Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Also, perhaps our current, modern ideas of logic have been so minaturized and technicalized that we think to use such an idea in John 1 is appalling.
This is a good point. The culture has become anti-intellectual in general, and much of the Church has equated logic (philosophy, reading...learning in general), instead of the improper use of logic, with evil. Although I don't know why our translations chose "word" and don't know Clark's argument, I do think that one should get past a knee-jerk reaction.
I think "word" is better, as Christ is the expression of the Father, "the express image of his person" (Heb 1:3), and again, "the image of God" (2 Cor 4:4).
One thing to remember, logos was/has been translated as Word and not logic since way before anti-intellectualism invaded the church. So one quite a burden to say that one can do better translation.
How does that make the translation "word" better? An image is a visual representation and a word is not. By your argument it seems like "word" would be one of the worst translation choices. Clark's references to Proverbs 8 which Jim has copied here speak of Christ in a more directly intellectual sense.
Also, if it is so obvious that "word" would be the best rendition, why do you think John chose the word logos instead of rhema, as in the verse you quoted? Just wondering what your thoughts are.
There's no finite verb in the first clause of your second sentence so I'm not sure what you meant there.
I don't think history means a whole lot. If you want to talk about it having been so translated long before the rise of anti-intellectualism, one could note that it was first translated "word (verbum)" by the Romans. I was just saying that people's reaction to Clark's proposition that "logic" may be a better rendition is colored by our place in time.
Another thing: logic is a direct cognate of logos, unlike "word" which comes from the German wort.
By the way, I've listened to several lectures by John Robbins and I remember him saying that the translation "word" isn't wrong, just that it is one of many possibilities. Again, see the references to Proverbs 8.
Jim,Bruce,
Clark is NOT saying that logic is the proper and only translation of logos. He said it is a possible one as is reason, wisdom and many others. Have you read his book? If you haven't you should check it out.
Jim
I'm not ... going to dispute with GClark ... he does us all a service by bringing out just such "a" force from the word "logos". Thank you for the monograph.
Clark ... points out that the word "Word" really is not the best translation. Reason, Wisdom (See Proverbs 8) and Logic are all better.
I can appreciate the argument, or the presentation that presents new insight, or brings something neglected out of a passage or a word. But my point was that "Word" is not a poor translation. It is an excellent translation. And I don't agree that these other glosses are, in fact, "better". I think such renderings would end up hiding more nuance than they reveal, by bearing down in one particular direction. "Word" is better, precisely because it is a broader term, with the wider semantic range.
I guess we'll just have to differ.
"Word" is not a poor translation. It's excellent.
John's point is that Jesus is the Revelation enfleshed, the Incarnation of God's Word. He fulfills the Word of OT Revelation, embodying it and taking it beyond what could have been imagined. "Thus saith the Lord," "And God said," "The Word of the Lord that came to..." Words, words, words.
It's not translation to render "logos" as "logic", but interpretation. I'd even say reduction, because logic is only one use of words and language. Certainly there is more to the OT than propositions.
I'm not even going to dispute with GClark as to whether he does us all a service by bringing out just such "a" force from the word "logos". Thank you for the monograph. But to say that "logic" is the proper translation is vastly overstated.
Bruce - couldn't say it better.
This becomes such a mantra for Clarkians. When challenged with the Church's historical use of terms, they'll go to this guard: yeah but this culture is anti-intellectual.One of his main reasons for doing so is to combat the thorough anti-intellectual, irrational bias of our culture including the church.
Gordon Clark's fundamental error was his belief that God thinks. Logic requires process, but God does not know by process. Logic is a created entity. The second person of the Trinity is uncreated.
How does that make the translation "word" better? An image is a visual representation and a word is not. By your argument it seems like "word" would be one of the worst translation choices...
Also, if it is so obvious that "word" would be the best rendition, why do you think John chose the word logos instead of rhema, as in the verse you quoted? Just wondering what your thoughts are.
David, in response to your post #12: We err if we construe “image” – (Greek, charakter) – in Hebrews 1:3, and “image” – (Greek, eikon) – in 2 Corinthians 4:4 to refer to what you term “a visual representation.” That is not the meaning of the usages of “image” in these two instances (see post #8). Perhaps my starting a new paragraph after this sentence hindered my being clear,
I think "word" is better, as Christ is the expression of the Father, "the express image of his person" (Heb 1:3), and again, "the image of God" (2 Cor 4:4).
For my next sentence was,
When David says, "thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name" (Ps 138:2), he is saying, by the Holy Spirit, that the spoken expression of God is paramount.
I quote from Spiros Zodhiates, “The Son is the eikon of God indicating the revelatory character of the incarnation (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15).” And of my next use of “image” he says, “Occurs only in Heb. 1:3 where it [charakter] is translated ‘express image,’ referring to Jesus Christ. Here He is described as ‘the exact image of His [God’s] essence’ [SZ’s translation]. Whatever the divine essence is, Jesus is said to be its perfect expression.” (The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament, [AMG: ISBN 089957663X], pp. 512 & 1468.)
My point is, “image” in these two cases is not visual but refers to Christ representing God’s heart and essence. And that the verbal manifestation of this revelation God says is quintessential. Consider, God reveals His glory and His will to us by the Holy Spirit through His word.
Rhema is a far more limited word than logos, referring as it does to the teachings of God (in the usage I am thinking of) rather than the expression of His Being.
Thus, word is the best translation choice for logos.
I hope this clarifies my thought.
Steve
Insightful and very true! This point needs to be stressed more, I think. Epistemology is wrong-headed from the start if it doesn't realize that God is ontologically different, wholly other. He has, nevertheless, revealed himself by words and ultimately his only begotten Word. For such a being, I'm compelled to believe and trust, even when human logic (a very important and necessary human tool) comes to a stand-still in explaining mysteries.
Frankly, this is the typical arrogance of men who pridefully assert that their interpretation is superior to the testimony of the Church for centuries. One would like to think that Confessional Christians would be more circumspect.
If the Confession is wrong, David, then it is not up for you to simply assert it's failure at that point, standing apart from a Synod or Council to reform it just for yourself. We might as well jettison the idea of Reformed confessionalism and let each man decide where the Confession needs to be changed for himself.Hey Rich,
I wasn't trying to be arrogant when I made that statement. In fact, I didn't even say that I was making an argument. I just said that it is something to keep in mind.
I would think that it's also possible to pridefully assert something just because it's confessional and assume that that makes it better. This is something I'm still studying for myself but I know that we often like to use the "who are you to go against church history?" argument when it suits our purposes. I'm glad Luther didn't succumb to that reply to his teachings. If the Confession is wrong about something shouldn't it be changed? That's all that the Clarkians are proposing.
Again, I'm not necessarily arguing for Clark here. I just hate the way people turn up their noses on this board sometimes. It's just as arrogant as I've seen the Clarkians often conduct themselves.