The wonton gospel?
Posted by Dave Bath on 2009-08-27
Can anybody help me here? What version of John 1:1 has the best provenance? To what does the wonton refer? Why doesn’t John weigh in with three or even five tons?
All I can find is the following:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος
My Greek, all two weeks of it during form 3 Latin back in Gough’s third year as consul, could be described very kindly as utterly crap, although my grokking of longer technical words is a little better, but…
If this is the best text, and my guess that "ton" is "the" definite article and "o" is "a/an" indefinite article (a guess from Chomsky’s rules of tongue, although short common words aren’t preserved well), then what is a pedantic fully-expanded translation?
If theos is a logos, not the logos, then theos is an instance of a class that probably has more than one instance. That interpretation would fit well with the plural form "-im" in the common Judaic phrase "adonai elohim" (gangleader of the gods).
Anyway, what’s the chance that the text hasn’t been conveniently redacted over time? That’s why I’m hoping to find the best guess as to the original text.
It makes much more than an iota of difference… pun intended.
Either way, regardless of my poor knowledge of short greek words, John posits many substantial similarities, if not equivalence to logos and theos, thus granting theological authority to the community of scientists (don’t ask the pope about life, ask a biologist). The scientists have been working hard at grokking logos for much longer than Xtianity has been around after all. It probably explains why the Xtians so effectively, for so long, suppressed science and rational thought.
It’s a pity that while there is consubstantial, I can’t find cosubstantial on the net. That’d let me go "Cosubstantial, consubstantial,….. neh."