Jeremiah 23:28 and John 1:1b

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
The grammatical structure is identical:

ὁ προφήτης ἐν ᾧ τὸ ἐνύπνιόν ἐστιν διηγησάσθω τὸ ἐνύπνιον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν ᾧ ὁ λόγος μου πρὸς αὐτόν διηγησάσθω τὸν λόγον μου ἐπ᾽ ἀληθείας τί τὸ ἄχυρον πρὸς τὸν σῗτον οὕτως οἱ λόγοι μου λέγει κύριος
Jeremiah 23:28

To make it easier to compare the relevant portion with John 1:1b, we can put the above as follows καὶ [ὁ προφήτης ἐν ᾧ] ὁ λόγος μου ἐστιν πρὸς αὐτόν

vs

καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν

Both constructions have two singular referents, ( ὁ λόγος being common to both as one of the substantives, and a thing in Jeremiah 23:28 to boot!), and both have πρὸς with the to be ἐστιν verb and a substantive in the accusative. At Jeremiah ὁ προφήτης is a person and ὁ λόγος is a thing. In the same way at John 1:1b ὁ λόγος is also a thing, and τὸν Θεόν is of course an individual. Trinitarians can provide nothing comparable to this for their position.

best wishes to everyone,
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
The LXX translators of the blessed prophet Jeremiah also use another to be verb (namely ἐγένετο) many times in translation when it was asserted that the Word of God was / towards/with/came to be with the prophet. Check the following out:

1:2 ὃς ἐγενήθη λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐν ταῗς ἡμέραις Ιωσια υἱοῦ Αμως βασιλέως Ιουδα ἔτους τρισκαιδεκάτου ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ αὐτοῦ

11:1 ὁ λόγος ὁ γενόμενος παρὰ κυρίου πρὸς Ιερεμιαν λέγων

14:1 καὶ ἐγένετο λόγος κυρίου πρὸς Ιερεμιαν περὶ τῆς ἀβροχίας

18:1 ὁ λόγος ὁ γενόμενος παρὰ κυρίου πρὸς Ιερεμιαν λέγων

21:1 ὁ λόγος ὁ γενόμενος παρὰ κυρίου πρὸς Ιερεμιαν ὅτε ἀπέστειλεν πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁ βασιλεὺς Σεδεκιας τὸν Πασχωρ υἱὸν Μελχιου καὶ Σοφονιαν υἱὸν Μαασαιου τὸν ἱερέα λέγων

25:1 ὁ λόγος ὁ γενόμενος πρὸς Ιερεμιαν ἐπὶ πάντα τὸν λαὸν Ιουδα ἐν τῷ ἔτει τῷ τετάρτῳ τοῦ Ιωακιμ υἱοῦ Ιωσια βασιλέως Ιουδα

28:12 καὶ ἐγένετο λόγος κυρίου πρὸς Ιερεμιαν μετὰ τὸ συντρῗψαι Ανανιαν τοὺς κλοιοὺς ἀπὸ τοῦ τραχήλου αὐτοῦ λέγων

29:30 καὶ ἐγένετο λόγος κυρίου πρὸς Ιερεμιαν λέγων

And I could go on, and on....
 

Gryllus Maior

Active member
I hardly know where to begin. No, it's not comparable -- your theory about singular's and plurals and people and things is just absurd. Language doesn't work that way. You are dealing with translation literature, and you have to take the original into account:


הַנָּבִיא אֲשֶׁר־אִתּוֹ חֲלוֹם יְסַפֵּר חֲלוֹם וַאֲשֶׁר דְּבָרִי אִתּוֹ

Notice that the two clause are parallel and of course mean the same thing in Hebrew. For the first clause, the LXX translator renders almost in idiomatic Greek with ἐν ᾧ τὸ ἐνύπνιόν ἐστιν, and ignores אִתּוֹ. In the second clause, he gives us καὶ ἐν ᾧ ὁ λόγος μου πρὸς αὐτόν, rendering אִתּוֹ with πρὸς αὐτόν, creating a rather awkward pleonasm in the Greek (though of course it's quite fine in the Hebrew). He renders practically the identical construction in two different ways when it would have been expected to render them both identically. What triggered this in the mind of the translator I'm not sure, but I would suggest that making too much capital out the Greek is simply flawed. Additionally, the verbs to be aren't in the Hebrew, and it could be rendered quite differently, e.g.,

Let the prophet who has a dream tell the dream, but let him who has my word speak my word faithfully. What has straw in common with wheat? [ESV]

