Here is an example that you have already given (I started this before you replied) which is not parallel to John 1:1:
2 Ch. 11:2
καὶ ἐγένετο λόγος κυρίου πρὸς Σαμαιαν ἄνθρωπον τοῦ θεοῦ λέγων
And the word of the Lord came to Σαμαιαν, man of God saying
The preposition προς followed by the accusative has the basic sense of movement towards the entity in the accusative. See this
page with the preposition chart.
More accurately, the preposition προς followed by the accusative
with a verb of motion has the basic sense of movement towards an entity.
In Chronicles the spoken word comes from God as the source towards Σαμαιαν, exactly as depicted in the preposition chart.
The Word of God (why do you assume it was "spoken"?) might well have come towards Σαμαιαν from somewhere else (or then again, it may have been all pervasive so everywhere present at all times, in which case it couldn't possibly have motioned towards anywhere at all) . The verse simply does not tell us one way or other. Here the author is only informing the reader that the Word
came to be (notice not "came to") with Σαμαιαν. The "to be verb" ἐγένετο with πρὸς and accusative does
not connote movement towards. Don't know where you are getting the contrary notion from. Had the author wanted to connote movement of the Word towards someone at 2 Ch 11:2 he would have used a verb of motion instead here, like καὶ
ἦλθεν λόγος κυρίου πρὸς Σαμαιαν ἄνθρωπον τοῦ θεοῦ λέγων...
At John 1:1 there is only one person, not two, in your view. The spoken word can only come from God. But προς followed by the accusative cannot give you that sense. A spoken word must come from someone else because of the sense προς + accusative.
προς followed by the accusative with a to be verb (ἦν) at John 1:1c can
not signal motion towards by λόγος.
On another note, I see pre-flesh λόγος as
pre-existent "Torah." Torah viewed in this way has already been with God in eternity past and enshrined before Him in Heaven even before the creation of the Universe. Whether the original Torah was spoken by God, or written out by Him, no one knows. Things in Heaven don't work the same way ass they do here. What is certain from the grammar ast John 1:1b is that it
faced Him, and which He "consulted" when creating the Universe. Here is something from the Jewish Encyclopedia:
The Torah is older than the world, for it existed either 947 generations (Zeb. 116a, and parallels) or 2,000 years (Gen. R. viii., and parallels; Weber, "Jüdische Theologie," p. 15) before the Creation. The original Pentateuch, therefore, like everything celestial, consisted of fire, being written in black letters of flame upon a white ground of fire (Yer. Sheḳ. 49a, and parallels; Blau, "Althebräisches Buchwesen," p. 156). God held counsel with it at the creation of the world, since it was wisdom itself (Tan., Bereshit, passim), and it was God's first revelation, in which He Himself took part. It was given in completeness for all time and for all mankind, so that no further revelation can be expected.
The Jews viewed Torah as much more than words spoken and/or written.
Earlier you criticized the BDAG entry below because you said the examples had plural subjects (1J 1:2 does not).
Correct, that is why none of the examples it gives are parallel to John 1:1c.
Your example with γινομαι and not εἶναι does not have movement towards the accusative entity and this is a real problem and not one that is contrived.
Are you aware that ἦν with πρὸς and accusative at John 1:1b also does
not denote motion towards ? In other words Λόγος was not moving towards God, or else enjoying a personal relationship with Him, but was instead in stasis, it was "facing" Him, it was "towards" Him, which is typical of a thing and not of a person. Had the apostle wanted to connote a fellowship, or a communion between Λόγος and ὁ θεός in John 1:1b , the Greek allowed for the following: καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν
μετά τοῦ θεοῦ. But that is not what he wrote.
I asked you:
“Please provide a definition and example that illustrates what λόγος means for you in the Greek NT and at John 1:1.”
Your example of Logos = Torah does not apply to John 1:1. Προς is not used as in πρός τινα εἶναι.
And, as I have already demonstrated with Greek 101, your interpretation at John 1:1 is impossible if we take προς + accusative according to its sense in Greek.
That is, unless you have a way to interpret J 1:1 that is consistent with how προς is used.
Can't make head or tail of this.
After all, Revelation 19:13 is an example of λόγος used of a personal being.
Don't know what that is supposed to mean. Revelation 19:13 is an example of where a name is given to Jesus, just as Mark 16:18 is also an example of a name given to apostle Peter. In neither is a literal equation made between the name and the existence of the person. Jesus in Revelation is not literally a / the word, anymore than apostle Peter is a literal rock.
I need to see substance.
