![\"Folio](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/637\/2017\/01\/P46greek.jpg\")
<\/a>One of the problems of modern Christianity is that so few are trained to read Scripture in its original languages, or know the commentary material behind each text. This is why so many, indeed most, end up reading into Scripture whatever they want to come out of it. Whatever theological hermeneutic they have coming to the text, given to them by their theological tradition, they readily bring out of it, making it seem as if their opinions are one and the same as the meaning of the text itself.<\/p>\n
This is not a new problem, but with the rise of the printing press and the ability for many people to read a translation of Scripture for themselves, the problem has become greater than before. Many readers end up assuming that the text should be simple enough to understand that they can pick it up and get its meaning right. This serves as the foundation for their other assumption, that they can pick up Scripture and read it, getting out of it what it means, without the intervention or help of anyone else.\u00a0 The fact that they are relying upon translators, and so someone is indeed interpreting the text for them, is lost to them, and if someone tries to tell them this, they find all kinds of excuses in order to hide from themselves that they are indeed trusting in someone else for the interpretation of the text.<\/p>\n
Relying upon a translation of Scripture, without the commentary tradition behind it, hides much of the meaning of the text to the reader, allowing them to easily go astray with their reading. Commentaries can put the translated text back into context, and can help someone understand not only the significance of the individual words used in the original text, but also the grammatical ramifications which were understood by its original audience. It should go without saying, but alas, is often not understood by most reading Scripture, not only is much of its potential meaning is lost in translation, but also, it is easily to try to use the grammatical implications of a translated to text to make the text mean the opposite of its original intent, or to create a theological notion which might accidentally be implicit in the way the text is rendered in translation which would be impossible if the original was read.<\/p>\n
One of the best examples of what can go wrong, and how a text can be easily misconstrued even by a good translation, can be found in the opening of the Gospel of John.<\/p>\n
In English, people are familiar with the text, \u201cIn the beginning was the Word.\u201d\u00a0 This is how most Bibles translate, \u201c\u1f18\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc7 \u1f26\u03bd \u1f41 \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2\u201d (en arch\u0113 \u0113n o logos). In English, the text looks as if it were talking about a temporal event, \u201cIn the beginning,\u201d and in that event, was (past tense) the Word (or Logos).\u00a0 While this is a possible reading of the text, most of the possible meanings of the Greek are lost. \u00a0What remains, what most readers get out of the text, is a temporal reading of Gospel passage, a reading which ends up causing all kinds of theological problems. What are we to make of the Logos? Was the Logos only to be found at the beginning of time, allowing that when time was not, the Logos was not? Can the Logos be said to be \u201cbefore\u201d the beginning, or does it come into existence at the beginning so that its being itself is one with the foundation of time?<\/p>\n
The rest of the verse, in English, continues to provide a similar temporal misunderstanding: \u201cand the Word was with God, and the Word was God,\u201d that is, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd \u1f41 \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 (kai o logos \u0113n pros ton theon kai theos \u0113n o logos). Once again, the text appears to suggest this was all in the past. At the beginning of time, the Word was with God,\u00a0 while somehow the Word was also associated with God. Moreover, the ambiguity of \u201cand the Word was God\u201d as it is found in Greek is not able to be seen in the English, for the text could read \u201cand a God was the Word\u201d or \u201cand God was the Word\u201d because of the lack of a definitive article in front of the word for God, \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2.<\/p>\n
Without any external commentary and presupposition going into the text, it is easy to see how the passage could and would normally be read: at the beginning of time was the Word, and the Word was with God at that point in time (but moved away from God afterward), and so was said to be a God at that time. What happened afterwards? Why does the text say it was <\/em>God and not that it is <\/em>God? Does this not imply the possibility that, thanks to time, the Word lost its association with the divinity?<\/p>\n Christology, therefore, becomes difficult if not impossible, when a simple reading of the text is used to establish the identity of Christ. Implications will be read in the text thanks to how it is rendered into English; they are valid and indeed, the most straight forward reading if the text is not interpreted with an external hermeneutic, and yet what results is quite different from the meaning as found in the Greek.<\/p>\n Let us start by looking at \u1f26\u03bd, \u0113n, that is, the word used for \u201cwas\u201d in English translations. \u1f26\u03bd, \u0113n, in Greek is imperfect; the imperfect is used for the simple past, but also for events which started in the past but are said to continue without completion (or end). When John writes that the Word \u201cwas\u201d with God, the word does not have to indicate something which happened merely in the past, but can be seen to represent the continuous presence of the Word with God. Likewise, then, the Word \u201cwas\u201d God does not have to mean the Word once was God; rather, it can be seen to suggest that the Word was, and is, and continues to be God. This is lost in translation, but in the Greek, is easily ascertained, undermining therefore the simple reading of the text as it is rendered into English.