That was a reviewers comments, not my own, about a Science Fiction book.
I believe John 1:1 to be the Truth, as I believe the whole Bible to be the Truth.
1:1 In the beginning1 was the Word, and the Word was with God,2 and the Word was God.3 1:2 The Word4 was with God in the beginning. 1:3 All things were created5 by him, and apart from him not one thing was created6 that has been created.7 1:4 In him was life,8 and the life was the light of mankind.9 1:5 And the light shines on10 in the darkness,11 but12 the darkness has not mastered it.13
bible.org
1sn In the beginning. The search for the basic "stuff" out of which things are made was the earliest one in Greek philosophy. It was attended by the related question of "What is the process by which the secondary things came out of the primary one (or ones)?," or in Aristotelian terminology, "What is the 'beginning' (same Greek word as beginning, John 1:1) and what is the origin of the things that are made?" In the New Testament the word usually has a temporal sense, but even BAGD 112 s.v. 2 lists the second major category of meaning as "the first cause." For John, the words "In the beginning" are most likely a conscious allusion to the opening words of Genesis-"In the beginning." Other concepts which occur prominently in Gen 1 are also found in John's prologue: "life" "light" and "darkness" . Gen 1 describes the first (physical) creation; John 1 describes the new (spiritual) creation. But this is not to play off a false dichotomy between "physical" and "spiritual"; the first creation was both physical and spiritual. The new creation is really a re-creation, of the spiritual (first) but also the physical. (In spite of the common understanding of John's 'spiritual' emphasis, the "physical" recreation should not be overlooked; this occurs in John 2 with the changing of water into wine, in John 11 with the resurrection of Lazarus, and the emphasis of John 20-21 on the aftermath of Jesus' own resurrection.
2tn The preposition prov" (pros) implies not just proximity, but intimate personal relationship. M. Dods stated, "Prov" ...means more than metav or parav, and is regularly employed in expressing the presence of one person with another" ("The Gospel of St. John," The Expositor's Greek Testament, 1:684). See also Mark 6:3, Matt 13:56, Mark 9:19, Gal 1:18, 2 John 12.
3tn Or "and what God was, the Word was too"; or "and the Word was fully God." Colwell's Rule is often invoked to support the translation of qeov" (qeos) as definite ("God") rather than indefinite here. However, Colwell's Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell's Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. Orthodox Christian theology would permit either a definite or a qualitative meaning for qeov" here. From a technical standpoint, though, it is probably preferable to see something of a qualitative aspect to anarthrous qeov" in John 1:1. Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English "the Word was divine" does not quite catch the meaning since "divine" as a descriptive term is not used in English exclusively of God. Thus the translation "what God was, the Word was too" is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader.
sn And the Word was God. John's theology consistently drives toward the conclusion that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is just as much God as God the Father. This can be seen, for example, in John's use of the verb "worship" (proskunevw, proskunew) with Jesus as object in John 9:38, a word that elsewhere in John (4:21, 23-24) has only God the Father as its object. The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God; rather it equates the essence of the Word with that of God.
4tn Grk "He"; the referent (the Word) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
5tn Or "made"; Grk "came into existence."
6tn Or "made"; Grk "nothing came into existence."
