This Kindle book, And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 is available on Amazon by clicking here
"What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of men." New American Bible
..."and without Him nothing was made that was made." New King James Bible
I often have people writing to me and quoting John 1:3 as it is rendered in the New King James Version, in order to prove to me that Jesus was creator. As it is written, in the NKJV, it certainly seems to say that, but once we read it in the New American Bible above, we get quite another picture. Going along with the NAB, is the 20th Century NT, NRSV, NAB, NJB, JB, NEB, BBE, HCSB ftn., RSV ftn., RV ftn., Weymouth ftn, ASV ftn, Anchor Bible, Fenton, Schonfield, Lattimore, Translator's New Testament, Funk/Hoover and Rotherham."
John 1:3 cannot be used to promote a certain dogmatism, as a rule of hermeneutics is that no ambiguous text can be a proof text.
So what happened with John 1:3? As the NAB says in its footnote,
"WHAT CAME TO BE, while the oldest manuscripts have no punctuation here, the corrector of Bodmer P75, some mss, and the ANF take this phrase with what follows, as staircase parallelism. Connection with verse 3 reflects 4th century anti-Arianism."Has this verse been corrupted to quell a certain doctrine (Arianism) as the NAB claims?
The Anchor Bible has this reading, "That which had come to be in him was life, and this life was the light of men" as opposed to the other reading we have in the NKJV. To support their reading, Raymond E. Brown writes,
"These lines are sometimes divided in another way, thus: 3b and apart from him there came to be not a thing which came to be./4 In him was life.' In such a division, the clause 'which came to be' - instead of beginning in vs. 4 - completes vs. 3. This alternate division is found in the Clementine Vulg.; and according to Mehlmann, 'De mente,' it was Jerome's own division (except for one instance). But De la Potterie, 'De interpretatione,' insists that Jerome changed to this division only about A.D. 401 for apologetic reasons. Most modern commentators use the division we have chosen in our translation; Barrett and Haenchen are exceptions. In an attempt to prove our division is the most ancient Boismard, p. 14, gives an impressive list of patristic writers who used it; and he suggests that the above alternate translation was introduced only in the 4th century as anti-Arian apologetics."JR Michaels, in his commentary on John, also writes:
"But the overwhelming evidence of ancient manuscripts and church fathers is that in the early centuries hO GEGONEN was read as the beginning of v. 4, not the conclusion of v. 3" (John, 25).Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament has this to say:
"It is doubtful also whether the relative clause "that hath been made" (o gegonen) is a part of this sentence or begins a new one as Westcott and Hort print it. The verb is second perfect active indicative of ginomai. Westcott observes that the ancient scholars before Chrysostom all began a new sentence with o gegonen. The early uncials had no punctuation.Bruce Metzger, while stating that none of the arguments are conclusive, does put forth the following in his Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament,
"Should the words O GEGONEN be joined with what goes before or with what follows? The oldest manuscripts (P66, P75, Aleph, A [Codex Alexandrinus] B [Vatican Manuscript 1209]) have no punctuation here, and in any case the presence of punctuation in Greek manuscripts, as well as in versional and patristic sources, cannot be regarded as more than the reflection of current exegetical understanding of the meaning of the passage.Note how all the early Fathers took this
A majority of the Committee was impressed by the consensus of ante-Nicene writers (orthodox and heretical alike) who took O GEGONEN with what follows. When, however, in the fourth century Arians and the Macedonian heretics began to appeal to the passage to prove that the Holy Spirit is to be regarded as one of the created things, orthodox writers preferred to take O GEGONEN with the preceding sentence, thus removing the possibility of heretical use of the passage.
The punctuation adopted for the text [O GEGONEN as part of verse 4] is in accord with what a majority regarded as the rhythmical balance of the opening verses of the Prologue, where the climactic or 'staircase' parallelism' seems to demand that the end of the line should match the beginning of the next. (For discussion in support of taking O GEGONEN with what follows, see K. Aland, "Uber die Beduetung eines Punktes. (Eine Untersuchung zu Joh. 1, 3 4)." in Studies in the History and Text of the New Testament in Honor of Kenneth Willis Clark, ed. by Boyd L. Daniels and M. Jack Suggs (=Studies and Documents, XXIX; Salt Lake City, 1967), pp. 161
-187 (an expanded form of the study appeared in Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, LIX [1968], pp. 174-209), and Ed. L. Miller, Salvation-History in the Prologue of John. The Significance of John 1:3/4 (Leiden, 1989), pp. 17-44."
verse and how it is when we get closer to Nicaea, the sentiment changes. These stats
can all be derived from the Nestle Aland 27th edition.
| "What came to be through him was life,
and this life was the light of men." NAB |
..."and without Him nothing was made
that was made." New King James Bible |
|---|---|
| Naassenes II/III | |
| Theodotus (ac. to Cl) II | |
| Valentinians(ac.to Ir) 160 | |
| Diatessaron II | |
| Ptolemy II | |
| HeracleonII | |
| Theophilus 180 | |
| Perateni III | |
| Irenaeus 202 | |
| Clement 215 | |
| Tertullian 220 | |
| Hippolutus 235 | |
| Origen 254 | Adamantius 300 |
| Eusebius 339 | Alexander 373 |
| Ambrosiaster IV | Ephraem 373 |
| Hilary 367 | Didymus 398 |
| Athanasius 373 | Epiphanus 403 |
| Cyril (Jerusalem) 386 | Chrysostom 420 |
| Epiphanus 403 | Jerome 420 |
| Nonnus 431 | |
| Pseudo Ignatius V |
We can see from the above that the closer one gets to Trinitarian controversy surrounding Nicaea, the more the punctuation changes in favor of showing Jesus as creator. The change is evidently theological, promoting a certain doctrine. It does not reflect the ancient text.
