Interesting statements-got any references to back them up?
As for the suggestion that “lexi” would have been a more appropriate term for the Hebrew concept of “Word” neither this
online Septuagint concordance
Looking at what C. K. Barrett wrote in his
commentary on John
Unless you can provide references to the contrary, that support the assertions in your post, the sign/symbol distinction *à la Grecque *is still up for debate.
Shalom
First, I would suggest that you try another concordance as this one is missing ten books. Did you notice that?
I have read Barrett’s work. Here are some ideas that he puts forward.
According to Barrett’s commentary, to which you refer, “John’s use of cosmology as a background for his message of salvation is paralleled in other Hellenistic literature,” (p.149). See the Greek Hermatica.
His treatment of this message is unique from the gospels as John combines Hellenistic, Gnostic revelatory discourse and Targumic exposition (p. 149).
Dodd’s Interpretation (p. 281-4) the Prologue was written at two levels, the cosmic and the incarnate being of the Word. Cosmology, as we know, was very poorly developed among ancient Jews, but highly developed among Greeks. What we have here is a Jewish theologian who ties together the prophecies of the incarnation and Greek Cosmology.
Barrett clearly states that “it is doubtful that they can be legitimately described as a rendering in Greek of Semitic verse,” (p. 149), because Semitic verse was not discovered until the 18th century. Most writers of the NT were not aware of the existence of Semitic verse. Therefore, the Prologue is genuinely Hellenistic, not a translation of previous Jewish ideas. It constitutes an entirely new vision of the Christ even using language and style unknown to the Jews and creates a branch of theology that was unknown even to the other Gospel writers, Christology. For the prologue is theology, not narrative nor poetry.
“Only in the Prologue is the term Logos used in a Christological sense. This fact must not be given undue emphasis.” (Barrett p. 151) “Much of John’s Christology is condensed into the term Logos,” (Barrett p. 151).
While it is true that the term “word” if common in the Greek edition of the OT it is used very differently from John’s use. In the OT the “word” is creative and active”, such as Genesis where “God SAYS”. However, in John the Word is timeless and the Word becomes an event. It’s a different nuance. John’s Word was the same Word that was spoken in Genesis, but his Word is also a living being who becomes an event, see Barrett p. 153. Wright also makes it clear that in the OT the term “word” was used as a means of avoiding using the name of God.
John is certainly dependant on the OT, but his use of it differs from other NT writers. He uses fewer citations from the OT and rarely uses proof texts which the other evangelists and Paul often did. To simply state that John is writing from a strictly Jewish perspective is over simplification, (Barrett, p. 27).
The term Logos existed in John’s Hellenistic world. The Logos was God and permeated all living things, (Barrett, p. 35). Where John parts company with the Stoics of Greece is that John reminds us that the Logos is a person, not a divine or supernatural system. This faith is grounded in this person. Now we have the other side of the coin. John has a brush with Greek stoicism, the divine Logos that is present in Platonic philosophy, the OT word, which was creative, but spoken; he redirects our attention to the Logos event. He reminds us that he is a theologian, a historian, and knowledgeable of Greek philosophy, enough to use its terms to present his theological Truth. The Word of God is literally is person of whom he gives witness.
Also, if we read Barrett, p. 299 ff he supports that Jesus Body and Blood in Jn 6; 55-6 means what it says. “The flesh and blood of Jesus are truly food and drink to those who received them, because by means of these a complete and reciprocal indwelling of Christ and the believer is attained.” Barrett is Protestant.
