Jeremiah 23:28 and John 1:1b

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
I found this verse in Hosea interesting as well:

1:2 ἀρχὴ λόγου κυρίου πρὸς Ωσηε καὶ εἶπεν κύριος πρὸς Ωσηε βάδιζε λαβὲ σεαυτῷ γυναῗκα πορνείας καὶ τέκνα πορνείας διότι ἐκπορνεύουσα ἐκπορνεύσει ἡ γῆ ἀπὸ ὄπισθεν τοῦ κυρίου
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
This is interesting though it has a plural substantive, Hosea:

5:1 ἀκούσατε ταῦτα οἱ ἱερεῗς καὶ προσέχετε οἶκος Ισραηλ καὶ ὁ οἶκος τοῦ βασιλέως ἐνωτίζεσθε διότι πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐστιν τὸ κρίμα ὅτι παγὶς ἐγενήθητε τῇ σκοπιᾷ καὶ ὡς δίκτυον ἐκτεταμένον ἐπὶ τὸ ἰταβύριον
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
This one also interesting, Jonah though it has an action verb,

3:6 καὶ ἤγγισεν ὁ λόγος πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα τῆς Νινευη καὶ ἐξανέστη ἀπὸ τοῦ θρόνου αὐτοῦ καὶ περιείλατο τὴν στολὴν αὐτοῦ ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ περιεβάλετο σάκκον καὶ ἐκάθισεν ἐπὶ σποδοῦ
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Zechariah 4:6 is another nail in the coffin:

4:6 καὶ ἀπεκρίθη καὶ εἶπεν πρός με λέγων οὗτος ὁ λόγος κυρίου πρὸς Ζοροβαβελ λέγων οὐκ ἐν δυνάμει μεγάλῃ οὐδὲ ἐν ἰσχύι ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἐν πνεύματί μου λέγει κύριος παντοκράτωρ
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Reminds me of John 1:2, Οὗτος [ὁ λόγος] ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν

Οὗτος [ἐστιν] ὁ λόγος κυρίου πρὸς Ζοροβαβελ
 

Gryllus Maior

Well-known member
Another,

21:3 καὶ ἐρεῗς πρὸς τὴν γῆν τοῦ Ισραηλ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ πρὸς σὲ καὶ ἐκσπάσω τὸ ἐγχειρίδιόν μου ἐκ τοῦ κολεοῦ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐξολεθρεύσω ἐκ σοῦ ἄδικον καὶ ἄνομον
Why do you think making the same mistake over and over again helps your case?
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
@Gryllus Maior

What you say is true. But at least he keeps trying.

You criticize from the sidelines. Your view of a definite θεός at 1:1c has no scholarly support, unless you count Colwell's fallacy.

Plus your rationale for the anarthrous has strained support at best and even that is not needed at 1:1, as I have already demonstrated. (You would not answer the simple yes/no question I asked you.)

Also, I have significant reservations about your ability to not identify θεός at 1:1b as the Father based upon John as a whole. I also feel that if you publicly fleshed out the details it would not be supportable even amongst those in your faith tradition.
 

Gryllus Maior

Well-known member
@Gryllus Maior

What you say is true. But at least he keeps trying.

You criticize from the sidelines. Your view of a definite θεός at 1:1c has no scholarly support, unless you count Colwell's fallacy.

Plus your rationale for the anarthrous has strained support at best and even that is not needed at 1:1, as I have already demonstrated. (You would not answer the simple yes/no question I asked you.)

Also, I have significant reservations about your ability to not identify θεός at 1:1b as the Father based upon John as a whole. I also feel that if you publicly fleshed out the details it would not be supportable even amongst those in your faith tradition.
Well, to run the race the wrong direction does not show perseverance! That my view of θεός has no "scholarly support" in the general evangelical literature on the subject that we commonly use bothers me not a bit. It has general support in the grammars and in the specific linguistic usage as observed, so it's quite defensible. It's also based on a wide ranging experience with the language that few NT scholars can match. Some day, when I have a bit more time I might submit a formal paper to some journal or other. In the meantime I'll keep tossing it out here and there to see how the fish bite.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Why do you think making the same mistake over and over again helps your case?

Well, you can be in denial about it but ἐγὼ [ εἶναι ] πρὸς σὲ means that someone is against someone else. So if a personal Logos was πρὸς τὸν θεὸν, then it means that the Logos was against God. The way to say someone is with someone else in Biblical Koine (both GNT & LXX) is with μετά and genetive, not πρὸς and accusative. The latter understanding is diabolical , and at John 1:1b it could have come from none other than the Deceiver himself, as a really sick joke.

Had apostle John wanted to say "and the Logos (a person) was with God" he would have written as he did at John 3:26

ὃς ἦν μετὰ σοῦ

---

πρὸς τὸν θεὸν with "to be verb" is used when something (NOT someone) is with/facing/towards someone , as in Zec. 4:6--

οὗτος ὁ λόγος κυρίου πρὸς Ζοροβαβελ

I looked at the Hebrew and it is quite literal:

זֶ֚ה דְּבַר־ יְהוָ֔ה אֶל־ זְרֻבָּבֶ֖ל
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
@Gryllus Maior

Also, I have significant reservations about your ability to not identify θεός at 1:1b as the Father based upon John as a whole. I also feel that if you publicly fleshed out the details it would not be supportable even amongst those in your faith tradition.

