John 1:18
Thursday, 12. November 2009, 02:58:26
John 1:18
Internal Evidence for the Reading θεός (QEOS) vs. υἱός (hUIOS).
In text criticism, there are two major divisions of evidence:
1) The external witnesses. These include, in order of priority, a) actual
manuscript copies), b) ancient versions (translations), and c) citations in
Early Christian Writers (ECW’s). These constitute “hard evidence.”
2) Internal Evidence. This is evidence from the text itself, and asks the
question, “Given a texual difference among the external witnesses, what
would the author most likely have written based on his style and content?”
“What exegetical considerations might lead us to make a determination one
way or the other?”
It should be clear that there is always going to be a subjective element to
the internal witness, since it results largely from interpretation of the
text. The external witnesses, despite the claims of some critics such as
Emmanuel Tov, must always remain primary. Nevertheless, when the external
witnesses are close in terms of the readings, internal criteria may
sometimes help resolve the issues. In this brief essay, which at this point
is only effectively an outline, I wish to point out one major composition
issue that leads us toward the reading θεός (QEOS), and also discuss
syntactical considerations which show the consistency of the reading with
John’s understanding of the LOGOS-QEOS of John 1:1-18.
Ring Composition
John 1:18 shows specific stylistic markers that indicate the necessity of
seeing it as a section, specifically as an introduction or a prologue to the
rest of John’s gospel. This includes the themeatic nature of the text, a
series of generalized statements in discourse style, but in observably
non-narrative format, that introduce the major themes that John will
reference time and time again throughout the document. Another stylistic
marker is “ring composition,” a form of parallelism in which the section
ends with a repetition or paraphrase of the language with which it began.
In this case, the repetition of θεός (QEOS) in 1:18 would provide a perfect
reflection of the claims with which John begins his gospel, the Logos as the
Creator/Redeemer with the Logos become flesh as the Revealer/Redeemer.
Exegetical Notes
It has been claimed that the language of John 1:18, if θεός is read, will
result in bitheism (a two gods theology) rather than a Trinitarian
understanding. The actual syntax of the the passage will not, however allow
this, any more than at John 1:1. Vs. 18 begins with the statement that “no
one has ever seen God,” a statement that itself must be very carefully
qualified. Monotheistic readers would at this point read the anarthrous
θεόν as the one true God, although if they had read or listened carefully,
might be suspicious that this is still part of John’s expansion of the term
begun at 1:1, and they would be correct. John then goes on to state that
the “the only begotten God (μονογενς θεός) the one being (ὁ ὤν) in closest
kinship with the Father, he has explained him.”
1. Whether μονογενής should be translated “unique” or “only-born/generated”
is another discussion. What is clear from the lexical evidence is that the
term implies a unique relationship best suited to only children, and so I
have used the traditional rendering here. “Only begotten God” is no more
strange than the the claim at John 1:1, that the Logos is both with God and
is God himself, or that Jesus, despite his several claims to deity
throughout the gospel of John, should refer to his Father as “the only true
God” (John 17:3). The ancient church theologians, however, read this word
of the eternal relationship of the Father and the Son, that the Son is fully
God, being generated by the Father from all eternity. It certainly implies
the traditional Trinitarian belief that the distinction between the first
and second persons of the Trinity are the qualities of Fatherhood and
Sonship.
2. The phrase translated above, “the one being” (ὁ ὤν) is reminiscent of
the language used at LXX Ex 3:14, and may be a deliberate attempt to recall
that language.
3. The use of the participial phrase explains in part the lack of the
article for θεός. The participial phrase, is used substantively and is the
effective subject, with θεός acting as the predicate, the same syntax as at
John 1:1c, with λόγος as the subject and θεός as the predicate. The use of
the participial phrase in the non-attributive position emphasizes the
relationship of the only-begotten God to the Father.
Internal Evidence for the Reading θεός (QEOS) vs. υἱός (hUIOS).
In text criticism, there are two major divisions of evidence:
1) The external witnesses. These include, in order of priority, a) actual
manuscript copies), b) ancient versions (translations), and c) citations in
Early Christian Writers (ECW’s). These constitute “hard evidence.”
