Here, humorously (about the 18:35 mark in the first video) William Hemsworth states; "They add the word 'a god' instead of 'the word as with God the word was a god.'" I don't think this is what he was trying to saying, but I like Freudian slips as much as the next guy.
I believe the insinuation was that the New World Translation added the letter/word "a" here at John 1:1c. They never go on the explain in this segment that the Greek does not have indefinite articles, only definite articles. In English, adding the indefinite article to the translation is required to complete the sense. For instance, the Catholic New American Bible adds the "a" five times in John chapter 1 alone (John 1:6, 13, 30, 32, 47) even though that "a" was not in the Greek text. I could rant that this should not be so, but that would be silly and disingenuous.
The two then try to tie John 1:1 to John 20:28, however, the construction of the two Scriptures are quite different. John 1:1 has two gods mentioned, one has the definite article (the) and the other does not. The god that does not have the article is said to be WITH the god that has the article. This differentiation is very important and deliberate. Again, the second god mentioned is said to WITH "the god." You cannot be the same god that you are WITH.
The second god mentioned is also a predicate nominative that precedes the verb.
The Gospel of John has other examples of pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives, over half of which are translated with the indefinite article "a." 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."
Notice the indefinite article "a" is inserted here in most Bibles, in all of these examples, even though the Greek does not have an indefinite article.
It had to be added because the English, and common sense (just as at John 1:1) demands it.
Now let's move on to John 20:28.
Jn 20:28 reads in the Greek: hO KURIOS MOU KAI hO QEOS MOU (the lord of me and the god of me) This type of wording is important as it actually creates a separation quite often. Let's look at other possessive pronouns repeated for perspicuity:
Mt 12:47, H MHTHR SOU KAI OI ADELFOI SOU/the mother of you and the brothers of you
49 H MHTHR MOU KAI OI ADELFOI MOU/the mother of me and the brothers of me
Mark 3:31, H MHTHR AUTOU KAI OI ADELFOI AUTOU/the mother of him and the brothers of him
32 H MHTHR SOU KAI OI ADELFOI SOU/the mother of you and the brothers of you
34 H MHTHR MOU KAI OI ADELFOI MOU/the mother of me and the brothers of me
Mk 6:4 TH PATRIDI AUTOU KAI EN TOIS SUGGENEUSIN AUTOU/the father of him and the relatives of him
7:10 TON PATERA SOU KAI THN MHTERA SOU/the father of you and the mother of you
Lk 8:20 H MHTHR SOU KAI OI ADELFOI SOU/the mother of thee and the brothers of thee
Lk 8:21 MHTHR MOU KAI ADELFOI MOU/mother of me and brothers of me
Jn 2:12 H MHTHR AUTOU KAI OI ADELFOI [AUTOU] KAI OI MAQHTAI AUTOU/the mother of him and the brothers of him and the disciples of him
Jn 4:12 OI UIOI AUTOU KAI TA QREMMATA AUTOU/the sons of him and the cattle of him
Acts 2:17 OI UIOI UMWN KAI AI QUGATERES UMWN/the sons of you and the daughters of you
Rom 16:21 TIMOQEOS O SUNERGOS MOU KAI LOUKIOS KAI IASWN KAI SWSIPATROS OI SUGGENEIS MOU/Timothy the fellow-worker of me of me and Lucius and Jason and Sosipater the kinsmen of me.
1 Thess. 3:11 QEOS KAI PATHR HMWN KAI O KURIOS HMWN IHSOUS/God and Father of us and the Lord of us Jesus.
2 Thess. 2:16 O KURIOS HMWN IHSOUS CRISTOS KAI [O] QEOS O PATHR HMWN/the Lord of us Jesus Christ and the God the Father of us
1 Tim. 1:1 QEOU SWTHROS HMWN KAI CRISTOU IHSOU THS ELPIDOS HMWN/God savior of us and Christ Jesus the hope of us
2 Tim 1:5 TH MAMMH SOU LWIDI KAI TH MHTRI SOU/the grandmother of you Lois and the mother of you Eunice
Heb 8:11 EKASTOS TON POLITHN AUTOU KAI EKASTOS TON ADELFON AUTOU/each one the citizen of him and each one the brother of him
Rev 6:11 OI SUNDOULOI AUTWN KAI OI ADELFOI AUTWN/the fellow-slaves of them and the brothers of them
As we can see, when this same construction is used, it is quite often referring to TWO different people or parties.
