Houtos Means Only "This" (John 6:60 & 1:2)

[Wrangler]

This is a rare exploration by me into foreign Languages. houtos is the Greek word in both verses. It means "this" in English. οὗτος - Wiktionary

Determiner
οὗτος • (hoûtos), f αὕτη (haútē), n τοῦτο (toûto) (medial demonstrative determiner and pronoun)

this
(of place) here
in contrast with ὅδε (hóde): the preceding
in contrast with ἐκεῖνος (ekeînos): the latter
of someone or something famous or infamous
​

It makes perfect sense in John 6:60. "Many of his disciples said, This is very hard to understand. How can anyone accept it?” It also makes perfect sense in John 1:2. "This was with God in the beginning."

Note how the Greek-to-English translation of houtos does not include any other translation other than "this?" The word is not a translation for she or he in English. And that begs the question of why translators would translate the word correctly in 6:60 but incorrectly in 1:2?

Of course, not every translation got it wrong. However, those translations ADD "one" when biblehub.com does not indicate the presence of the word one. 'He one' does not make sense, which might explain why one translation adds yet another word that is not there per biblehub. Why translate it he himself?

American Standard Version
The same was in the beginning with God.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
This One himself was at the origin with God.

Contemporary English Version
From the very beginning the Word was with God.

Douay-Rheims Bible
The same was in the beginning with God.

Good News Translation
From the very beginning the Word was with God.

Literal Standard Version
this One was in the beginning with God;

 

[Lambano]

However, those translations ADD "one" when biblehub.com does not indicate the presence of the word one.

Of course. "This one" vs. "That one" is inherent in demonstrative pronouns. "This" what? Probably "This Word was in the beginning with God" would better answer that (that question, that is).

So let's follow up - what significance do you see in the οὗτος?

Is it just a general objection to using the more personalizing "He"? I could be argued that "He" is justified by the later context of verse 14.

 

[Wrangler]

So let's follow up - what significance do you see in the οὗτος?

My 1st unanswered question.

And that begs the question of why translators would translate the word correctly in 6:60 but incorrectly in 1:2?

 

[Robert Gwin]

This is a rare exploration by me into foreign Languages. houtos is the Greek word in both verses. It means "this" in English. οὗτος - Wiktionary

Determiner
οὗτος • (hoûtos), f αὕτη (haútē), n τοῦτο (toûto) (medial demonstrative determiner and pronoun)

this
(of place) here
in contrast with ὅδε (hóde): the preceding
in contrast with ἐκεῖνος (ekeînos): the latter
of someone or something famous or infamous
​

It makes perfect sense in John 6:60. "Many of his disciples said, This is very hard to understand. How can anyone accept it?” It also makes perfect sense in John 1:2. "This was with God in the beginning."

Note how the Greek-to-English translation of houtos does not include any other translation other than "this?" The word is not a translation for she or he in English. And that begs the question of why translators would translate the word correctly in 6:60 but incorrectly in 1:2?

Of course, not every translation got it wrong. However, those translations ADD "one" when biblehub.com does not indicate the presence of the word one. 'He one' does not make sense, which might explain why one translation adds yet another word that is not there per biblehub. Why translate it he himself?

American Standard Version
The same was in the beginning with God.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
This One himself was at the origin with God.

Contemporary English Version
From the very beginning the Word was with God.

Douay-Rheims Bible
The same was in the beginning with God.

Good News Translation
From the very beginning the Word was with God.

Literal Standard Version
this One was in the beginning with God;

Most translators do not translate literally, rather to convey thoughts Wrangler. Sometimes not translating things literally really leads to misunderstanding of what words mean, look at Sheol for example sir. The King James version translates it 31x as hell; 31x as grave; and 3x as pit, all mean the same exact thing, the abode of the dead.

 

[Deborah_]

Note how the Greek-to-English translation of houtos does not include any other translation other than "this?" The word is not a translation for she or he in English. And that begs the question of why translators would translate the word correctly in 6:60 but incorrectly in 1:2?

Of course, not every translation got it wrong. However, those translations ADD "one" when biblehub.com does not indicate the presence of the word one. 'He one' does not make sense, which might explain why one translation adds yet another word that is not there per biblehub. Why translate it he himself?

Because English grammar isn't the same as Greek grammar. In Greek, houtos can be used as an adjective or as a pronoun, just as it stands. And you can use it as a pronoun not just for inanimate and abstract things, but also for people.

Determiner
οὗτος • (hoûtos), f αὕτη (haútē), n τοῦτο (toûto) (medial demonstrative determiner and pronoun)

But in English, you can't say "This was in the beginning" when referring to a person. You have to say "This one", "this man", or something similar. That's why the translations either add the word 'one' or change 'This' to 'He'. They are perfectly correct in doing so.

 

[Wrangler]

But in English, you can't say "This was in the beginning" when referring to a person.

Evidence that John 1:2 is not referring to a person, eh? Rather it is referring to this word of god.

