Why Al Kitaab can't mean 'The Scripture'
-
John 1
The Word Became Flesh
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.http//www.aramaicpeshitta.com/AramaicNTtools/Peshittainterlinear/4_John/Yukhnch1.pdf
Scroll down to the footnotes.Evyon - we can start a new thread on this if you like.
If John 11 is all you want to discuss, then there is no need for a separate thread. First, I'm familiar with the arguments for Aramaic primacy, and they simply don't hold water. For one thing, it uses the Aramaic equivalent for the Hebrew Divine Name for Jesus in several places - something that could also be done in Greek, but we don't find in any manuscripts. So IF the Peshitta is older, it means that Nicene theology was present in the earliest manuscripts, but was edited out of the Greek revisions. Given the extreme difficulty Athanasius had in getting the Church to endorse all of the elements of the Nicene Creed, we can be certain that a Greek textual revision along Arian lines is improbable. What is likely probable is that the Aramaic is based on the earliest Greek texts, but was edited along later theological beliefs.
But anyway, John 11 is a verse I am familiar with. My NT Greek class midterm was on John 1. Here's a transliteration and some thoughts
"en archay ayn ho logos, kai ho logos ayn pros ton theon, kai theos ayn ho logos."
Let's take each phrase one at a time.
"en archay ayn ho logos"="In the beginning was the word" Nothing earth-shattering there, but assigning personality to the Logos was a later theological novelty. Think of the Logos in it's original Hebrew conception, which also clarifies later verses from John 1
Psalm 336 - By the word of the LORD were the heavens made;
and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.There's nothing here to suggest personality or being part of the Godhead. The Logos is the word from God's mouth, his breath which framed the universe. He spoke (the word), and it came into being.
"..kai ho logos ayn pros ton theon,.."="and the word was to/facing/towards/with the God,.."
Two things here. "Pros" often indicates forward movement. If the Logos is moving towards, or is to God, the Logos is facing God and acting like a mirror or photograph if you will. The Logos is a reflection of the Divine will and character, but is not that Divine will itself. The Unvarnished New Testament picks up on this fact and translated it "and the word was towards God.." Second, "ho theos" (or "ton theon" in the accusative singular above) is a construction of the word for God and the presence of the definite article. The phrase recurs frequently in the Greek New Testament as a way of clearly referring to THE God, since "theos" can refer to pagan gods, authorities and powers, and can even function adjectivally. "Ho theos" is a way in Greek of referring to the One True God.
"..kai theos ayn ho logos"="and the word was divine (or) a divine authority." The absence of the definite article in this phrase when it is in all of the other phrases makes it clear that the author did not want to associate the Logos with the One True God, while wanting to convey the divine power at work as the Word of God. Several Greek scholars have pointed this out, notably the late James Moffatt and the late William Barclay.
The other thing that has to be kept in perspective is that Jesus is not referred to as the word until much later in John 1. Before then, it is simply an impersonal force at work in creating the universe and steering people towards salvation.
Peace.
-
Greetings House MD,
Here's my position
Kitab can refer to a book or this book. Al kitab cannot be a 'book'.
Al Kitaab = Knowledge of the universe i.e it's laws or The Operating system, as Wakas put it.
bravo Thank you for the excellent analysis!
I'm with you all the way! handshake
-
Or they ask, what did Jesus write?
Don't know, and I'd not conjecture about it (18/22). He had the same manual as all the other prophets/messengers (41/43).
Surely Jesus didn't bring the gospels of Matthew et al with him...That's well absurd. Quranically, he had the injeel and torah (neither of which I consider to be books). But, if you consider them to be books, can you please explain how he brought the gospels of matthew et al WITH HIM. And The Torah that exists today that is not even about/to him!
Thank you ILisa
Can we please stick to the topic? Thanks.
peace
-
Don't know, and I'd not conjecture about it (18/22). He had the same manual as all the other prophets/messengers (41/43).
Surely Jesus didn't bring the gospels of Matthew et al with him...That's well absurd. Quranically, he had the injeel and torah (neither of which I consider to be books). But, if you consider them to be books, can you please explain how he brought the gospels of matthew et al WITH HIM. And The Torah that exists today that is not even about/to him!
Thank you ILisa
Can we please stick to the topic? Thanks.
peace
House,
Sorry to veer off-topic for a moment. But I agree. Both the Torah (Instruction) and the Gospel (Good News) are concepts, not books.
Peace.
-
LOL!! We should have started a new thread. Sorry.
Were you taught in class that often times the word Logos is not translated. I believe it to mean more then just the GOD breathed WORD- for we hold that in our hands.
If it does mean word - it has more to it then our word LOL!! not sure how to say that!
I believe that the essence of GOD is in His WORD. It has power - I don't believe there is any other way for us to comprehend GOD except through His WORD. His WORD baptizes us. His WORD creates.
Please explain why you believe that It is not Jesus just because it is not connected until later?
-
LOL!! We should have started a new thread. Sorry.
Were you taught in class that often times the word Logos is not translated. I believe it to mean more then just the GOD breathed WORD- for we hold that in our hands.
If it does mean word - it has more to it then our word LOL!! not sure how to say that!
I believe that the essence of GOD is in His WORD. It has power - I don't believe there is any other way for us to comprehend GOD except through His WORD. His WORD baptizes us. His WORD creates.
Peace pvb,
There's not really much here I can respond to. Yes, I'm aware of the variant meanings of the concept of "logos", but what does the other statements of yours have to do with your assertion that the word=God, therefore Jesus=God?
Please explain why you believe that It is not Jesus just because it is not connected until later?
If it were the person of Jesus in some pre-existant form that was the one through whom creation happened, I believe the text would simply say so. But it doesn't. Most Christians simply assume because around verse 14 it says the word became flesh, that verse 1 and following refers to Jesus. This is a grave error of substitution. All John ch 1 is saying is that the Word of God through whom God created the world and steered people to salvation was at work in the very human person of Jesus the Messiah. Jesus was the Word of God, but he was not, and cannot be, God.
-
LOL!! When you read the whole chapter the connection is so obvious.
LOL, so who do you think was the WORD made flesh was?
It wasn't that obvious to the early Christians. Their Christological views were all over the place for the first 4 centuries. You must be trememdously smarter, well-read, and well-informed than the likes of Tertullian, Origen, and Justin Martyr.
I didn't say that Jesus wasn't the Word of John 1. What I said was that pre-Jesus, the Word was not a person and did not have a personality, nor was the Word in any shape or form "God." If you want to discuss this any further, we should begin a different thread.
Peace.