From: Nicholas Corduan (nickc@iquest.net)
Date: Sat Jan 31 1998 - 15:45:18 EST
Ron,
>Many of you were writting from the perspective that Logos was a person in
>verse 1. My question is: Is this determined linguistically or
>theologically?
This is a bit unfair, because this seems to assume that "linguistics" is
some sort of over-arching power that controls all interpretation. Aside
from trite reminders that non one can approach an interpretation *without*
biases (theological or otherwise), this also raises lingusitics to a level
it should not be. No particular way of studying something can ever
adequately explain it. This is one of the many lessons Chaos theory should
have taught all of us by now... There are far too many factors that go into
*everything* to raise any particular one category of factor to supreme
above the others.
Besides, isn't your question a bit like asking me whether my reply to your
question was based on my understanding of your grammar, or my forcing a
pscyhological profile upon you, or my getting defensive of a theological
position, or . . . Well, you get the picture. :-)
>dwelling among us refers to Jesus. Part of the question, then is, is
>there some linguistic situation that requires Logos in verse 1 to be
>Jesus as well? If so, what? If not, could (would, should) Logos in verse
>1 be something more encompasing than Jesus, based on the linguistics?
I'm a bit curious why you think theological interpretation is invalid?
Certainly if that interpretation *contradicts* the linguistic evidence,
this question must be asked. But why must a theological understanding be
valid only if demanded by the grammatical or syntactical traits of the
Greek morphemes? After all, "theological" is, when discussing the study of
Biblical passages, just a code word for "looking at the broader Biblical
context." And you can never separate a passage from the braod context; nor
can you ever separate something written from what the writer intended to
convey. The only reason to really divide "Biblical linguistics" and
"Biblical theology," re: interpretation, is a mindeset which demands
dichotomy where they may be none. This is common characteristic of the
Western Christian tradition, which has never understood, for instance, the
Orthodox view of Tradition/Scripture . . . But now I am straying too far
afield, into hermeneutics and beyond. My apologies. :-)
Nick---
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
"There is as much dignity in tilling a field as in writing a poem."
(Booker T. Washington)
--- nickc@iquest.net egapemenos@aol.com ICQ#6683715 ---
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:01 EDT