Theodore of Mopsuestia argued that the words were not addressed directly to Jesus but were uttered in praise or exclammation of God the Father. Perhaps he was correct. Catholics Gary Michuta and William Hemsworth snicker when the Witnesses repeat this argument, but Theodore of Mopsuestia was actually a Catholic Bishop.
Augustine in "Tractate CXXI" stated: "Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God." He saw and touched the man, and acknowledged the God whom he neither saw nor touched; but by the means of what he saw and touched, he now put far away from him every doubt, and believed the other."
Others have also taken Thomas's exclamation as directed towards the Father, hence you have, "My Master, and my God" as in the 20th Century NT.
Winer, as does Beza, thinks it is simply an exclamation, not an address. (see G.B. Winer, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, 1872, p. 183
Why would they say this? Perhaps it is because at John 20:28 the nominative form KURIOS is used, while the vocative form KURIE is used mainly in direct address.
Other thoughts on John 20.28:
Brown reads it as "my divine one" The Gospel According to John, 1966
Burkitt paraphrases it as "It is Jesus himself, and now I recognize him as divine."
While I may not agree with Harris on everything, he does say, "Although in customary Johannine and NT usage (O) QEOS refers to the father, it is impossible that Thomas and John would be personally equating Jesus with the Father, for in the immediate historical and literary context Jesus himself has explicitly distinguished himself from God his Father." p. 124
"It is extremely significant that on the one occasion where there is no argument, in the case of Thomas, the statement is not a theological proposition but a lovers cry; it is not the product of intellectual reasoning but of intense personal emotion." p. 33, Jesus As They Saw Him, by William Barclay
John Martin Creed, as Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, observed: "The adoring exclamation of St. Thomas 'my Lord and my God' (Joh. xx. 28) is still not quite the same as an address to Christ as being without qualification God, and it must be balanced by the words of the risen Christ himself to Mary Magdalene (v. Joh 20:17): 'Go unto my brethren and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.'"
The translator Hugh J. Schonfield doubts that Thomas said: "My Lord and my God!" And so in a footnote 6 on John 20:28 Schonfield says: "The author may have put this expression into the mouth of Thomas in response to the fact that the Emperor Domitian had insisted on having himself addressed as 'Our Lord and God', Suetonius' Domitian xiii."—See The Authentic New Testament, page 503.
Margret Davies says in her book RHETORIC AND REFERENCE IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL, 125-126,
"Naturally, the interpretation of Thomas's words was hotly debated by early church theologians who wanted to use it in support of their own christological definitions. Those who understood "My Lord' to refer to Jesus, and 'my God' to refer to God [the Father], were suspected of heresy in the 5th cent CE. Many modern commentators have also rejected that interpretation and instead they understand the confession as an assertion that Jesus is both Lord and God. In doing so they are forced to interpret 'God' as a reference to LOGOS. But it is perfectly for Thomas to respond to Jesus' resurrection with a confession of faith both in Jesus as lord and in God who sent and raised Jesus. Interpreting the confession in this way actually makes much better sense in the context of the 4th gospel. In 14:1 belief in both God and in Jesus is encouraged, in a context in which Thomas is particularly singled out.... If we understand Thomas's confession as an assertion that Jesus is God, this confession in 20:31 becomes an anti-climax."
And what is that anti-climax at John 20:31? "These are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." New Jerusalem Bible
John 1 begins with the Logos (Jesus) as a subordinate god, an only-begotten god, and John 20 ends with his declaration as the Son of God.
No comments:
Post a Comment