Seven Lessons for John 1:1c

[tigger 2]

The following seven posts are an example of why I like to discuss with a person without disruptive comments from others. Most readers will refuse to even completely read just one lesson, and they will start right in with off-subject matter or their own hypothetical treatment of John 1:1c, ignoring what I have written. I understand that there is a lot to take in, but I can help explain or provide links for noted Trinitarian NT Greek experts for quotes that help with the Greek that is involved. I truly believe that most readers are capable of understanding all of the lessons. And most of those who have trouble would understand if they would just ask for further expanation of what is written. I also know that that will never happen.

Seven Lessons for understanding the translation of John 1:1c

A.

John 1:1 in NT Greek:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

En arche ēn ho logos and ho logos ēn pros ton theon and theos ēn ho logos

There are three clauses (separated by καὶ or “and” in English). The first (John 1:1a) is literally translated: “In beginning was the word.” The second (John 1:1b) is translated “the word was with the god.” And the final one (John 1:1c) is literally translated “god was the word.” [Remember that there were no uses of initial capital letters ( ‘God,’ ‘Lord,’ ‘Jesus,’ etc.) in the NT manuscripts which translators use for today‘s Bibles.]

I hope to examine John 1:1c to show that the very grammar used by John himself shows the actual meaning, whether ‘the Word was God,” or the “Word was a god.” (Please notice that whether the Logos is a person or a thing in this verse makes no difference as to the proper rendering of theos.) Since different NT writers varied somewhat in their grammar and usage of the Greek, we need to stick to John’s usage if we wish to analyze John 1:1c properly.

First, the word in question is θεος (theos in English letters). Notice that this form of the word ends in ‘s.’ Theos can be used to mean ‘God’ or ‘god.’ Also notice that, as used in John 1:1c, theos stands alone. That is, it has no modifiers such as “almighty theos,” or “theos of Israel, or “theos to me,” etc. -
Examining the Trinity: DEF - Part 4 (End Notes) (Note #8)

Not only do such modifiers cause the use of the definite article (‘the’ in English) to be used irregularly, but the verse in question does not use them anyway.

The next point is that when John (and Matthew, Mark, and Luke also) clearly meant “God” when writing theos (the form of the Greek word for ‘god/God’ which ends in ς), he always used the definite article (‘the’ in English - ho in Greek): ho theos. (You can tell that o in NT Greek is ‘ho’ if it has a tiny c-shaped mark above it - ὁ.)

You can test this ho theos use means ‘God’ in John’s writings yourself with a good interlinear NT and concordance. (If you need help there, I can give you online links.)


To Be Continued

 

[tigger 2]

B.

John 1:1 in NT Greek (cont.):

The next step in finding John’s intended meaning of John 1:1c is to look up the meanings of theos in a good NT lexicon. Numerous Trinitarian scholars [see footnote] admit that this word was also used for angels, kings, and God-appointed men such as judges in Israel. In such cases it is usually rendered into English as ‘gods’ or ‘a god.’ And it was used that way in the Greek in the writings of Christians up to the time of Augustine at least.


So, why wouldn’t John 1:1c be rendered ‘the Word was god’ then rather than ‘the Word was a god’?

For this part of the analysis, we need to remember that there are exceptions where the article (‘the’) may or may not be used at random as seen in part A. above. So we are trying to find how John intends the lack of an article with a noun (like 'god,' 'man,' 'demon,' 'angel,' 'prophet,' etc.). Such nouns must be “count nouns.” That means, using the example of ‘man,’ it must be capable of being made plural: one man, two men, three men, etc. It also must be capable of using both the English indefinite article (‘a,’ ‘an’) and definite article (‘the’): ‘a man,’ ‘the man.’

It is basic knowledge for NT Greek beginners that there is no indefinite article in the Greek. So a count noun without the article (anarthrous) in the Greek is properly translated into English with an indefinite article (‘a,’ ‘an’).

So, again, with a good interlinear and concordance try finding uses of ‘man’ in John’s writing. I know you will find some that do not have the article (ho) used with them. So look up in all the translations you can find to see how those have been rendered into English. I found anthropos or ἄνθρωπος (‘man’) at John 1:6; 3:4; 3:27 (and many more) did not have the article (ho) used with them. And they were rendered as “a man” in all the many Bibles I checked.

