Syzygy

[sophiaserpentia]

Ah, now I remember the other subject that called to me.

Three times in the last three days I've seen three people on my friends list, in completely disconnected contexts, quote the Greek form of John 1:2.

houtos en en arxe pros ton theon
This one was in the beginning with God.

Three disconnected occurrences is what I would consider a Sign.

houtos is ostensibly a signifier pointing at logos in verse 1. But it looks redundant after verse 1:

en arxe en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos
In the beginning was the logos, and the logos was with/near God, and God was the logos.

Will have to investigate why the author felt verse 2 was necessary after verse 1.

My thoughts have been influenced by Egan's novel Distress this weekend, but he planted the thought in my mind that if there is only one Mind, the universe is not logically necessary; but if there is more than one Mind, the universe becomes necessary if those minds are to coexist and interact.

Whenever I contemplate this I come back to I:29-30 in the Book of the Law, perhaps the most beautiful and eloquent expression of the thought I have yet seen:

29. For I am divided for love's sake, for the chance of union.
30. This is the creation of the world, that the pain of division is as nothing, and the joy of dissolution all.

Or, as Buckminster Fuller put it: "Universe is a minimum of two pictures."

Theos and logos share the same essence, but have different form; one is object, one is reflecting surface; one extends, one contains; one sends, one receives. It is difficult to imagine any other solution to this metaphysical question that doesn't in some way reduce logically to the syzygy.

Comments

[paulott.livejournal.com]

Hello.

I hope you don't mind me letting myself in. I'm Paul. We've never met. I sometimes read religiousdebate, and was intrigued by your post there. What has really amazed me is the lack of response from people calling themselves Christians. Like myself. Then again, I was working on a post calling into question a triune godhead in Christianity based on my very limited knowledge (compared to your own) of the Bible, so I'm not certain many Christians would consider me one of their own. If you'll bear with me and not brush off my relatively ignorant ramblings, I'd like to try to share some thoughts about this post to which I'm adding a comment, and the other one as well.


Will have to investigate why the author felt verse 2 was necessary after verse 1.

It has been explained to me that traditional Jewish poetry is often, although not always, written in pairs of lines. When written this way, the second line of the pair usually either reinforces the first, or provides a contrast to it. There is at least one Jewish scholar (of the Messianic variety: David H. Stern) that translates parts of John 1 as a poem, although it is not one verse per line.

You may already know this next tidbit, but I'll risk retelling you old news because I think it is relevant: the first few lines of the book of John are remarkably similar to a passage in Proverbs, beginning in chapter 8, verse 22.

I hope this helps in some way. And thanks for hearing me out. I hope I wasn't too much of a bother. I'll show myself to the door. Should the wind blow this way again and I find the door unlocked, I may stop back by in the future.

Sincerely,
Paul Ott

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Hello Paul,

Your 'intrusion' is nothing of the sort, but rather, a very welcome comment.

Regarding my post in religiousdebate: I am not all that surprised by the lack of response, because the truth is, I don't think most Christians know the answer to the question I raised. The answer essius gave essentially repeated the "party line," which I already know and still cannot make sense of. I find the doctrine of the Trinity to be a minefield that is cumbersome and overly problematic.

My knowledge of these matters is really not all that extensive. It is certainly not extensive enough that I can afford to dismiss or ignore thoughtful comments, whether they are in agreement with me or not.

I hadn't thought about the idea of translating John's Prologue in couplets, but I can see how it would fit.

As for the parallel to the Sophia passage in Proverbs 8, that had certainly occurred to me; both passages are of special importance to me. The idea that Sophia, as depicted in the works of the Alexandrian Wisdom tradition (cf. also "The Wisdom of Solomon" or "Ben Sira" chapter 24), is the Logos, certainly has precedent in, um, certain strains of early Christian thought.

Following those lines of thought will surely place us outside of mainstream orthodoxy, however. I sense that you are not daunted by that prospect in itself. ;-> I would be curious to see your thoughts "calling into question the truine Godhead," since this is a subject of interest to me too.