Yes, unfortunately his delusion (and we have to call it what it is!) on this score is very disturbing. It is impossible, both contextually and grammatically for anyone sensible to not see from 1 John 1:2 (at a minimum) that τὸν Θεόν at 1:1b is the Father :

καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἐφανερώθη, καὶ ἑωράκαμεν καὶ μαρτυροῦμεν καὶ ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον, ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα καὶ ἐφανερώθη ἡμῖν,
 

Gryllus Maior

Well-known member
Well, you can be in denial about it but ἐγὼ [ εἶναι ] πρὸς σὲ means that someone is against someone else. So if a personal Logos was πρὸς τὸν θεὸν, then it means that the Logos was against God. The way to say someone is with someone else in Biblical Koine (both GNT & LXX) is with μετά and genetive, not πρὸς and accusative. The latter understanding is diabolical , and at John 1:1b it could have come from none other than the Deceiver himself, as a really sick joke.

Had apostle John wanted to say "and the Logos (a person) was with God" he would have written as he did at John 3:26



---

πρὸς τὸν θεὸν with "to be verb" is used when something (NOT someone) is with/facing/towards someone , as in Zec. 4:6--



I looked at the Hebrew and it is quite literal:
Really nothing more to say.

1) You refuse to deal with the fact that the LXX is a translation of the Hebrew idiom.

2) You refuse to take into account differences of context and usage.

Why would anybody listen to you?
 

Gryllus Maior

Well-known member
Yes, unfortunately his delusion (and we have to call it what it is!) on this score is very disturbing. It is impossible, both contextually and grammatically for anyone sensible to not see from 1 John 1:2 (at a minimum) that τὸν Θεόν at 1:1b is the Father :
John in 1st John is not doing quite the same thing as John in John 1. Significant differences, in fact, contextually, and in purpose of writing. Just a few of the many things you ignore to push your theological agenda.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
John in 1st John is not doing quite the same thing as John in John 1. Significant differences, in fact, contextually, and in purpose of writing. Just a few of the many things you ignore to push your theological agenda.

Is that so ? So what exactly does ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα mean ?
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Really nothing more to say.

1) You refuse to deal with the fact that the LXX is a translation of the Hebrew idiom.

2) You refuse to take into account differences of context and usage.

Why would anybody listen to you?

Not sure if that is a translation of the Hebrew idiom. However, even if it is, the point is that it is "biblical Greek." Biblical Greek (GNT & LXX) after all is Greek with a Hebrew flavor. Apostle John was cut from the same cloth as those who translated the Hebrew bible into Greek, that is, the translators of the LXX. After all, what else was the apostle doing when he wrote the gospel of John and the Revelation if not "translational Greek," since he was a Hebrew (who thought in terms of Hebrew and Aramaic idioms) writing Greek as his second language. Your mistake lies in reading apostle John's Gospel as though it were Attic Greek devoid of any Hebrew influence or idiom.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Well, to run the race the wrong direction does not show perseverance! That my view of θεός has no "scholarly support" in the general evangelical literature on the subject that we commonly use bothers me not a bit. It has general support in the grammars and in the specific linguistic usage as observed, so it's quite defensible. It's also based on a wide ranging experience with the language that few NT scholars can match. Some day, when I have a bit more time I might submit a formal paper to some journal or other. In the meantime I'll keep tossing it out here and there to see how the fish bite.

I have updated my paper to include what linguists have to say on the use of και to conjoin phrases. It's very illuminating as to having the same subject such clauses.

Also, after looking at the citations in BDAG and Danker Concise there is no doubt that they represent these clauses as sequential temporal phrases.

https://www.academia.edu/44726638/John_1_1_4_an_Expository_Rendering_V5
 
Last edited:

Gryllus Maior

Well-known member
I have updated my paper to include what linguists have to say on the use of και to conjoin phrases. It's very illuminating as to having the same subject such clauses.

Also, after looking at the citations in BDAG and Danker Concise there is no doubt that they represent these clauses as sequential temporal phrases.

https://www.academia.edu/44726638/John_1_1_4_an_Expository_Rendering_V5
So now you are going to double down on it. Did you every think that there might be a reason BDAG doesn't include John 1:1? It's because clearly no temporal sequencing is in view. The imperfect verbs all express the same time frame, and vs. 2 clinches it, οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν.

You are simply cherry picking a meaning you like which supports your viewpoint, and it doesn't actually fit at all. We simple paratactic connection of clauses here.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
So now you are going to double down on it. Did you every think that there might be a reason BDAG doesn't include John 1:1? It's because clearly no temporal sequencing is in view. The imperfect verbs all express the same time frame, and vs. 2 clinches it, οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν.

You are simply cherry picking a meaning you like which supports your viewpoint, and it doesn't actually fit at all. We simple paratactic connection of clauses here.

BDAG does not list all the verses that fit. Why do you think Danker includes it in his Concise Lexicon is also a good question.

And it's very telling that all of them in both lexicons are sequential temporal sequences.

I am on solid ground here.

By the time 1:b occurred 1a was also true. But one cannot say the same for 1c.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
So now you are going to double down on it. Did you every think that there might be a reason BDAG doesn't include John 1:1? It's because clearly no temporal sequencing is in view. The imperfect verbs all express the same time frame, and vs. 2 clinches it, οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν.

You are simply cherry picking a meaning you like which supports your viewpoint, and it doesn't actually fit at all. We simple paratactic connection of clauses here.

BTW, I am not being dogmatic here. But you must acknowledge that my proposed view is possible and that based on the dataset given by BDAG and Danker not just possible but probable.
 

Gryllus Maior

Well-known member
BDAG does not list all the verses that fit. Why do you think Danker includes it in his Concise Lexicon is also a good question.

And it's very telling that all of them in both lexicons are sequential temporal sequences.

I am on solid ground here.

By the time 1:b occurred 1a was also true. But one cannot say the same for 1c.
Yeah, go for it. I don't think anyone else will agree with you, at least no people actually skilled in the language, but feel free to argue it. You're not the first to make odd claims that are essentially indefensible and you won't be the last.
 
Top