...I don't think the standard literal English translation is the most accurate. I would prefer to say "the Word was like God" or "the Word was God-like" or "the Word was divine" in order to clarify that we are not dealing with
identity, but a likeness in quality and attributes. The problem is that God spelled with a capital is more definite and has a unique reference that the Greek QEOS does not have. ~Iver Larsen M.A. (on B-Greek)
....
"...my claim of an impossible rendering was regarding the English rendering 'And the Word was God'. Since 'God' with capital 'G' in English is a singular noun, which is in the same slot as proper names, the use of 'God' with capital letters both in John 1:1b and c indicates that the meaning and references of these two words are exactly the same. So, when 'the Word' is said to be 'God,' what is made visible is that "the Word" is identical with 'God' in every respect. It is therefore linguistically impossible to make a translation which says that an entity or individual is 'with' another entity or individual, and at the same time *is* this individual. Such a translation can only be defended by an introduction of metaphysics. The conclusion that the anarthrous QEOS of 1:1c is a common noun, opens for two possibilities, 1) that the stress is on the nature of the Word, or 2) that the stress is on gentilics, i.e., the word is a member of the family of gods. Point 1) cannot blot out the substantive characteristics of LOGOS, and 2) does not necessarily represent henotheism or polytheism." ~Rolf Furuli, University of Oslo
....
That eventually evolved from the contradictory New Testament statements is a belief among many Christians that Jesus was part of God in incarnate form. The Gospel of John identifies Jesus with the Logos, God's Reason or creative Word: "In the beginning was the Word [Logos], and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. The same was in the beginning with God .... And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us" (John 1: 1-14). While trinitarians would argue that the text reads "the Word was God" this is simply incorrect. It does not say that God became man; in context it means that the Word was not God but a god, that is, His most important celestial being. We need not get bogged down in which translation is correct. John says that the Word was "with God" not part of God. What is with God is not part of God. It should be noticed that the Word is supposedly with God not part of Him even before the supposed transformation into the incarnation. Thus, he is a separate entity prior to the time he supposedly divested himself of any powers to become incarnate (Philippians 2:6-7). Jesus is alleged to be a god (with some sort of celestial being indwelling bim) but not God or part of Him despite how trinitarian Christians misinterpret these verses.~The Virgin Birth Myth: The Misconception of Jesus By Gerald Sigal
....
Jesus As They Saw Him, by William Barclay: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0334007712
In a case like this we cannot do other than go to the Greek, which is theos en ho logos. Ho is the definite article, the, and it can be seen that there is a definite article with logos, but not with theos. When in Greek two nouns are joined by the verb “to be,” and when both have the definite article, then the one is fully intended to be identified with the other; but when one of them is without the article, it becomes more an adjective than a noun, and describes rather the class or sphere to which the other belongs.
An illustration from English will make this clear. If I say, “The preacher is the man,” I use the definite article before both preacher and man, and I thereby identify the preacher with some quite definite individual man whom I have in mind. But, if I say, “The preacher is man,” I have omitted the definite article before man, and what I mean is that the preacher must be classified as a man, he is in the sphere of manhood, he is a human being.
[In the last clause of John 1:1] John has no article before theos, God. The logos, therefore, is not identified as God or with God; the word theos has become adjectival and describes the sphere to which the logos belongs. We would, therefore, have to say that this means that the logos belongs to the same sphere as God; without being identified with God, the logos has the same kind of life and being as God. Here the NEB [New English Bible] finds the perfect translation: “What God was, the Word was.”
....
There are additionally problems with the translation. The popular translation "and the Word was God" is dispured by many leading translators. For instance James Moffat, Hugh J. Schonfield and Edgar Goodspeed tranlate the phrase as "and the Word was divine." There also exist multiple other translations and interpretations such as "the Word was a god", and "godlike sort was the Logos" and "so the Word was divine." The source of the problem lies in the original Greek manuscripts of the Gospels, which importantly are all in upper case script, that is in capital letters only, meaning that for instance there is no distinction, and no way to distinguish, between "God" and "god". The original word used in the manuscript is theos and cannot have the definite article in accordance with grammatical rules. Furthermore, the word God had a broader application and could refer to generally people of rank, leadership and authority. John 10:35 for instance uses it for human rulers as "gods". Origen of Alexandria, third century Church Father and a specialist in Greek grammar, noticed the difference by stating that John uses "the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God ... The true God, then, is The God." The Greek term used is "ho theos" and not just "theos", ho meaning 'the' and theos meaning 'god'. This observation alludes to the fact that when the anarthrous (meaning occurring without an article) noun "theos" is applied to the Word it is not a definite but an indefinite noun.
These grammatical challenges are quite often used to manipulate meanings and to substantiate specific theological positions. Hence mainstream Christianity prefers the popular rendition as it vindicates its own "Jesus is God" theology. Opposing groups favor the other translations to prove Jesus' subordination to God the father. Even some evangelical scholars such as Murry J. Harris, who otherwise support the Johanian theos Chrisology, do not deny the fact that "from the point of view of grammar alone, [QEOS HN ho LOGOS] could be rendered "the Word was a god..." After a detailed study of theos in the Septuagint, extra biblical literature and the New Testament, Harris argues that the main reason theos in John 1:1 is anarthrous is that it emphasizes nature rather than personal identity. Had John written "ho theos", that is with a definite article, it would have eliminated the distinction between the person of God the Father and the person of God the Son. John uses the qualitative rather than the definite article to avoid "Modalism". This explanation is sufficient to show how theological rather than grammatical reasons come into play when translating John 1:1. ~Anthropomorphic Depictions of God: The Concept of God in Judaic, Christian and Islamic Traditions By Zulfiqar Ali Shah 2012 https://www.amazon.com/dp/1565645758
....
