MINI-THREAD: Some brief thoughts on John 1.1-14.
It’s easy for us to read what we already know about the Gospels back into the Gospels’ introductions.
But it may not always be helpful.
Join me, please, in a brief thought experiment.
It’s easy for us to read what we already know about the Gospels back into the Gospels’ introductions.
But it may not always be helpful.
Join me, please, in a brief thought experiment.
Suppose you’re part of a Jewish community in Alexandria in the 1st cent. AD.
And suppose you acquire a copy of John’s gospel.
ἐν ἀρχῇ (‘In the beginning’), you read.
Ah great!, you say. I know how this story goes!
And suppose you acquire a copy of John’s gospel.
ἐν ἀρχῇ (‘In the beginning’), you read.
Ah great!, you say. I know how this story goes!
ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς...(‘In the beginning, God created...’), right?
After all, what noun could legitimately follow the phrase ‘In the beginning’ apart from ‘God’?
And what verb could do so apart from ‘create’?
After all, what noun could legitimately follow the phrase ‘In the beginning’ apart from ‘God’?
And what verb could do so apart from ‘create’?
But, as you read on, things don’t pan out as you thought they would.
The words ἐν ἀρχῇ aren’t followed by the word ‘God’.
They’re instead followed by a reference to an entity known as ὁ λόγος.
The words ἐν ἀρχῇ aren’t followed by the word ‘God’.
They’re instead followed by a reference to an entity known as ὁ λόγος.
Moreover, the λόγος in question isn’t said to be an entity which is ‘created’ or ‘comes to be’ (γίνομαι) in any way, but simply ‘is’ (εἰμί).
Odd, you say to yourself.
Is the λόγος simply another name for God?
Odd, you say to yourself.
Is the λόγος simply another name for God?
καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν.
Ah, evidently not then. Rather, the λόγος in question exists ‘with’ God.
But how can that be?, you ask yourself.
Ah, evidently not then. Rather, the λόγος in question exists ‘with’ God.
But how can that be?, you ask yourself.
ἐν ἀρχῇ denotes t0--the moment when time begins. And time begins whenever the state of the universe first changes.
How, then, can John’s λόγος exist ‘with’ God ἐν ἀρχῇ, i.e., at t0?
θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
Hmmm. Well, that solves one problem at least, you say to yourself.
How, then, can John’s λόγος exist ‘with’ God ἐν ἀρχῇ, i.e., at t0?
θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
Hmmm. Well, that solves one problem at least, you say to yourself.
If the λόγος is *identified* (in some way) with θεὸς, then it might well have the same basic properties as θεὸς--which would explain how it can exist ‘along with’ God at t0.
But what exactly is the force of εἰμί here?
But what exactly is the force of εἰμί here?
Didn’t John just say the λόγος was a separate entity to God--one which existed ‘with’ (πρὸς) him?
You shelve the question and carry on...
You shelve the question and carry on...
METHODOLOGICAL REFLECTIONS:
When we read John’s gospel in this manner, we follow its inherent order of revelation.
First we’re presented with the λόγος, which is a mysterious concept to us.
Is it a synonym for God? Or a separate entity?
When we read John’s gospel in this manner, we follow its inherent order of revelation.
First we’re presented with the λόγος, which is a mysterious concept to us.
Is it a synonym for God? Or a separate entity?
Or an abstract quantity/property of some kind (cp. ‘wisdom’ in Prov. 8)?
Then, as we continue to read, we find the concept of the λόγος gradually filled out,
until it is clearly revealed as personal in 1.11-14.
That journey/progression is reflected more clearly in Greek,
Then, as we continue to read, we find the concept of the λόγος gradually filled out,
until it is clearly revealed as personal in 1.11-14.
That journey/progression is reflected more clearly in Greek,
where 1.2ff.’s masculine pronouns can be read either as a reference to a personal agent or as a reference back to v. 1’s λόγος.
Modern translations typically render 1.2 (οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν) as ‘He was in the beginning with God’,
Modern translations typically render 1.2 (οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν) as ‘He was in the beginning with God’,
but older translations typically have ‘it’ in 1.1-4 (and transition to ‘he’ in 1.10). 
As such, the text of 1.1-14 takes us on a journey of discovery.
Interestingly, however, our direction of travel is the opposite of the disciples’.
The disciples first encountered the Word in the form of human flesh,
Interestingly, however, our direction of travel is the opposite of the disciples’.
The disciples first encountered the Word in the form of human flesh,
and then, over time, God revealed the nature of the one whom they had encountered,
as is finally announced in Thomas’s confession, ‘My Lord and my God!’.
As readers of John, our journey runs in the opposite direction.
as is finally announced in Thomas’s confession, ‘My Lord and my God!’.
As readers of John, our journey runs in the opposite direction.
Both journeys, however, are equally remarkable.
To read about how the immaterial and timeless Creator became flesh and blood (and lived in the midst of his creation) is a simply extraordinary claim to comprehend.
But what, then, are we to make of the disciples’ experiences?
To read about how the immaterial and timeless Creator became flesh and blood (and lived in the midst of his creation) is a simply extraordinary claim to comprehend.
But what, then, are we to make of the disciples’ experiences?
The disciples encountered a man in the course of their daily lives whom they later came to regard him as God incarnate--and that after they’d spent years of their lives in close contact with him!
What kind of man would someone have to be in order to provoke such a belief?
What kind of man would someone have to be in order to provoke such a belief?
A FINAL REMARK:
The concepts discussed in John 1.1-14 are foundational to what follows in John’s gospel.
Life, light, darkness, the world, flesh, blood--all these concepts are taken up in more detail later on.
But what about the λόγος?
The concepts discussed in John 1.1-14 are foundational to what follows in John’s gospel.
Life, light, darkness, the world, flesh, blood--all these concepts are taken up in more detail later on.
But what about the λόγος?
Where is the notion of ‘Jesus as the Logos’ taken up?
One possibility is in the text of 8.58, where Jesus says of himself, ‘I am!’ (ἐγὼ εἰμί).
John’s Logos/Word is introduced to us (in 1.1-2) as an entity which does not ‘come to be’ (γίνομαι), but simply ‘is’ (εἰμί).
One possibility is in the text of 8.58, where Jesus says of himself, ‘I am!’ (ἐγὼ εἰμί).
John’s Logos/Word is introduced to us (in 1.1-2) as an entity which does not ‘come to be’ (γίνομαι), but simply ‘is’ (εἰμί).
As such, it is particularly resonant with Jesus’ declaration, ‘Before Abraham was, I am!’ (πρὶν Ἁβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγώ εἰμι),
where Jesus’ ‘is-ness’ is again contrasted with what ‘comes to be’ (γίνομαι), i.e., Abraham.
THE END.
where Jesus’ ‘is-ness’ is again contrasted with what ‘comes to be’ (γίνομαι), i.e., Abraham.
THE END.
P.S. More detail/background/insight is available in @DrPJWilliams’s customarily thorough thread here:
