Every contributing person on here is a scholar of sorts. Knowing that you can see why the term should have little weight to a subject without the comparison of other scholars.... The same way a single individual should be challenged for a translation of the bible ... hint, hint.
Scholars may work in academic settings, such as universities, or conduct research independently. In our cases, we research independently before we make our presentations.
Abner Kneeland.
In favor of I will say that he
cannot be proven correct or incorrect about God in John in the strict sense.
What we can do is to test whether his reading of John is
textually, grammatically, and historically defensible. If we do that, we can say fairly clearly where his argument is strong, where it fails, and why it remains an interpretation rather than a proof.
Let's us lay this out carefully and neutrally.
Who was Abner Kneeland and what was his claim?
Abner Kneeland (1774–1844) was a former Universalist minister who later rejected traditional theism. Concerning
John 1, Kneeland argued roughly that “The Word” (λόγος) is
not a personal God. This is partially because John uses
impersonal language.
He furthers things by saying “God” (θεός) in John 1:1c does not require identifying the Word
as God because
The Logos represents
divine reason, wisdom, or principle, not a distinct divine person
So Kneeland read John in a
non-Trinitarian, non-incarnational way. this is no surprise that you would chose him as your expert source.
A. These following 5 points are solid and cannot honestly be denied:
1.λόγος (logos) is grammatically masculine but can refer to
impersonal realities (word, message, reason).
2.John 1:1–2
does not explicitly say “Jesus is God.”
3. The clause
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος does
not grammatically mean “the Word was
the God.”
4.John frequently uses
abstract and concrete overlap, especially in the prologue.
5.John 1:1–4 closely parallels
1 John 1:1–2, where “eternal life” is described with
impersonal relative pronouns (“that which”).
I admit THESE facts give Kneeland
some legitimate textual footing.
Continuing
B. The following is where Kneeland’s case breaks down:
- θεός without the article does NOT mean “not God”
- Anarthrous θεός often emphasizes nature or quality, not identity.
- Example meaning: “the Word was divine” or “what God was, the Word was.”
- John personifiesthe Logos immediately:
- “He was in the beginning with God” (1:2)
- “All things came into being through him” (1:3)
- These are not descriptions John uses elsewhere for mere abstractions.
- John 1:14 crosses a line abstractions do not cross:
- “The Word became flesh”
- Not “the Word was expressed in flesh”
- Not “the Word was manifested”
- ἐγένετο σάρξ = became flesh
- John’s broader theology is consistent:
- John 5, 8, 10, 17, 20 all treat the Son as a personal pre-existent agent
- Thomas’s confession (20:28) is left uncorrected
Meaning that while Kneeland is right that
John does not present a later Nicene formula, he cannot prove John intended
an impersonal principle only.
3. The real question is not:
“Does the Greek allow Kneeland’s reading?”
Because It does—
partially.
The real question is:
“Does John’s whole literary and theological argument sustain it? And the answer is
no.
John deliberately moves from
impersonal sounding language (1:1–5) ,to
personal agency (1:6–13),
to
incarnation (1:14). to
relational sonship (1:18)
Kneeland freezes John at verse 1 and never allows the narrative to develop.
So what is the conclusion?
Kneeland’s view is
textually possible but contextually insufficient
John presents the Logos as
more than a thing, though initially described in abstract terms
Later Trinitarian formulations go
beyond John, but not
against him
So your offering him up for expertise does work as Abner Kneeland exposed
real weaknesses in careless Trinitarian proof-texting,
but he did not successfully overturn John’s portrayal of the Logos as a pre-existent, personal, divine agent.
Now,
@Keiw1 would you be interested in a comparison of Kneeland directly with
Arius,
Socinus, or
Philo???
