John 1:1

  • Thread starter Thread starter wittgenstein
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

wittgenstein

Guest
I believe that in John 1:1 “logos” should not have been translated as “word”. By doing so,it gives the impression that logos is a signifier and not a signified. That,in my opinion drastically distorts the message.
Comments?
 
I got into an argument with a born again Christians on this topic how the word was with God. He said it was the bible I said that it was Jesus what do you think
 
I do not get that impression. Then again, I have heard numerous Homilies and read numerous books that express the signified and not the signifier.
 
wittgenstein said:
I believe that in John 1:1 “logos” should not have been translated as “word”. By doing so,it gives the impression that logos is a signifier and not a signified. That,in my opinion drastically distorts the message.
Comments?
Click to expand...
Please elaborate a little bit–especially what you think those terms “signifier” and “signified” mean, and what the message in John 1,1 ought to be, since you say the translation “word” is a distortion.

-ACEGC
 
I’m not entirely understanding your question. Is there a certain meaning that you believe it should be? The answer can be very simple if we understand what your point is.
 
I see translating it as word as the perfect translation, as we attribute Jesus to being the Word of God, he is then both signifier and signified. Jesus is God, the Son of God, the Word, God Incarnate, and more. Specifically, as God Incarnate, Jesus is a physical manifestation of God that resided here on Earth.
 
wittgenstein said:
I believe that in John 1:1 “logos” should not have been translated as “word”. By doing so,it gives the impression that logos is a signifier and not a signified. That,in my opinion drastically distorts the message.
Comments?
Click to expand...
I wish I could find the podcast on this subject, but I am unable to 😦

It was over at Ancient Faith Radio dot com, maybe you, or someone else can locate it if interested!

Here is a link, but not the one I had in mind 😦

ancientfaith.com/podcasts/carlton/glad_tidings_for_philosophers
 

From a footnote in the Jerusalem bible (66).​

The O.T. speaks of the word of God, and of his Wisdom,
present with God before the world was made, cf. Pr 8:22+; Ws 7:22+;
by it all things were created;
it is sent to earth to reveal the hidden designs of God;
it returns to him with its work done, Is 55:10-11; Pr 8:22-36; Si 24:3-22; Ws 9:9-12.

On its creative role, cf. also Gn 1:3,6 etc.; Is 40:8,26; 44:24-28; 48:13; Ps 33;6; Jdt 16:14; Si 42:15;
on its mission, cf. Ws 18:14-16; Ps 107:20; 147:15-18.

For John, too, 13:3; 16:28,
the Word existed before the world in God, 1:1,2; 8:24+; 10:30+;
it has come on earth, 1:9-14; 3:19; 9:39; 12:46, cf. Mk 1:38+,
being sent by the Father, 3:17,34; 5:36,43; 6:29; 7;29; 8:42; 9:7; 10:36;11:42;17:3,25, cf. Lk 4:43,
to perform a task, 4:43+,
namely to deliver a message of salvation to the world, 3;11+; 1:33+;
with its mission accomplished it returns to the Father, 1:18; 7:33; 8:21; 12:35; 13:3; 16:5; 17:11,13; 20:17.

The Incarnation enabled the N.T., and especially John, to see this separately and eternally existent Word-Wisdom as a person.
 
wittgenstein said:
I believe that in John 1:1 “logos” should not have been translated as “word”.
Click to expand...
The thing is, though, that the semantic unit here isn’t λόγος (‘word’), but rather ὁ λόγος (‘the word’). That’s significant.
By doing so,it gives the impression that logos is a signifier and not a signified.
Click to expand...
I would assert that ὁ λόγος is a signifier. By using this phrase three times in the first verse, in places in which an article is not grammatically necessary, John is making a particular statement: he’s not talking about a ‘word’, but rather, about ‘The Word’ – the Second Person of the Trinity! What John does isn’t a ‘distortion’ of the message, but rather, a quite forceful assertion of the Gospel message!

(Let me take this from another perspective, as well. ‘Logos’ was a term that was well-known within the Hellenistic tradition: Platonist philosophical thought used this term as a signifier for part of its conception of the divine. By appropriating this term in the way that he does, John is identifying that a concept already in play – Logos as an aspect of God – was consonant with Christian theological thought. Greeks could continue to look upon Logos with the same reverence, but firmly within the context of Christian belief.)
 
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
… is this the passage you mean?
 
Response to post 4
Words are signifiers. For example, the word “dog” refers to something doglike. The word “dog” signifies a reality even tho it has no resemblance to a dog.
Logos is an animating presence and not a symbol. Yes, logos is also a word.However,emphasizing its signifier side (by calling it a word) distracts from its meaning. See 2 Corinthians 3:6
 
Actually in some sense you could say that the Logos signifies something since he is the Word spoken by the Father, and thus the fullness of revelation of God. According to your logic, we shouldn’t use any word for anything because words of themselves do not resemble that which they signify.

-ACEGC
 
I suppose since all we use (in language) are words, one can translate,“for God so loved the world…” as “word word word word word word”.
I think that the word “logos” is more accurate then the word “word”. Note that I am not criticizing scripture, only its translation.
 
Loving_disciple said:
I got into an argument with a born again Christians on this topic how the word was with God. He said it was the bible I said that it was Jesus what do you think
Click to expand...
The Word is the Son who became Jesus so you were right. The Bible contains the Word of God but is the words of men.
 
wittgenstein said:
I suppose since all we use (in language) are words, one can translate,“for God so loved the world…” as “word word word word word word”.
I think that the word “logos” is more accurate then the word “word”. Note that I am not criticizing scripture, only its translation.
Click to expand...
Then use “logos.” No law against it. 👍
 
wittgenstein said:
I think that the word “logos” is more accurate then the word “word”.
Click to expand...
:confused: Umm… the word ‘logos’ is the word ‘word’ – ‘logos’ literally means ‘word’. It’s not an ‘accuracy’ issue, it’s a question of whether you translate it or not.
Note that I am not criticizing scripture, only its translation.
Click to expand...
So, what you’re saying is that any Bibles in Greek should read “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God”, but the Bible in every other language should read “In the beginning was the logos, and the logos was with God, and the logos was God”…? That doesn’t make any sense…
 
Logos does not =word. “word” refers to the concept" signifier. * "Logos refers to an animating principle, metaphorically speaking the substance behind the form,the principle of rationality behind a rational syllogism. Logos does not refer to a particular syllogism.
Saying that God is the word is similar to me saying "I am the word “person”. This distorts scripture. One will get the impression that God=his moral law (which is very important,but not the entirety of God.).
  • “word” is a sub set of signifier.
 
I think you’re trying to impose post-modernistic definitions upon ancient concepts.

-ACEGC
 
ProVobis said:
Then use “logos.” No law against it. 👍
Click to expand...
He’s trying to get to the point that with logos there is no chance that this “word” being with God could have been Jesus.

But whether it be “logos” or “word” or “supercalafragelisticexpialadocious” it still is seen in the sense that Christ was with God and is God
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top