Interestingly enough, the ESV translators do the same thing with the text that Jerome did a millenium and a half before:

propheta qui habet somnium narret somnium et qui habet sermonem meum loquatur sermonem meum vere quid paleis ad triticum dicit Dominus

You keep going to the LXX to find parallels to support your incredibly idiosyncratic theories, but it's just not working.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
I hardly know where to begin. No, it's not comparable -- your theory about singular's and plurals and people and things is just absurd. Language doesn't work that way. You are dealing with translation literature, and you have to take the original into account:


הַנָּבִיא אֲשֶׁר־אִתּוֹ חֲלוֹם יְסַפֵּר חֲלוֹם וַאֲשֶׁר דְּבָרִי אִתּוֹ

Notice that the two clause are parallel and of course mean the same thing in Hebrew. For the first clause, the LXX translator renders almost in idiomatic Greek with ἐν ᾧ τὸ ἐνύπνιόν ἐστιν, and ignores אִתּוֹ. In the second clause, he gives us καὶ ἐν ᾧ ὁ λόγος μου πρὸς αὐτόν, rendering אִתּוֹ with πρὸς αὐτόν, creating a rather awkward pleonasm in the Greek (though of course it's quite fine in the Hebrew). He renders practically the identical construction in two different ways when it would have been expected to render them both identically. What triggered this in the mind of the translator I'm not sure, but I would suggest that making too much capital out the Greek is simply flawed. Additionally, the verbs to be aren't in the Hebrew, and it could be rendered quite differently, e.g.,

Let the prophet who has a dream tell the dream, but let him who has my word speak my word faithfully. What has straw in common with wheat? [ESV]

Interestingly enough, the ESV translators do the same thing with the text that Jerome did a millenium and a half before:

propheta qui habet somnium narret somnium et qui habet sermonem meum loquatur sermonem meum vere quid paleis ad triticum dicit Dominus

You keep going to the LXX to find parallels to support your incredibly idiosyncratic theories, but it's just not working.

Red herring argument. Only someone who did not know Hebrew too well would try to fault the translators of the LXX for not literally rendering word for word the Hebrew into Greek translation. The LXX translators rendered into Greek what they though best explained the Hebrew of that verse. Keeping that in mind, it is irrelevant that you think they translated the Hebrew in a fashion into Koine in which you yourself would not have done. Deal with their Greek here in that clause. It has the same syntactical structure as John 1:1b and is consistent with my understanding of John 1:1b and inconsistent with yours . Also deal with the many other times that the translators of the LXX pen the same sort of sentence using another to be verb, namely ἐγένετο .

The distance between your position and mine is profound. I have exact parallels for my understanding of John 1:1b from the LXX Scripture, the very translational Scripture btw which the biblical authors themselves quoted from from time to time in the GNT. Do you even have any place in the LXX or GNT where ὁ λόγος is a pre-existing Divine Being, let alone an identical syntax of John 1:1b consistent with your theology ?
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
The grammatical structure is identical:


Jeremiah 23:28

To make it easier to compare the relevant portion with John 1:1b, we can put the above as follows καὶ [ὁ προφήτης ἐν ᾧ] ὁ λόγος μου ἐστιν πρὸς αὐτόν

vs



Both constructions have two singular referents, ( ὁ λόγος being common to both as one of the substantives, and a thing in Jeremiah 23:28 to boot!), and both have πρὸς with the to be ἐστιν verb and a substantive in the accusative. At Jeremiah ὁ προφήτης is a person and ὁ λόγος is a thing. In the same way at John 1:1b ὁ λόγος is also a thing, and τὸν Θεόν is of course an individual. Trinitarians can provide nothing comparable to this for their position.

best wishes to everyone,


(LXX-APP-Parsed) 28 ὁ προφήτης, ἐν ᾧ τὸ ἐνύπνιόν ἐστιν, διηγησάσθω τὸ ἐνύπνιον αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐν ᾧ ὁ λόγος μου πρὸς αὐτόν, διηγησάσθω τὸν λόγον μου ἐπʼ ἀληθείας.

The prophet who has a dream, let him tell his dream; and he in whom is my word spoken to him, let him tell my word truly.

I am not sure how you are applying this to John 1:1.

Since προς αυτόν is an idiom for “speaking to” at Jeremiah, then in John 1, who is speaking to God? Seems that this requires two persons.
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
(LXX-APP-Parsed) 28 ὁ προφήτης, ἐν ᾧ τὸ ἐνύπνιόν ἐστιν, διηγησάσθω τὸ ἐνύπνιον αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐν ᾧ ὁ λόγος μου πρὸς αὐτόν, διηγησάσθω τὸν λόγον μου ἐπʼ ἀληθείας.

