The final and correct interpretation of John 1.1

by Hellrider 79 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Hellrider

  Narkissos:

  In John the Son of Man is to return to where he was before, which suggests a personal pre-existence in a mythological setting. ;In Pauline literature, which does not resort to the "logos" concept, the Son of God is also a pre-existent being.

  Isn`t it possible that he could be both, in John? The Son and the Father are, by Jesus own words, the same in will too. This would be logical, if the Son is the thought (word) of the Father/in the Fathers mind (in Johns thinking). I know I might be reading to much into this, of course, but still...there isn`t anything inlogical about Jesus both being a heavenly being, an earthly, physical human, and Gods thought, all at the same time (well, no more inlogical than the trinity-doctrine as a whole, that is). The question is whether this is what (the author) of John meant, when writing this.
• 

  Narkissos

  This raises the question of how the logos and the Son connect to each other. Which is first, which is second? Which is subject, which is predicate? Which is the name, which is the attribute? Which is "real," which is "metaphor"? Of course you can reply "both" to every question, but I think they are worth asking anyway. The basic issue being, does the Johannine logos describe the personal incarnation of something impersonal (the "thought" of God, for instance, as revealed in Jesus) or the impersonal qualification of someone (a pre-existent being which is depicted as the "thought" of God)?

  One very important thing to note is that the logos plays no significant role in the rest of the Gospel, where Jesus is "the Son". This, among other things, has led most scholars to conclude that the Prologue is originally independent from the Gospel. Reciprocally, the word huios ("son") does not appear in the Prologue, but a semantically close one, monogenès, "only (son)" (often overtranslated "only-begotten") occurs twice in v. 14-18 (which may be an addition to the original Gnostic hymn). In v. 14 it is interestingly used in a secondary, comparative way: "And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father's only son (hôs monogenous para patros)." V. 18 is quite difficult textually and exegetically, but it might be construed as a complex metaphor: "No one has ever seen God. It is 'God the only son who is in the bosom of the father' (monogenès theos ho ôn eis ton kolpon tou patros) who has made him known." I think this reflects the logical difficulty (in that case for the redactor adaptating the original hymn) of putting logos and "Son" at the same epistemological level. Once the logos is the subject, the altogether different idea of "son" naturally takes a somewhat secondary place -- which is not the case in the rest of the Gospel, where Jesus is the Son.

  Which leaves the question open: in the Prologue, is the logos personal or impersonal? Mr. Word or the Word-thought of God? If we look to the Gnostic use of myth, where abstract qualities such as logos, nous or sophia are depicted as personal emanations from the unnamed origin, we might have a clue as to why this is objectively impossible to decide. The text is deliberately ambiguous. The religious (or superstitious) reader sees "someone" where the philosophical (or Gnostic) mind understands "something".
• 

  Leolaia

  Narkissos....What are your thoughts on the relation between the Prologue of the Fourth Gospel and the introduction in 1 John? They share common language and concepts, suggesting that perhaps the hand that added the Prologue to John was the author of 1 John, yet they may instead have distinct theological nuances (which could still be explained if the Prologue was a pre-existing poem).

  "That which was from the beginning (= John 1:1), which we have heard, which we have seen (= 1:14, 18) with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched--this we proclaim concerning the Word (= 1:1, 14) of life (= 1:4). 2 The life (= 1:4) appeared (= 1:14); we have seen it (= 1:14, 18) and testify to it (= 1:7), and we proclaim to you the eternal life (= 1:4), which was with the Father (= 1:1-2) and has appeared to us (= 1:14). 3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father (= 1:1-2) and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4 We write this to make our joy complete. 5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light (= 1:1c, 4-5, 8-9); in him (= 1:4) there is no darkness (= 1:5) at all. 6 If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin" (1 John 1:1-7).

  Striking, too, how "the life" is conceptualized in partly abstract and partly personal terms.
• 

  JamesThomas

  If anyone reading this is interested in significant inner discovery, I would not glance over too quickly what Poppers had to say.

  Narkissos, you said the answer to Poppers question, "unfortunately" lies within the question: "There is no "me" without words. So "what" are you when thoughts and words aren't arising?". You're correct that the answer does indeed exist - in a sense - within the answer. But to just think that you are nothing when there is no thought, and not look further, may be the biggest mistake we could ever make. A mistake which may cost us the realization of our true Identity. In this light, the answer is not at all "unfortunate", it is our indifference which is unfortunate.

  René Descartes was 180 degrees off when he said "I think, therefore I am". He was completely ignoring the most intimate and profound foundation that must first exist before anything including thought can arise: Conscious-awarness. It would have been closer to the truth, had he said "I am, therefore I think."

  Our foundational truth, void of thought, is far, far from nothing. Indeed the limited mind can not grasp it's Source and so may conceptualize it has simply nothing. But it is a "nothing" pregnant with all universes and phenominal existence. It is a "nothing" without beginning and without end. It is a "nothing" that is the Divine truth of your Being. It may not be wise to discount It too quickly. In fact, it may be wise to give sincere and earnest investigation into this "nothing".

  j
• 

  gumby
• 

  Ianone

  Hellrider, your analysis fits with the Modalist philosophy on the nature of Christ. I agree with you.
• 