7tc There is a major punctuation problem here: should this relative clause go with v. 3 or v. 4? The earliest mss have no punctuation (Ì66 Ì75* Í* A B D). Many of the later mss which do have punctuation place it before the phrase, thus putting it with v. 4 (Ì75c C D L Q al). NA25 placed the phrase in v. 3; NA26 moved the words to the beginning of v. 4. In a detailed article K. Aland defended the change ("Eine Untersuchung zu Johannes 1, 3-4. Über die Bedeutung eines Punktes," ZNW 59 [1968]: 174-209). He sought to prove that the attribution of o} gevgonen (}o gegonen) to v. 3 began to be carried out in the 4th century in the Greek church. This came out of the Arian controversy, and was intended as a safeguard for doctrine. The change was unknown in the West. Aland is probably correct in affirming that the phrase was attached to v. 4 by the Gnostics and the Eastern Church; only when the Arians began to use them were they attached to v. 3. But this does not rule out the possibility that, by moving the words from v. 4 to v. 3, one is restoring the original reading. Understanding the words as part of v. 3 is natural and adds to the emphasis which is built up there; while it also gives a terse, forceful statement in v. 4. On the other hand, taking the phrase o} gevgonen with v. 4 gives a complicated expression: C. K. Barrett says that both ways of understanding v. 4 with o} gevgonen included 'are almost impossibly clumsy' (St. John, 157): "That which came into being-in it the Word was life"; "That which came into being-in the Word was its life." The following stylistic points should be noted in the solution of this problem: (1) John frequently starts sentences with ejn (en); (2) he repeats frequently ("nothing was created that has been created"); (3) 5:26 and 6:53 both give a sense similar to v. 4 if it is understood without the phrase; (4) it makes far better Johannine sense to say that in the Word was life than to say that the created universe (what was made, o} gevgonen) was life in him. In conclusion: The phrase is best taken with v. 3. Schnackenburg, Barrett, Carson, Haenchen, Morris, KJV, and NIV concur (against Brown, Beasley-Murray, and NEB). The arguments of R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, 1:239-40, are particularly persuasive.
tn Or "made"; Grk "that has come into existence."
8tn John uses zwhv (zwh) 37 times: 17 times it occurs with aijwvnio" (aiwnios), and in the remaining occurrences outside the prologue it is clear from context that 'eternal' life is meant. The two uses in 1:4, if they do not refer to 'eternal' life, would be the only exceptions. (Also 1 John uses zwhv 13 times, always of 'eternal' life.)
sn An allusion to Ps 36:9, which gives significant OT background: "For with you is the fountain of life; In your light we see light." In later Judaism, Bar 4:2 expresses a similar idea. Life, especially eternal life, will become one of the major themes of John's Gospel.
9tn Grk "of men" (but in a generic sense, not restricted to males only, thus "mankind").
10tn Up till now the author has used past tenses (imperfects, aorists); now he switches to a present. The light continually shines (thus the translation, "shines on"). Even as the author writes, it is shining. The present here most likely has gnomic force (though it possible to take it as a historical present); it expresses the timeless truth that the light of the world (cf. 8:12, 9:5, 12:46) never ceases to shine.
sn The light shines on. The question of whether John has in mind here the pre-incarnate Christ or the incarnate Christ is probably too specific. The incarnation is not really introduced until v. 9, but here the point is more general: it is of the very nature of light, that it shines.
11sn The author now introduces what will become a major theme of John's Gospel: the opposition of light and darkness. The antithesis is a natural one, widespread in antiquity. Gen 1 gives considerable emphasis to it in the account of the creation, and so do the writings of Qumran. It is the major theme of one of the most important extra-biblical documents found at Qumran, the so-called War Scroll, properly titled The War of the Sons of Light with the Sons of Darkness. Connections between John and Qumran are still an area of scholarly debate and a consensus has not yet emerged. See T. A. Hoffman, "1 John and the Qumran Scrolls," BTB 8 (1978): 177-21.
12tn Grk "and," but the context clearly indicates a contrast, so this is translated as an adversative use of kaiv (kai).
13tn Or "comprehended it," or "overcome it." The verb katevlaben (katelaben) is not easy to translate. "To seize" or "to grasp" is possible, but this also permits "to grasp with the mind" in the sense of "to comprehend" (esp. in the middle voice). This is probably another Johannine double meaning-one does not usually think of darkness as trying to "understand" light. For it to mean this, "darkness" must be understood as meaning "certain people," or perhaps "humanity" at large, darkened in understanding. But in John's usage, darkness is not normally used of people or a group of people. Rather it usually signifies the evil environment or 'sphere' in which people find themselves: "They loved darkness rather than light" (John 3:19). Those who follow Jesus do not walk in darkness . They are to walk while they have light, lest the darkness "overtake/overcome" them (12:35, same verb as here). For John, with his set of symbols and imagery, darkness is not something which seeks to "understand (comprehend)" the light, but represents the forces of evil which seek to "overcome (conquer)" it. The English verb "to master" may be used in both sorts of contexts, as "he mastered his lesson" and "he mastered his opponent." |