"The gospel begins with the words, 'In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was theos (`God').' 'The Word was theos' must not be isolated and made into a simple equation: the Word was God. Grammatically this is a possible translation, but not the only one. The statement's meaning, and so its translation, must be determined by its context. It could also be translated: 'the Word was a god' or 'the Word was divine'. Grammatical considerations alone fail to decide the question, since all three translations can be defended on grammatical grounds."
`The Christology of the Fourth Gospel-Structures and Issues, William Loader https://www.amazon.com/dp/0802875114
....
“That John may distinguish two uses of the title from each other is often noted but too little appreciated. The distinction is possibly made by the use of the definite article with theos and the absence of the definite article in the same sentence...As we see in Philo, in his exposition of Genesis 31.13 (De Somniis 1.227-30)...John's Gospel does not attempt similar clarification in his use of God/god for the Logos...But in possibly making (or allowing to be read) a distinction between God (ho theos) and the Logos (theos) the Evangelist may have had in mind a similar qualification in the divine status to be recognized for Christ. Jesus was God, in that he made God known, in that God made himself known in and through him, in that he was God's effective outreach to his creation and to his people. But he was not God in himself.” (James D.G. Dunn, Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?: The New Testament Evidence), pp. 134 & 135
....
Although in English it may come across as somewhat unconventional and unfamiliar, even awkward,-especially from the viewpoint of those accustomed to the traditional "Word was God" rendering-an English translation true to the sense that can be derived from the grammar would be: "the word was a god" (or 'the word was a deity'; 'the word was a divinity'); or even, as suggested by Protestant Bible translator, Dr. Robert Young, and Roman Catholic scholar, John L. McKenzie: "the Word was a divine being/a Divine being was the Word." However, in the interest of modern sensibilities, perhaps the verse could satisfactorily be rendered (as it already has been rendered by some translators) "the word was divine" in the main text, with a marginal footnote that reads "literally: 'a god was the word' or 'the word was a god.'" Traditional objections and aversions to the translation "the word was a god" (which is not only valid grammatically, but perhaps the most natural English equivalent of the Greek original) have probably stemmed from a combination of factors. Generally, they have had to do with long-time familiarity with, and uncritical acceptance of, the traditional "Word was God" rendition (accompanied by the mistaken belief that the traditional translation is truly compatible with Trinitarian teaching). ~Divine Truth Or Human Tradition?: A Reconsideration of the Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity in Light of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures By Patrick Navas (p. 263) https://www.amazon.com/Divine-Truth-Human-Tradition-Reconsideration/dp/1463415214
....
The author of John is expressing his belief that Jesus, the Word, was not "the God" but "a god." It should not he considered unusual that a New Testament author refers to Jesus as "a god" since he is considered to be the supernatural agent that is the decisive link between God and His creation. The term "god" is applled even to the evil angel Satan, "the god of this world" (2 Corinthians 4:4). Indeed, Paul says: "there are many gods and many lords but for us there is but one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 8:5-6). Since referring to Jesus as a god would not make him, in any way, part of the one-and-only God, the proper translalion of John 1:1 should be: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [literally 'toward"] God, and the Word was a god." There is no reason to assume that the need for a definite article is understood from the context in order to be able to translate the end of the verse as, "and the Word was [the] God." John means that the god mentioned here was not the only god, i.e. , a supernatural being. ~Trinity Doctrine Error: A Jewish Analysis By Gerald Sigal https://www.amazon.com/dp/142570610X
....
John 1:1, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Many people read this verse and use it as proof that Jesus is a Co-eternal God. In the Greek, there is a definite article (the) before the first instance of the word 'God', but it is missing in the second instance of'God'. So it literally reads;
John 1:1, In the beginning was the Word (Torah), and the Word (Torah) was with (the) God, and the Word was (a) god.
Note: in the Greek, the first reference to God has a definite article (the God); the second reference to God does not, so it is proper to supply an indefinite article, so it reads (a god).
It is unlikely that John would be telling us that Jesus is God Almighty, or co-equal to God Almighty, because in 4:22, John quotes Jesus saying that he worships the Father. If Jesus worships the Father, he may be a god, but he is not the God Almighty. In 17:3 John writes that Jesus said the Father is the only true God. And in 20:17 Jesus referred to the Father as his God.
John was a Hebrew, raised and taught the Hebrew Scriptures. John knew that the OT Hebrew word for 'God' was 'Elohim'. Elohim is used in the Scriptures for the word 'God', but it is also word used for "God', 'god', 'gods' and 'other mighty or powerful beings -human and divine'. And that was true in Greek language as well...Could John be calling the Torah made flesh' is a god? Yes, and when the Torah became flesh, in the person of Jesus, he was 'a god'. Was Jesus 'the God'? No, but he was most certainly a god, judge, governor, High Priest, Prophet, and messianic King- all of which the Bible calls a 'god' - a god, could be a human being or a divine being, who is to be honored and respected but not 'the God' as to be worshiped, but a person or being of high power and authority. Saying that Jesus was a god, does not imply that he is a false god, he is a true god, but not 'the God Almighty'. 'The God' is always refers to YHVH, or Yehovah, God Almighty, also known as the Father. jesus is never called 'the God'. So to call someone a 'god' doesn't mean that they are part of a Trinity or equal to the Father. ~Is God One or Three? By Donald Werner https://www.amazon.com/dp/1387135570
No comments:
Post a Comment