something that is not meant to be theological. Greek uses hn in numerous contexts that are anything but theology: it's like saying, "There was a man named John." This is just the way one tells a story or predicates the existence of someone.

Anonymous said...

I mean if its past tense also, they would have to put it in the past the past tense, I realise these do not equate to English tenses but from my understanding, there is no other way to write this..
The John who wrote the book of John is writing from his own view point, in 1:1-18 (roughly) is in the distant past.
en arkhe egeneto
1) makes no sense and sounds goofy in English (as I think it does in Greek, but it may work)
and 2) whether one admits it or not, en doesn't imply eternal existence based on Johns usage of the Wisdom/ logos concept as like the Angels (self-evident, to some its not - because theology) they seem to precede the beginning mentions in Gen

Edgar Foster said...

In another thread today, I cited John 13:23. John uses en there as well. And you are right that egeneto would make no sense used that way in John 1:1.

Anonymous said...

again, I know we have conversed about this before, but could this be an example of what Robertson calls an "aoristic imperfect"? simply a snapshot of a point in time, not regarding time or how long the action took?
Me and you probably differ on this quite a bit. (probably because I am missing something)

also references to the beginning are vague in the Bible, which beginning do you think Jesus is referring when he says "that one is (has been) sinning from the beginning" (literal translation) - The beginning of Jesus' Ministry? (doubt it) of creation? (possibly)

Edgar Foster said...

1) I think you describe the aoristic imperfect accurately, but two things to consider is that it's extremely rare and may possibly be limited to verbs of saying. I guess one could read John 13:23 that way, if we exclude the clause about verbs of saying, but en there just seems like a customary imperfect to me, maybe. Or the imperfect just moves along the narrative (progressive imperfect).

It might be good to consult Wallace on the imperfect: I also like Gildersleeve's discussion.

Nincsnevem said...

Dear 'Anonymous',

as I can see, you are very interested in the subject of the Trinity, let me recommend some good articles on the subject to your attention, you may read these:

https://shorturl.at/mnIX3

https://docdro.id/iSD7hLH

https://docdro.id/YjyzrLz

https://docdro.id/1UdIzcC

https://docdro.id/jP4OtYz