Same as the current English translations might not use a proper interpretation of the Greek "logos" and this might be cause of misleading, same as well the same Greek word "logos" might be as well an erroneous interpretation of the original Hebrew or Aramaic language spoken by John.
In my opinion, the Gospels and other writings of the New Testament were in their majority written in Hebrew or Aramaic. It is hard to me the acceptance of a fisher man like Peter who was Israelite and an Aramaic speaker person, writing his letters in so "perfect" Greek language. Same with John.
The use of "word" instead of "logic" in the current translations is more acceptable because languages are not to be translated word by word by as a context. And the use of "word" in John's Gospel, is to empathize the first verses of Genesis when it is read: ... and God said... God using words to create.
On the other hand, even when several attributes have been conceived to God are a common consensus, I do not find in the Bible any reference saying that God is moral. God is not the codes of behavior but the provider of them. Then, God is not moral itself but the provider of it.
The text defeats your argument by your own, quite correct, standard of translation being not woodenly "word for word" but by means of context. It is the ideas being expressed that should be converted into the other language not necessarily the dictionary definitions of particular words.
The context of the passage itself make it clear that the English term "word" does NOT convey the meaning of "logos".
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was
the light of men. 5 And
the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not
comprehend it.
The "light" in verse 4 is not physical light as in "Let there be light" in Genesis 1. It is the light of understanding! This would have been COMPLETELY intuitive to anyone reading this passage in the very Hellenistic world of the first century Romans Empire - including Israel and whole surrounding region.
As for notion that the gospels and other writings of the New Testament were not originally written in Greek, the fact is that there’s no historical, textual, or linguistic evidence to support that claim.
Yes, the apostles were Jewish and yes, they spoke Aramaic (and likely Hebrew in formal or religious settings). That much is obvious. But Koine Greek was the common language of the Roman Empire. It was the language of commerce, education, and cross-cultural communication. If someone wanted to write something that would be read beyond the narrow confines of Judea, then Greek was the only language that would make sense to choose. And that’s precisely what we see.
Peter’s letters, for instance, are addressed to believers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. All of which were thoroughly Hellenized regions. John’s Revelation is addressed to seven churches in Asia Minor, likewise Greek-speaking. These men ministered for decades in Greek-speaking areas. It should not be surprising if they became fluent in the Greek language or that they employed scribes (which was common practice) to assist in composition. The style of Greek varies across New Testament books, which is exactly what we would expect from different authors, writing at different times, with different levels of education and perhaps different scribes.
What we don’t see, not even once, is an ancient manuscript of a New Testament book written in Hebrew or Aramaic. All of our oldest and best manuscripts are Greek. Every early church father who quoted the New Testament quoted it in Greek. And none of them ever said the originals were in Hebrew or Aramaic. If such documents ever existed, they vanished without a trace, left no influence on the textual tradition, left no evidence even in the Greek manuscripts that we have that they are translations from any other language, and were never mentioned by anyone in the early church. That’s not just unlikely; it’s completely implausible if not outright impossible.
Let’s not forget either that Luke, who wrote more of the New Testament than anyone, was a Greek-speaking Gentile. Paul was a Roman citizen and a highly educated Jew from the Greek city of Tarsus. Most of the epistles were written to Greek-speaking churches across the Roman Empire. This idea that the New Testament was primarily written in Hebrew or Aramaic is not only unsupported, it flies in the face of everything we actually know about the first-century world.
The Greek New Testament is not a translation of a Hebrew or Aramaic original. It
is the original. If we’re going to take the text seriously, we need to stop trying to retrofit it to suit modern theories and just deal honestly with what the evidence shows.
P.S. Be sure to use the quote feature whenever you're responding to a post. It makes it MUCH more likely that your post will be seen by the person you're responding to.
