Greetings. I've had a too-long absence from b-greek and just returned,
and so I missed the history of this thread.
You wrote:
>(1) I view HN in John 1:1 as only indicating the existence (a
state) of the
>Word in "the beginning" and there are no lexical, grammatical
or syntacical
>reasons justifying the conclusion that the Word is eternal. Do
you agree?
You raise a question that I too have pondered after reading the NIV
Bible Commentary on John 1:1, which emphasizes that HN means eternal
past here. On b-greek last summer, the question of time and EIMI was
discussed by Rod, Carl, myself, and a few others. The question was
related to how far we carry time in the stative verb EIMI (with John 1:1
in our context). I asked if HN might carry an aorist flavor at times
(the omnitemporal type). Carl pointed out that EIMI in itself has no
aorist nuances (i.e. he "zapped" me, twice mind you!). Someone pointed
out in A.T. Robertson's Tome that EIMI can have aorist implications at
times but that it is difficult to determine (if memory serves me from
the non-archived post, Robertson suggested the John 1:1 HN as an aorist
possibility). Rod said that A.T. Robertson can be wrong and I left it
all at that and pondered some more and am still pondering a year later!
What gives rise to my persistence with the non-eternal HN is other uses
of HN in John. For example, in John 2:1 we have Mary at the wedding:
John 2:1 HN hH MHTHR TOU IESOU EKEI (The mother of Jesus was there)
Here HN is modified by an adverb just as the John 1:1a HN is modified by
the adverbial phrase EN ARXH.
But I do not conclude that Mary was at the wedding eternally.
Perhaps your definition of "only the existence of a state" better suits
how I might view non-copulative HN in such passages rather than that of
an omnitemporal aorist or as implying eternity. This suggestion seems to
make the use of HN consistent with other passages like 2:1. The
statement is simply being made that Mary entered the state of being
present at the wedding and was there without reference to the entrance
of the state nor of leaving it. The writer simply wishes to note that
she was there and use HN to do so. Therefore, using a lot of words I
agree with your point number 1 and wanted to show you why I do so.
However, I remain open to ZapMeisters....
Sincerely,
Wes Williams
Lifelong bible student
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rolf furuli [SMTP:furuli@online.no]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 1997 5:04 AM
> To: b-greek@virginia.edu
> Subject:
>
>
> To: b-greek@virginia.edu
>
> Rod Decker wrote:
>
>
> 2. I've been reading a bit in philosophical discussions of "time." I'm
> interested in any defs. of "time" that you find satisfactory; either
> philosophical or biblical ones. How does one *define* CRONOS and/or
> hWRA
> (and not just gloss it as 'time')? (I'm thinking of the abstract sense
> here, not a specific one such as "the third hour".)
>
> Dear Rod,
>
> Some thoughts on Jesus and time.
>
> The catchword of Arius regarding Jesus was: HN POTE hOTE OUK HN.
> Whether
> Jesus is eternal or not is still a very important question, and our
> concept
> of time has a bearing on how we answer it. It seems to me that the
> thoughts
> of Plato both were used in the fourth and fifth centuries, and still
> are,
> by those defending the eternality of Jesus.
>
> Plato speaks of "the birth of time" and that "time came into being
> with the
> heavens" (Quoted from "Plato Timaeus and Critias", Penguin Classics
> 7:38, p
> 51). Athanasius takes exactly the same standpoint in "Four
> Discourses
> against the Arians", chapter IV. M J Harris, in his very fine work,
> "Jesus
> as God" p 54 says: "In itself John 1:1a speaks only of the
> pretemporality
> or supratemporality of the Logos, but in his conjunction of EN ARXH
> and HN
> (not EGENETO) John implies the eternal preexistence of the Word."
> The premises of Harris seems to be the same as those of Plato and
> Athanasius, but this makes time almost something tangible. In my view
> time
> simply is an abstraction, a peg on which to hang the notion that
> everything
> is moving forwards. Three questions:
> (1) I view HN in John 1:1 as only indicating the existence (a state)
> of the
> Word in "the beginning" and there are no lexical, grammatical or
> syntacical
> reasons justifying the conclusion that the Word is eternal. Do you
> agree?
> (2) I have never come across any passage in the NT showing that Jesus
> is
> eternal ,thus contradicting the words of Arius. Has anybody else found
> such
> a passage?
> (3) Are there any passages in the Bible suggesting that we must
> abandon the
> view of "time" simply is an abstraction, when we are interpreting the
> Scriptures?
>
> Regards,
> Rolf
> Rolf Furuli
> University of Oslo
>