 

[Deborah_]

Evidence that John 1:2 is not referring to a person, eh? Rather it is referring to this word of god.

Quite the opposite. It was written in Greek, remember, not in English - so it CAN refer to a person - and in context, in this case it does.

 

[Lambano]

Evidence that John 1:2 is not referring to a person, eh? Rather it is referring to this word of god.

John has already stated in the preceding verse that The Λόγος was God (or “a god”, however you want to interpret an anarthous noun), which implies personhood. Logos is masculine, so “He” is still applicable as the referent.

Where do you want to go with this?

 

[Wrangler]

Quite the opposite. It was written in Greek, remember, not in English - so it CAN refer to a person - and in context, in this case it does.

It CAN refer to a person? There is a Greek word for ‘he’ and it IS NOT houtos.

 

[Deborah_]

It CAN refer to a person? There is a Greek word for ‘he’ and it IS NOT houtos.

In Greek, as in all languages, there's often more than one way of saying the same thing. "He" can be rather non-specific, even ambiguous in certain circumstances. Replacing it with "This man" or "That man" is a perfectly normal thing to do, and can make the meaning clearer. John particularly likes to use the words "houtos" and "ekeinos" when referring to Jesus and the Spirit.

 

[Wrangler]

John has already stated in the preceding verse that The Λόγος was God (or “a god”, however you want to interpret an anarthous noun), which implies personhood. Logos is masculine, so “He” is still applicable as the referent.

Where do you want to go with this?

Calling something, like a word, a person is called personification. Words are WHAT’s, not WHO’s.

Where I want to go with this is to demonstrate the fraud of the inherently contradictory dogma of the trinity using:

1. Definition
2. Logic
3. Language Usage
4. Scripture

John 1:2 is this word not he word.

 

[Lambano]

Calling something, like a word, a person is called personification. Words are WHAT’s, not WHO’s.

The Λόγος is also the organizing intelligence of the world, which may or may not be a Who. God (or “a god”) is definitely a Who.

 

[Wrangler]

The Λόγος is also the organizing intelligence of the world, which may or may not be a Who. God (or “a god”) is definitely a Who.

No. There is nothing mystical about the utterances of a Being. It is God’s intelligence that formed and organized the world. He achieved this by expressing words.


The way you know that the word a Being utters is not mystical is that when we say those same words, such as ‘let there be light’ there’s not the consequence of light being formed. Therefore, the power rests with the Being who says those words which results in those consequences.

 

[Lambano]

No. There is nothing mystical about the utterances of a Being. It is God’s intelligence that formed and organized the world. He achieved this by expressing words.

Which is why, in the context of John 1:1-14, I think Λόγος should be understood in its Greek philosophical αὐτόςmeaning (or as the Wisdom of Proverbs 8:22-31, to switch back to a Jewish context): The intelligence and organizing power that formed the world. However, your hearkening back to Genesis 1:3ff is insightful and well-noted. (Though I would gently suggest that "Let there be light!" and such indeed have mystical power.) Since John's assertion in John 1:14 is that the power that said "Let Us make Man in Our own Image" entered space and time and became a flesh-and-blood man, Trinitarians and Binitarians would heartily agree with that interpretive framework for "Word".

I also note that in John 1:3 and John 1:4, οὗτος switches to αὐτός. "This (Word)" to "Him".

 

[Wrangler]

the power that said "Let Us make Man in Our own Image" entered space and time and became a flesh-and-blood

No. This is not what Scripture says. It merely says Deut 18:15-18 was fulfilled. That power, God, puts his words in the mouth of one among the people. Jesus admitted this.


I don’t speak on my own authority. The Father who sent me has commanded me what to say and how to say it.
John 12:49

Philip went to look for Nathanael and told him, “We have found the very person Moses and the prophets wrote about! His name is Jesus, the son of Joseph from Nazareth.”
John 1:45

 

[Lambano]

No. This is not what Scripture says. It merely says Deut 18:15-18 was fulfilled. That power, God, puts his words in the mouth of one among the people. Jesus admitted this.

I don’t speak on my own authority. The Father who sent me has commanded me what to say and how to say it.
John 12:49

Usually I look for direct quotes, allusion, or echo. Also look at the surrounding context of the echo. I would've also included Deuteronomy 18:19 in Jesus's Deuteronomy allusion. But getting back to John's Prologue: The echo from Genesis 1 ("In the beginning...") rings loud and clear in John 1. I don't hear much of an echo from Deuteronomy in the Prologue, though it's characteristic of John to introduce a theme at the beginning, and then elaborate on it later.

Strategically, you might do better to characterize John's pre-Creation personification of God's Prophetic Word (Creative Word would be the more accurate term, given the prominent Genesis echo) as a literary device analogous to what the writer of Proverbs does with God's חָכְמָה ("Wisdom") in Proverbs 8, rather than deny that John is really personifying it. "Don't pee on my leg and tell me its raining!" - Judge Judy

Anyway, carry on.