2) Internal Evidence. This is evidence from the text itself, and asks the
question, “Given a texual difference among the external witnesses, what
would the author most likely have written based on his style and content?”
“What exegetical considerations might lead us to make a determination one
way or the other?”
It should be clear that there is always going to be a subjective element to
the internal witness, since it results largely from interpretation of the
text. The external witnesses, despite the claims of some critics such as
Emmanuel Tov, must always remain primary. Nevertheless, when the external
witnesses are close in terms of the readings, internal criteria may
sometimes help resolve the issues. In this brief essay, which at this point
is only effectively an outline, I wish to point out one major composition
issue that leads us toward the reading θεός (QEOS), and also discuss
syntactical considerations which show the consistency of the reading with
John’s understanding of the LOGOS-QEOS of John 1:1-18.
Ring Composition
John 1:18 shows specific stylistic markers that indicate the necessity of
seeing it as a section, specifically as an introduction or a prologue to the
rest of John’s gospel. This includes the themeatic nature of the text, a
series of generalized statements in discourse style, but in observably
non-narrative format, that introduce the major themes that John will
reference time and time again throughout the document. Another stylistic
marker is “ring composition,” a form of parallelism in which the section
ends with a repetition or paraphrase of the language with which it began.
In this case, the repetition of θεός (QEOS) in 1:18 would provide a perfect
reflection of the claims with which John begins his gospel, the Logos as the
Creator/Redeemer with the Logos become flesh as the Revealer/Redeemer.
Exegetical Notes
It has been claimed that the language of John 1:18, if θεός is read, will
result in bitheism (a two gods theology) rather than a Trinitarian
understanding. The actual syntax of the the passage will not, however allow
this, any more than at John 1:1. Vs. 18 begins with the statement that “no
one has ever seen God,” a statement that itself must be very carefully
qualified. Monotheistic readers would at this point read the anarthrous
θεόν as the one true God, although if they had read or listened carefully,
might be suspicious that this is still part of John’s expansion of the term
begun at 1:1, and they would be correct. John then goes on to state that
the “the only begotten God (μονογενς θεός) the one being (ὁ ὤν) in closest
kinship with the Father, he has explained him.”
1. Whether μονογενής should be translated “unique” or “only-born/generated”
is another discussion. What is clear from the lexical evidence is that the
term implies a unique relationship best suited to only children, and so I
have used the traditional rendering here. “Only begotten God” is no more
strange than the the claim at John 1:1, that the Logos is both with God and
is God himself, or that Jesus, despite his several claims to deity
throughout the gospel of John, should refer to his Father as “the only true
God” (John 17:3). The ancient church theologians, however, read this word
of the eternal relationship of the Father and the Son, that the Son is fully
God, being generated by the Father from all eternity. It certainly implies
the traditional Trinitarian belief that the distinction between the first
and second persons of the Trinity are the qualities of Fatherhood and
Sonship.
2. The phrase translated above, “the one being” (ὁ ὤν) is reminiscent of
the language used at LXX Ex 3:14, and may be a deliberate attempt to recall
that language.
3. The use of the participial phrase explains in part the lack of the
article for θεός. The participial phrase, is used substantively and is the
effective subject, with θεός acting as the predicate, the same syntax as at
John 1:1c, with λόγος as the subject and θεός as the predicate. The use of
the participial phrase in the non-attributive position emphasizes the
relationship of the only-begotten God to the Father.
), the assertion was made that there is no such thing as a right to life. Now, this makes a certain amount of sense, it has a certain apologetic value, for those defending abortion rights (or as I like to call it, the pro-baby-murdering faction), but the statement is truly an astounding one, so I was on it like flies to honey. Essentially, the logical conclusion is that there is no value to life at all if there is no right to life. Eventually, I asked this question: "Is it therefore okay for someone to kill you and steal your stuff?" Now, that seems a pretty straightforward question to me, but none of the skeptics on the list, to this point, has answered it. They want to deflect, to define what we mean by "kill" and "steal," or to bring up other issues, such as war, or the fact that God ordered "genocide." But no direct answer to the question itself, and I can see why. If the answer is "yes," then they put themselves in a very uncomfortable position. If they say "no," then they are effectively conceding that some version of a "right to life" does in fact exist.
WIDGETIZE