Home |FAQ |Message Boards |Site Map |Subject Index |Other Resources |We Believe...
Perilous Times |Unitarian Christology |Logically Speaking |Sacred Names |Faith-Doctrine
|
Grammar ConsiderationsThe De-Mystified Logos by Phil Maxwell July 2000; Revised August 2003
1. Personal Pronouns
Another deceptive element common to modern translations of John’s Prologue can be found in the use of pronouns. In English, we use pronouns in substitution of previously stated nouns, and those pronouns bear gender connotations (masculine, feminine, or neuter). For instance, one might refer to a man as ‘he’ or ‘him’, or a woman as ‘she’ or ‘her’, but neither as ‘it’. Neither would one ordinarily refer to an inanimate object as ‘he/him’ or ‘she/her’ unless they wished to employ the previously discussed literary tool of personification (like calling a ship or car ‘she’). Unless an obvious personification was involved, use of a gender-oriented pronoun for a thing would erroneously convey the thought of personhood. That is exactly the effect of modern renderings of the thing called ‘logos’ in John 1 as ‘he’ and ‘him’ – it misleads the unwitting into believing that John intended to characterize the ‘word’ or ‘logos’ as a literal person, when nothing could be further from the truth. The Greek pronouns employed for the logos in John 1 are actually gender neutral and impersonal, meaning they assume the character of whatever they refer to. Since this aspect of Greek differs from English, translators are compelled to interpret such pronouns according to the context. That being the case, one cannot particularly fault the use of ‘he’ or ‘him’ with regard to logos, especially given the personification in which it was presented. As the UBS Scholars explain,
However, given the general unfamiliarity and deliberate deceptions shrouding the logos in the minds of modern people, this effectively obfuscates the true nature of the logos as a thing and the fact that John used it as a personification. It leads people to ponder ‘who is the Word?’ rather than the more appropriate question of ‘what is the word?’ – a mindset I have encountered many times. Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary rightly notes: We interpret the Bible properly when we learn to ask the right questions of the text. The problem here is that many people do not know what the right questions are, or they are too lazy to learn.1 While the personal pronouns ‘he’ and ‘him’ may be technically acceptable renderings of the Greek ‘autos’ and ‘houtos’, so also would be ‘it’. In fact, this personalization of the logos in John 1 is the only place in the New Testament where such personal pronouns are used with reference to the logos, making it a notable exception. Since the logos is an ‘it’ everywhere else in Scripture and the Greek text does not justify an exception (as well as by definition), the thought behind the logos in John 1 would be more accurately conveyed as an ‘it’ rather than ‘he’ or ‘him’. 2. Capitalization added by translators
Capitalization of the term ‘Word’ in most translations, as well as the aforementioned pronouns ‘He’ and ‘Him’ also contributes to the impression of the literal personhood and deity of the ‘word’ or ‘logos’, even though neither the Greek text nor the true meaning of ‘logos’ justifies this in the least. On the contrary, this reflects the assumption of personhood and corresponding doctrinal bias injected into the passage by translators, not the original thought of its author. 3. ‘With’ and ‘WITH’ - The true meaning of
‘pros’
Another factor to consider with regard to the personification of the logos in Jn. 1 is the preposition ‘pros’, which is not particularly well translated as ‘with’ (as in, “the word was with God...”) in verse 1. ‘Pros’ is a common preposition that indicated more than simple togetherness, as Vine's notes, “not mere company, but the most intimate communion.”5 Vincent expands on this by saying,
The translation ‘the word (logos) was with God’ implies a static relationship, as though to simply say that one person was with another, but that isn’t the true meaning. What it means is more like the word or logos was moving towards, proactively interrelated, or in agreement with God. ‘With’ is not a bad translation of ‘pros’ per se, as long as it is understood to mean essentially what the American Heritage Dictionary lists as number 7 of 26 definitions for the word ‘with’:
The phrase ‘the Word was with God’ is commonly understood to mean that person of Christ was in the presence of God in the beginning, as though God and His word were two distinct beings dwelling together in heaven. However, what it really means is that the word (of God) was proactively accomplishing His purposes from the beginning, which more or less simply restates the fact that the material creation came forth as a consequence of Yahweh’s word (Gen 1:1, Heb 11:3, etc.) …no other person is inferred at all, only the thing called the logos, the word of God.
|