What is "Staircase Parallelism?" Let's start with Verse 1, with the punctuation as supplied the W/Hort Greek Text:
EN ARCH HN O LOGOS, KAI
O LOGOS HN PROS TON QEON, KAI
QEOS HN O LOGOS
Now let us try verses 3 and 4:
PANTA DI AUTOU EGENETO, KAI
CWRIS AUTOU EGENETO OUDE EN.
O GEGONEN EN AUTW ZWH HN,
KAI H ZWH HN TO FWS TWN ANQRWPWN
Verse 5:
KAI TO FWS EN TH SKOTIA FAINEI,
KAI H SKOTIA AUTO OU KATELABEN
Or, in English,
In the beginning was the Word, and
the Word was toward the God,
and god was the Word.
All (things) thru him came-to-be, and
apart from him came-to-be nothing not but one (thing).
which has come to be in him life was, and
the life was the light of the men;
and the light in the darkness is shining
and the darkness it not overpowered.
It only makes sense here to leave "what has come to be" as part of verse 4.
What this leaves us with, is to focus on the agency of the LOGOS/Word through the use of CWRIS/Caris.
On page 793 (volume I, Louw-Nida's Greek-English Lexicon ) under semantic domain 89.120, this source makes this observation about XWRIS Jn 1:3:
"It would be wrong to restructure Jn 1:3 to read 'he made everything in all creation,' for in the Scriptures God is spoken of as the Creator, but the creation was done 'through the Word.' If one must restructure Jn 1:3, it may be possible to say 'he was involved in everything that was created' or 'he took part in creating everything.'Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament says:
All things (panta). The philosophical phrase was ta panta (the all things) as we have it in 1 Corinthians 8:6; Romans 11:36; Colossians 1:16. In verse 1:10 John uses o kosmoß (the orderly universe) for the whole. Were made (egeneto). Second aorist middle indicative of ginomai, the constative aorist covering the creative activity looked at as one event in contrast with the continuous existence of hn in verses 1,2. All things "came into being." Creation is thus presented as a becoming (ginomai) in contrast with being (eimi). By him (di autou). By means of him as the intermediate agent in the work of creation. The Logos is John's explanation of the creation of the universe. The author of Hebrews (Hebrews 1:2) names God's Son as the one "through whom he made the ages." Paul pointedly asserts that "the all things were created in him" (Christ) and "the all things stand created through him and unto him" (Colossians 1:16). Hence it is not a peculiar doctrine that John here enunciates. In 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul distinguishes between the Father as the primary source (ex ou) of the all things and the Son as the intermediate agent as here (di ou). Without him (cwriß autou).Thayer's Greek Lexicon says of CWRIS in John 1:3 "without the intervention (participation or co-operation) of one."
BAGD has "without, or apart from=apart from someone's activity or assistance"
In this way, the Bible in Living English handles it superbly, "Everything was made by his agency." Jn 1:3
Even Origen acknowledged this,
"And the apostle Paul says in his epistle to the Hebrews: 'At the end of the days He spoke to us in his Son, whom He made heir of all things, 'through whom' also He made the ages, " showing us that God made the ages through His Son, the 'through whom' belonging, when the ages were made to the Only-begotten. Thus if all things were made, as in this passage also, THROUGH [DIA] the Logos, then they were not made by the Logos, but by a stronger and greater than He. And who else could this but the Father?"Origen's Commentary on John, ANF 10, Book 2, chap. 6, p. 328
The assistance of whom though? Why, by His created Wisdom, Jesus Christ himself:
"The LORD created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of long ago..Many do not usually like it when you connect this verse with Jesus, but the parallels are too overwhelming to be ignored. Check out the cross-references of the following Bibles, as they point between Wisdom and the Logos.
Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth.
When there were no depths, I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water.
Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills was I brought forth-
when he had not yet made earth and fields, or the world's first bits of soil.
