"From the patristic era (Arius) to the present (Jehovah's Witnesses), some have argued that John 1:1c should be translated, 'the Word was a god,' because the definite article is missing before theos. This argument, of course, would extend to deny the eternality and the full deity and equality of the Son with the Father. This translation must be rejected for several reasons: (1) No monotheistic Jew would affirm the real existence of "a god," because the Shema' confesses only one true and living God."
Reply: No monotheistic Jew would affirm the real existence of a Trinity and they would most vehemently "deny the eternality and the full deity and equality of the Son with the Father" so I fail to see why their views are so important to you. Also, you fail to understand how Agency works in the Jewish Bible.
"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] 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).
That is why at Exodus 7:1 it says, "And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh." (KJV) Or as the New Jewish Publication Society Bible puts it, "The LORD replied to Moses, 'See, I place you in the role of God to Pharaoh.'" Being placed in the role of God to others should help us understand how Jesus can sometimes be called "God" or "a god." Additionally, someone who has "full deity and equality" with the Father does not need to be "placed" anywhere.
Wellum:(2) In Greek syntax, as Daniel Wallace notes, an anarthrous preverbal predicate nominative is rarely indefinite, sometimes definite, and normally qualitative (Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics [Grand Rapids, Ml: Zondervan, 1997], 256-270.
Reply: The only reason Daniel Wallace states that an anarthrous pre-copulative PN is rarely indefinite is that he simply refuses to acknowledge indefiniteness. By my examination in the Gospel of John, over half of the pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives (such as in John 1:1c) are actually indefinite. For example:
John 4:19 has PROFHTHS EI SU which translates to: "you are a prophet."
John 6:70 has DIABOLOS ESTIN which translates to: "is a slanderer."
John 8:34 has DOULOS ESTIN which translates to: "is a slave."
John 8:44 has ANQRWPOKTONOS HN which translates to "a murderer."
John 8:44 has EUSTHS ESTIN which translates to "he is a liar."
John 8:48 has SAMARITHS EI SU which translates to "you are a Samaritan."
John 9:8 has PROSAITHS HN which translates to "as a beggar."
John 9:17 has PROFTHS ESTIN which translates to "He is a prophet."
John 9:24 has hAMARTWLOS ESTIN which translates to "is a sinner."
John 9:25 has hAMARTWLOS ESTIN which translates to "he is a sinner."
John 10:1 has KLEPTHS ESTIN which translates to "is a thief"
John 10:13 has MISQWTOS ESTIN which translates to "a hired hand."
John 12:6 has KLEPTHS HN which translates to "he was a thief."
John 18:35 has MHTI EGO IOUDAIOS EIMI which translates to "I am not a Jew, am I?"
John 18:37 has BASILEUS EI SU which translates to "So you are a king?"
John 18:37 also has BASILEUS EIMI EGW which translates to "I am a king."
This falls in line with what James Allen Hewett wrote: “Since Greek has no indefinite article, the English translation of a Greek word that does not have an article may be preceded by the indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’.”
Daniel Wallace describes John 4:19 as the "most likely candidate of an indefinite pre-verbal PN in the New Testament" but hedges that statement in a footnote, while Paul Dixon states: "We do not regard this noun 'a prophet' as indefinite." The only reason to deny indefiniteness is because if they allow indefiniteness for John 4:19 then they also have to allow indefiniteness for John 1:1c as they are similar constructions. This is you should not trust many Evangelical/Protestant Christian scholars. Let outsiders do the heavy-lifting in this area.
Wellum:(3) Placing a definite article before theos would equate God and the Word without distinction, destroying the distinction John intentionally makes in verse 1b ("the Word was with God"). Moreover, using the definite article would make room for the error of modalism, where God and the Word are only different manifestations of the same one person.
Reply: When you translate John 1:1 as "the Word was with God, and the Word was God" you are actually applying definiteness to both God and the Word, which then equates "God and the Word without distinction, destroying the distinction John intentionally makes in verse 1b."
Wellum:(4) John uses the anarthrous theos on many other occasions (e.g., John 1:6, 12-13, 18) without the slightest hint that he is referring to "a god."
Reply: Remember now that we are talking about anarthrous preverbal predicate nominatives and John 1:6, 12-13 are all Genitives and I believe John 1:18 CAN be translated "an only-begotten god" though many manuscripts actually use the word hUIOS ("son") here instead of QEOS ("god").
No comments:
Post a Comment