<\/p>\n Likewise, we find much possible meaning and understanding is lost when we consider the word translated as \u201cbeginning,\u201d that is, \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc7, arch\u0113. \u00a0While \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc7 can mean beginning, in a temporal sense, that is a far more restricted use of the word and not the kind which was normally associated with it in metaphysical discussions. It can be and should also be seen as a word associated with leadership, authority, or foundations. A leader or principle of authority can be said to be an \u201carchon,\u201d which is why Gnostic writers would talk about the various \u201carchons\u201d which preside over creation. An \u201carchon\u201d is a ruler because they are in the \u201clead.\u201d Leadership or authority was seen to reside at those who come first, who are at the head of a line, similar to the way \u201cpriority\u201d indicates authority to someone who is \u201cprior\u201d to another.<\/p>\n We can therefore read the text, \u1f18\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc7 \u1f26\u03bd \u1f41 \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, en arch\u0113 \u0113n o logos, as: \u00a0In the \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc7 (arch\u0113) was and continues to be the Word. That is in the principle of power and authority which exists prior to creation, the archon, was, is, and ever shall be the Word.\u00a0 Therefore, when we look to the principle foundation behind creation, we have the archon, that is God, and in that archon, with that archon, we find the Word. For the Word was with that principle behind creation, and so is indeed said to be God. When looking to the principle foundation of the world, that is to God and the Godhead, the Word is found, for the Word was with the divinity in that principle foundation of the world, and indeed, is God. To be sure, in some few translations of John, a few try to highlight this by saying something like, \u201cIn the archon was the Word,\u201d but most translations avoid this because they do not want interpreters to get confused with the word archon, fearing possibly it would lead a reader astray by accepting some Gnostic metaphysical theory instead of the way the text tries to establish a unified, single archon in which is found the Word. Others, however, try something else, suggesting we read it as \u201cin the principality\u201d or \u201cprinciple\u201d or even, loosely, \u201cin the kingdom\u201d was the Word, suggesting more the relationship between the Word with the kingdom of God in the beginning of John.<\/p>\n The difficulty of the opening of John, and how to interpret it, is much better realized by those who read it in Greek.\u00a0 This is why ancient commentaries, by those who could read or speak in Greek, were able to reflect upon its many possible implications better than those who read it merely in English.\u00a0 All the possible meanings and interpretations, based upon the nuances of the Greek grammar, and the range of meanings found in each of the words, led to some interesting and rather nuanced theological which are not so readily ascertained by those reading it in translation, and yet those nuances are important for the theological enterprise, because how they are read explains the diverse ways Christology and the Theology of God have developed as a result of the Gospel of John.<\/p>\n Now if you were to think that the beginning <\/em>is a particular time \u2026 on examination you would find that it presupposes time; the word beginning <\/em>has not one meaning but many. In fact (without prolonging my treatment), sometimes it means cause, as in this case: heaven and earth exist in the cause, wisdom being the cause of their existence and condition as well. The world, you see, did not come into existence independently, without being generated; everything was made by the Word, remember, and in Christ Jesus \u201cthere were created things on earth and things in heaven, things visible and invisible\u201d; in the Son and for him \u201call things hold together,\u201d for \u201che is before all things.\u201d\u00a0 Without the Word of God, in fact, who is neither interior, nor uttered, but an actual word, the substantial Word of God, nothing could exist. In other words, just as an architect \u2026 designs a city for building \u2026 encompassing in itself. At other times the word beginning <\/em>means kingly rule, so that here too he has made everything as king and possessing authority; \u2026. he did not have material available to him for the substance of the universe\u2026.[1]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Those who think they can pick up Scripture, read it, and interpret it based upon their simple reading, will miss out and likely go astray because of what knowledge they lack; they might think they need nothing from the theological tradition established by men and women who came before them, but they would be losing out what those who came before them had set as to be universally held. Scripture itself shows us we must be careful when dealing with tradition, and not abandon what it teaches, when it states: \u201cRemove not the ancient landmark which your fathers have set\u201d (Prov. 22:28 RSV).<\/p>\n While many passages do not give as much difficulty and complexity as the opening of John, many of them do, and so what is true with this text, is true others. Relying upon translation will give someone an element of what was meant by the text, but they will have lost of the content that they will likely be led astray. Without secondary tools such as the tradition which produced the Bible and continues to present it to us today, it is easy for theological change and innovation to occur, causing scandal as the landmarks of Christian theology end up being abandoned.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n<\/a>
\n