https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyFB37JK-m0
"In the published form of his Cadbury lectures, Maurice Casey put forward his conviction that 'The Gospel attributed to St. John is the only New Testament document in which the deity and incarnation of Jesus are unequivocally proclaimed.' This statement is somewhat misleading. If the proclamation of the Gospel were really unequivocal, it would be hard to explain the extended Christological controversies in the early church. For example, the third clause of John 1:1 may be translated either 'the word was God' or 'the word was a god.' Justin Martyr apparently understood the passage the latter way."
This one section alone has garnered some comments online:
From Paul Williams at https://bloggingtheology.net/2016/11/25/25513/
"I am currently reading an academic work by two of America’s leading biblical scholars entitled: King and Messiah as Son of God, Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature by Adela Yarbro Collins and John J. Collins – both professors of biblical criticism and interpretation at Yale University...Here is a snapshot..where the most likely translation of the third clause of John 1:1 is discussed...The much maligned JWs may well have been right after all!"
This has led, as it often does, to someone in the comments section blowing up at this. Evangelicals often act like Democrats who've lost an election when someone says something nice about the New World Translation Bible.
also...
From Michael H. Burer at https://voice.dts.edu/review/adela-yarbro-collins-king-and-messiah-as-son-of-god/
"Surprisingly the authors suggest that John 1:1c “may be translated either ‘the word was God’ or ‘the word was a god.’” Current scholarship is decidedly on the side of the traditional translation, giving little or no credence to the translation 'the word was a god.'"
Obviously this is not true if two of America’s leading biblical scholars say otherwise. Evangelicals like to think that they own Biblical scholarship, and thankfully for the rest of us, they don't.
This one section alone has garnered some comments online:
From Paul Williams at https://bloggingtheology.net/2016/11/25/25513/
"I am currently reading an academic work by two of America’s leading biblical scholars entitled: King and Messiah as Son of God, Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature by Adela Yarbro Collins and John J. Collins – both professors of biblical criticism and interpretation at Yale University...Here is a snapshot..where the most likely translation of the third clause of John 1:1 is discussed...The much maligned JWs may well have been right after all!"
This has led, as it often does, to someone in the comments section blowing up at this. Evangelicals often act like Democrats who've lost an election when someone says something nice about the New World Translation Bible.
also...
From Michael H. Burer at https://voice.dts.edu/review/adela-yarbro-collins-king-and-messiah-as-son-of-god/
"Surprisingly the authors suggest that John 1:1c “may be translated either ‘the word was God’ or ‘the word was a god.’” Current scholarship is decidedly on the side of the traditional translation, giving little or no credence to the translation 'the word was a god.'"
Obviously this is not true if two of America’s leading biblical scholars say otherwise. Evangelicals like to think that they own Biblical scholarship, and thankfully for the rest of us, they don't.
See also: Two Yale Scholars on Philippians 2:6