  Leolaia

  Narkissos....I was just taking a look at Smalley's commentary and he makes an interesting claim about the theological implications of the qualitative anarthrous nouns in Johannine literature. He notes that the Logos of God is "the light" (to phós) in John 1:7-9, 1 John 2:8 while God himself is "light" (phós, anarthrous), just as he is also love (1 John 4:8, 16), and spirit (John 4:24). Smalley suggests that the qualitative sense of the anarthrous predicate nouns is to stress the absoluteness and transcendence of God, for the abstract quality itself is absolute and infinite in application, while the definiteness of the Logos corresponds to the Logos as a definite manifestation of the quality, such that the Logos is what is seen and beheld and who reveals the unseen transcendant Father. As appealing as this idea is, I am having trouble relating it to John 1:1, which has virtually the same syntax (with the anarthrous noun in a preverbal position before a copula, i.e. ho theos phós estin, theos én ho logos), but which relates the Logos to the anarthrous qualitative noun. So would the anarthrous theos here represent the infinite unbounded deity of the Logos, while ho theos represents deity not in its absolute sense but as a definite manifestation of God? This would seemingly be at odds with the otherwise transcendent characterization of God as love, light, spirit, etc. Or is the idea that the Logos is just as transcendent as the Father? Or is Smalley's approach just inappropriate?
• 

  Hellrider

  Just one more thing, which I guess is a bit off-topic, but I don`t wanna start even another thread on this issue. Who is the one talking in Proverbs 8,22 (or well, all of 8).

  Ianone: Thanks for the support, but, well, I started this post as a defense of trinitarianism. The more I learn about early christianity, the more I see trinitarianism as a part of christianity from the very beginning. But that includes the Father, from the OT, Ianone, a god you don`t believe in.

  Leolaia:

  This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light (= 1:1c, 4-5, 8-9); in him (= 1:4)there is no darkness

  This is also very interesting. Most references to the one with life "in itself" and the "light" are pointing to Jesus, thruout the gospels, especially John. And here it says "God is light". Very interesting.
• 

  Narkissos

  Leolaia,

  What seems obvious is that the epistle is dependent on the Gospel Prologue (i.e. not the original hymn, but its adapted form) because it also frequently echoes the rest of this Gospel. One often noted feature is that the logos in 1 John draws back from personalisation and speculation (whether in the abstract, philosophical way or in the mythological, religious way). As a result logos is here closer to the common meaning of "word, message".

  "That which (neuter) was from the beginning (= John 1:1), which we have heard, which we have seen (= 1:14, 18) with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched--this we proclaim concerning (peri + gn) the Word (= 1:1, 14) of life (= 1:4). 2 The life (= 1:4) appeared (= 1:14); we have seen it (= 1:14, 18) ;and testify to it (= 1:7), and we proclaim to you the eternal life (= 1:4), which was with the Father (= 1:1-2) ;and has appeared to us (= 1:14). 3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father (= 1:1-2) and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4 We write this to make our joy complete. 5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light (= 1:1c, 4-5, 8-9); in him (= 1:4) ;there is no darkness (= 1:5) ;at all. 6 If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all ; sin" (1 John 1:1-7).

  ***

  So would the anarthrous theos here represent the infinite unbounded deity of the Logos, while ho theos represents deity not in its absolute sense but as a definite manifestation of God?; This would seemingly be at odds with the otherwise transcendent characterization of God as love, light, spirit, etc.; Or is the idea that the Logos is just as transcendent as the Father?; Or is Smalley's approach just inappropriate?

  I'm not sure I understand what you mean. It seems to me that Smalley's argument makes much sense when limited to the use (or non-use) of the article with the predicate, but I doubt that can be extrapolated to other syntactical functions, especially not to the subject...
• 

  Narkissos

  JamesThomas,

  OK I should have .

  But as it is too late for that I will rather express myself fully just this once (and when I say just this once I mean it). I must admit I am increasingly upset, not by the message but by the tone (which I could qualify as peremptory, often preachy and sometimes a bit inquisitorial) of the Self-Awareness commando, popping in regardless of the topic to proclaim (!) the unspeakability of whatever is being discussed.

  to just think that you are nothing when there is no thought, and not look further, may be the biggest mistake we could ever make. A mistake which may cost us the realization of our true Identity. In this light, the answer is not at all "unfortunate", it is our indifference which is unfortunate.

  Well that sounds like a pretty dualistic way of overcoming dualism. Reinscribing its own "hell" or "judgement" into the process. I would rather suggest that "our true Identity" is what we ultimately cannot miss. And that it eventually encompasses and redeems all the relative, partial, ideas and forms of our individual "beings". This is what I retain from Christian faith I guess.

  René Descartes was 180 degrees off when he said "I think, therefore I am". He was completely ignoring the most intimate and profound foundation that must first exist before anything including thought can arise: Conscious-awarness. It would have been closer to the truth, had he said "I am, therefore I think."

  Incidentally, this is just what Descartes meant. The ergo doesn't express a factual, but a cognitive causality: "From the fact I think I know that I am" (= "I am not a sensorial illusion"); in factual causality it implies: "I must first be in order to think."

  Our foundational truth, void of thought, is far, far from nothing. Indeed the limited mind can not grasp it's Source and so may conceptualize it has simply nothing. But it is a "nothing" pregnant with all universes and phenominal existence. It is a "nothing" without beginning and without end. It is a "nothing" that is the Divine truth of your Being. It may not be wise to discount It too quickly. In fact, it may be wise to give sincere and earnest investigation into this "nothing".

  I am very unwise. I am quite fond of mystical insights but I am equally reluctant about any mystical "discipline" and "method". This can be a lazy excuse. This can also be a consciousness of the ever present risk of self-delusion. Believe it or not I do not "discount" the "nothing" you are speaking of, instead I take it very seriously. So seriously, in fact, that I am quite wary of sneakingly reintroducing capitalised words and concepts like "Divine," "Source," "Being" and "Awareness" into it.