[lit-ideas] En arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 22:21:32 EDT
Yes, I echo Ursula Stange that it translates 'logos'.
I think it's then the _Greek_ concept, and something for us Christians, but
not necessarily those who only abide by the _Old_ Testament.
I understand the idea of 'logos' here is the Christians paying a little
homage to the Greek tradition in philosophy.
R. Paul should edify us about it.
When I studied philosophy, or even Latin (my professor, Dissandro, has a
book written on "From mythos to logos") the idea was that _logos_ signified
the beginning of _philosophy_.
The 'mythos' is _also_ 'word' (so be careful when you say 'wordless' as in
Mendelsohn's 'wordless song') and so is _epos_.
Thus, while Plato uses 'mythos' in his philosophical dia-LOGUES, he is
more into 'logos' than 'mythos'.
The Romans spoiled it for us in having to use 'verbum', which is _NOT_
cognate with 'logos'. "Loquor" _is_ (cognate with 'logos').
The Greek root, 'logos' also appears with the stem, 'leg-', as in legomenon
(what is said).
The Romans of a philosophical orientation preferred to translate 'logos'
as "ratio" but I'm not sure who started this habit, since a _ratio_ in Latin
was more like a reckoning or calculation, or a physical mark of a
calculation, even.
----
So by saying what he does, the apostle is saying,
"In the beginning there was a Reason".
When Thales first appealed to _logos_ as opposed to mythos, he was trying
to _explain_ things (in a 'rational' way). For consider 'laurel'. Why is the
laurel like this? Well, there is this myth (the first one used in opera)
that 'laurel' (Daphne in Greek) was a maiden who was going to be raped by
Apollo, etc. So that is a MYTHICAL explanation, but not a LOGical one.
Both invoke words, but 'logos' is logos is logos.
So the Apostle may be saying that there is a RATIO, a rationale behind the
COSMOS (for that must be 'world' -- an English notion, cognate with 'were',
man, as in werewolf. (But I double check and we don't need to assume it's
the beginning _of the world_ -- the Greek just go, "en arche", in the
beginning (whatever that may mean) -- in olden times (archaic -- arche) may be
more cognate).
And "Gott" is also the English notion.
So I would think the Greek uses:
'kosmos', 'theos' and 'logos' -- and these three words were pretty
important in Greek philosophy.
So I guess it was an appeal to the Western (Graeco-Roman) sort of
tradition, rather than to the Hebraic one per se.
Arnold has written extensively on Hebraism versus Hellenism. I would think
that the 'logos' emphasis here is a Hellenic thing.
But I don't know the first thing about Hebrews and Semites, so maybe the
idea of something like the 'logos' was common with them, too.
Double checking:
en: is indeed the proposition, 'in', and in Greek it follows the dative
case, which 'arche' is.
'en' (the third word) is the imperfect of 'to be'. I don't think really the
preterite, 'was'. Erat vs. fuit -- I should check with the Vulgata.
'ho logos' because 'logos' is masculine, and 'ho' means 'the' in Greek.
'kai' is of course Attic for 'and'.
'pros ton theon'. 'ton theon' here is accusative, so 'pros' must govern the
accusative. I wouldn't translate it as 'with' God. In Classical Greek,
'with' is 'syn', as in 'tea and sympathy'.
'pros' I would keep as 'pro'. And the word was _pro_ the God. (rather than
against him?)
---- the third clause, 'kai theos en ho logos'.
seems rhetoric. "Equitive" sentences, as those using 'was' are notably
meant to be symmetrical and reciprocal (as in today's column by O'Reilly on 'it
is what it is").
But the second clause ('ho logos en pros ton theon') should not necessarily
yield "ho logos en ho theos" (the word was god). So the apostle must find
it not otiose to emphasise that God _was_ the word.
Note that while in the _second_ clause 'god' has the definite article to
it, which I find low-class ("the God", 'ton theon'), the apostle wittily
omits it in the third clause.
One problem with 'en' (was) is noted by Mike Harnish, the philosopher of
Arizona. He notes that when people used the past,
"She ejaculated very soon" ---- (sorry for the vulgarism, but I am
falling asleep writing this
theological stuff).
the implicature seems to be that she no longer does it.
"I swam a lot -- indeed I still do"
The theory of implicature is pretty new, and I hope St. John was not
familiar with it, so I tend to think that 'en' was perhaps historical for him.
Implicature: God is NO LONGER the word -- that was only in the beginning,
hence 'en' (was).
But as Michael Chase has pointed out to me, the 'en' features also in
Aristotle's idea of 'essence' (to ti en einai'), where the 'en' is 'was', and
Ross, the commentator, translates this as a non-historical past,
"philosophical" past, I think he calls it.
Etc.
---
Cheers,
J. L. Speranza
Buenos Aires, Argentina
---- (and thanks for the other post, about the king not being a subject
-- much appreciated).
---
In a message dated 7/4/2009 9:23:10 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
Ursula@xxxxxxxxxx writes:
I think it has something to do with different translations of the Greek
'Logos'.
Mike Geary wrote:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God." To me this first sentence of Scripture is the most astonishing and
most puzzling that I've ever encountered. I can't make any sense of it.
And yet I've lived with it for 65 years without reaching out for some
elucidation. What the hell does it mean? Any suggestions? What does "Word"
mean in this context?
Mike Geary
wordless
in Memphis
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221323013x1201367230/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=
JulystepsfooterNO62)
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