The prophet who has a dream, let him tell his dream; and he in whom is my word spoken to him, let him tell my word truly.

I am not sure how you are applying this to John 1:1.

Since προς αυτόν is an idiom for “speaking to” at Jeremiah, then in John 1, who is speaking to God? Seems that this requires two persons.
Red above is "crazy talk." προς with accusative denotes towards / facing / present with, etc.

Literally and slavishly bold above, "And the prophet in whom is my Word with [him] .."
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Red above is "crazy talk." προς with accusative denotes towards / facing / present with, etc.

Literally and slavishly bold above, "And the prophet in whom is my Word with [him] .."

Are you going to take issue with one minor point and ignore my question entirely?

In the Brenton translation λογος προς τινα is rendered "speaking to."

Now what about my question?
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
I am sorry you feel that way. Is that any reason to ignore the question? Why don't I see you offering a better translation?
Here is how I would translate the verse. It is a very literal and wooden translation on purpose, and thus sacrifices English fluency a little—

“The prophet in whom is a dream, let him tell of that dream and the prophet in whom my Word is with [him], let him speak of my Word in truth....”
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Here is how I would translate the verse. It is a very literal and wooden translation on purpose, and thus sacrifices English fluency a little—

“The prophet in whom is a dream, let him tell of that dream and the prophet in whom my Word is with [him], let him speak of my Word in truth....”

Ok, so now can you answer my question as to how God's word being spoken from one person to another (ie two persons) helps you at John 1:1?
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Ok, so now can you answer my question as to how God's word being spoken from one person to another (ie two persons) helps you at John 1:1?

What are you talking about ? The Word of God is with the prophet. Now if this selfsame prophet later speaks out this Word of God which is with him to those around him, it does not mean that the Word therefore becomes a person or was a person all along.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
What are you talking about ? The Word of God is with the prophet. Now if this selfsame prophet later speaks out this Word of God which is with him to those around him, it does not mean that the Word therefore becomes a person or was a person all along.

The ASV and Brenton LXX align:

The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. (ASV)

The prophet who has a dream, let him tell his dream; and he in whom is my word spoken to him, let him tell my word truly. (Brenton)
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
The ASV and Brenton LXX align:

The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. (ASV)

The prophet who has a dream, let him tell his dream; and he in whom is my word spoken to him, let him tell my word truly. (Brenton)

How could they be? The ASV is saying that the prophet who has God's Word, let that prophet speak God's Word faithfully. Brenton is saying that the prophet in whom is God's Word which has been spoken to him (presumably by someone else or by God himself ?!), let him tell God's Word faithfully. Red is where Brenton fails.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
How could they be? The ASV is saying that the prophet who has God's Word, let that prophet speak God's Word faithfully. Brenton is saying that the prophet in whom is God's Word which has been spoken to him (presumably by someone else or by God himself ?!), let him tell God's Word faithfully. Red is where Brenton fails.

I see having God's word (ASV) and the word spoken to someone being in someone (Brenton) as functionally equivalent.

You added [him] that is not in the text. Perhaps that is part of the difference.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
I asked you about the brackets in [him] in your translation and you did not respond. What are they for?

You thought I had put the brackets because I had assumed "him," didn't you ? You really didn't know how to read the Greek yourself.

In any case, I had put the brackets because the English is better off without the pronoun, but as I said I was attempting a very wooden and literal translation of the Greek.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
You thought I had put the brackets because I had assumed "him," didn't you ? You really didn't know how to read the Greek yourself.

In any case, I had put the brackets because the English is better off without the pronoun, but as I said I was attempting a very wooden and literal translation of the Greek.
Here is my take.

This is Hebrew parallelism. The "dream" and "word" are both messages from God to the prophet that are intended to be told to others.

Both the dream and the word are "in" the prophet. The dream and word are not "with" the prophet.

The προς αυτόν is the accusative object. I would take that to be the object of "tell", (to him), the neighbor of the previous verse.

---

27
who devise that men may forget my law by their dreams, which they have told every one to his neighbour ...

28
Let the prophet
in whom there is the dream
tell his dream [to his neighbor, from the
previous verse]

and

let him
in whom my word is
to him [ie neighbor] tell
my word in truth.

If you say the word is "with" the prophet, there is no parallel to John 1:1. There the word is προς God, not “with” a prophet of God.
 
Top