When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,
when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep,
when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth,
then I was beside him, like a master worker, and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always." Prov 8:22-30 NRSV
New American Bible: John 1:1-> Prov 8:22-25
New Scofield Study Bible/KJV: Prov 8:22-> John 1:1; Prov 8:30->John 1:1, 2
Nelson Study Bible/NKJV: Prov 8:30->John 1:1-3, 18
Oxford Annotated Bible/RSV: John 1:3->Prov 8:27-30; Prov 8:22-31->John 1:1-3
NIV Study Bible: Prov 8:22-31->John 1:1-3
MacArthur Study Bible/NKJV: Prov 8:22-31->John 1:1-3
Zondervan NASB Study Bible: Prov 8:22-31->John 1:1-3
New American Standard Bible Reference Edition: Prov 8:30->John 1:2,3
Geneva Study Bible: Prov 8:22-John 1:1
Matthew Henry: John 1-5->Prov 8:22
John Wesley: John 1:1-> Prov 8:23
Harper Collins Study Bible/NRSV: John 1:1->Prov 8:22
Ryrie Study Bible/NIV: John 1:1->Prov 8
New Jerusalem Bible: John 1:1->Wisdom; Prov 8:22, 23-> John 1:1-3
Vine's Expository Reference Bible/NKJV: Prov 8:30->John 1:1-3
Prophecy Study Bible/KJV by Tim LaHaye: Prov 8:22->John 1:1; Prov 8:30->John 1:1-3
NIV Rainbow Study Bible: Prov 8:30->John 1:1-3
Men's Study Bible/NIV: Prov 8:30->John 1:1-3
Nestle-Aland 27th Edition: John 1:1->Prov 8:22; Prov 8:22->John 1:1,2
Oxford Study Bible/REB: Prov 8:22->John 1:1-3; John 1:1-18->Wisd. 9:1-4:8; Ecclus 24:1-12 Even
Jesus acknowledges that he is this Wisdom:
"Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send unto them prophets and apostles; and some of them they shall kill and persecute; that the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation" Luke 11:49 ASV
But in a parallel account we read, "Therefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: some of them shall ye kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city" Matthew 23:34 ASV
Even Paul confirms Jesus as Wisdom, "Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." 1 Cor 1:24 ASV
It should be considered a very important point that Jesus is here, in the Johannine prologue, referred to as "the Word." This gives us an indication as to why Jesus was also referred to as God/a god/Divine/deity in "the Word was God." ASV
As God's Word, or mouthpiece, he represents God in every way.
In the Bible, Angels were representatives of God, and yet are referred to as GOD.
Let us see what happened to Hagar in Genesis 16. Verse 7 says, "And the angel of Jehovah found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur." The angel then conversed with her.
Then it goes on to say, "And she called the name of Jehovah that spake unto her, Thou art a God that seeth. For she said, Have I even here looked after him that seeth me?"
The context clearly says that it was an angel that spoke to her, but her reaction is that Jehovah God spoke to here.
Let us go to Judges 13 where again, the angel of Jehovah spoke to Manoah and his wife. Verse 21 and 22 says, "But the angel of Jehovah did no more appear to Manoah or to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of Jehovah. And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God."
Angels were allowed to appear in behalf of God, and even use his name.
Take Exodus 3:2, "And the angel of Jehovah appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed." But further on down this angel speaks, "I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God." Look at what this angel further says, " I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations."
Even God admits that angels can bear his name, "Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee by the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Take ye heed before him, and hearken unto his voice; provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgression: for my name is in him." Ex 23:20
Angels represented God, appeared as God, and were everything that God was to those who saw them. It is more than interesting that the word angels means, "messenger." They were the word(s) of God.
This did not stop with Angels, it also worked with humans as representatives of God.
Judges were representatives of God, as in 1 Sam 2:25:
"If one man sin against another, God shall judge him" ASV
"If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him" KJV
The king of Israel sat on Jehovah's throne (1 Chron 29:23) and as such, was God to the people (Ps 45:6, 7). "O god: the king in courtly language, is called "god," i.e., more than human, representing God to the people." Ps 45:7 footnote New American Bible.
Jehovah made Moses "God to Pharoah." Ex 4:16; 7:1.
To go against Moses was to go against God. (Number 16:11; Ex 16:8).
To act against the apostles was to act against God (Acts 5:39).
There is something called the Schaliach Principle which I have explained elsewhere on this site, and I will repeat here:
"The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, "A person's agent is regarded as the person himself. Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principle."The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey Wigoder
GRB Murray (in _Gospel of Life: Theology in the Fourth Gospel_ ) cites the Jewish halachic
law as follows:
"One sent is as he who sent him." He then adds: "The messenger [the Shaliach]George Buchanan also appears to take this position in his commentary on Hebrews (Anchor
is thereby granted authority and dignity by virtue of his bearing the status of the one who sent him. This is the more remarkable when it is borne in mind that in earlier times the messenger was commonly a slave" (Murray 18).
Bible series). Buchanan notes that
"a man's agent is like the man himself, not physically, but legally. He has the power of attorney for the one who sent him" (Buchanan 7). He then adds "The New Testament apostles were apostles of Jesus, and Jesus was an apostle of God. It is against this background that Jesus, in the same context, could say both, "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9) and "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28).What does this all mean?
"When John said ‘The Word was God’ he was n o t saying that Jesus is identical with God, he was saying that Jesus is so perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being that in Jesus we
perfectly see what God is like” Barclay
V14 An Expository Rendering of John 1:1-4 https://www.academia.edu/50808377/V14_An_Expository_Rendering_of_John_1_1_4
ReplyDelete