For example, look at John 10:33.　 The predicate noun "man" (anthropos) comes before its verb ὢν ("being") in the NT Greek text (ἄνθρωπος ὢν), and yet we do not find it consistently translated, even by trinitarian scholars and translators, as:　"you, being human" (qualitative) or "you being the man" (Colwell's Rule").


If they truly believed the "qualitative" rule or "Colwell's Rule," they certainly would not have rendered it "you, being a man," (indefinite) as they so often do:

See The Wycliffe Bible (1395); The Tyndale Bible (1534); The Coverdale Bible (1535); The Great Bible (1540); The Bishop’s Bible (1568); The Geneva Bible (1587); Douay-Rheims (1610); KJV (1611); ASV; ESV; ERV; NKJV; MKJV; NASB; RSV; NIV; NEB; REB; JB; NJB; AT; LB; GNT; NLT; ISV; KJIIV; NAB (’70); NAB (’91); CEV; BBE; LEB; NLV; WYC; ABC; ACV; Third Millennium Bible; 21st Century KJV; GOD’S WORD Translation; Updated Bible Version 1.9; World English Bible; C.B. Williams; Darby; Holman; Lamsa; Lattimore; Moffatt; Mounce; Phillips; Rotherham; Webster; Wesley’s; William Barclay; William Beck; Weymouth; Young’s.

So by now we should be able to see that in John 1:1c (‘theos was the Word’) the word theos does not have the article (ὁ or ‘ho’) and, according to John’s usage of such nouns, it would normally be translated as ‘a god.’


………………………………..........

Footnote:


Some of these trinitarian sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, Israelite kings, etc.) and God's angels as gods include:

1. Young's Analytical Concordance of the Bible, "Hints and Helps...," Eerdmans, 1978 reprint;

2. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #430, Hebrew and Chaldee Dict., Abingdon, 1974;

3. New Bible Dictionary, p. 1133, Tyndale House Publ., 1984;

4. Today's Dictionary of the Bible, p. 208, Bethany House Publ., 1982;

5. Hastings' A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 217, Vol. 2;

6. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 43, Hendrickson publ.,1979;

7. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, #2316 (4.), Thayer, Baker Book House, 1984 printing;

8. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 132, Vol. 1; and p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984;

9. The NIV Study Bible, footnotes for Ps. 45:6; Ps. 82:1, 6; and Jn 10:34; Zondervan, 1985;

10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7, 1970 ed.;

11. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. 5, pp. 188-189;

12. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 317, 324, Nelson Publ., 1980 printing;

13. Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God, p. 202, Baker Book House, 1992;

14. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, V. 2, Daily Study Bible Series, pp. 77, 78, Westminster Press,1975;

15. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (John 10:34 and Ps. 82:6);

16. The Fourfold Gospel (Note for John 10:35);

17. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Jamieson, Fausset, Brown (John 10:34-36);

18. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:6-8 and John 10:35);

19. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:1).

20. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ('Little Kittel'), - p. 328, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.

21. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, pp. 794-795, Vol. 1, Eerdmans Publishing Co.

22. The Amplified Bible, Ps. 82:1, 6 and John 10:34, 35, Zondervan Publ., 1965.

23. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, John 10:34, 35.

24. B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament, John 10:34-36.

25. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, Vol. 3, p. 187.

26. Fairbairn’s Imperial Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 24, vol. III, Zondervan, 1957 reprint.

27. Theological Dictionary, Rahner and Vorgrimler, p. 20, Herder and Herder, 1965.

28. Pastor Jon Courson, The Gospel According to John.

(also John 10:34, 35 - CEV: TEV; GodsWord; The Message; NLT; NIRV; David Guzik.)

And, of course, the highly respected and highly popular Jewish writer, Philo, had the same understanding for theos about the same time much of the NT was written.

And the earliest Christians like the highly respected NT scholar Origen and others - - including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus; the writer of "The Epistle to Diognetus"; and even super-Trinitarians St. Athanasius and St. Augustine - - also had this understanding that a man (or an angel) can be called "a god" in a righteous sense. And, as we saw above, many respected NT scholars of the last hundred years agree. For example, “The reason why judges are called ‘gods’ in Ps 82 [quoted by Jesus in John 10:34] is that they have the office of administering God’s judgment as ‘sons of the Most High’. …. On the other hand, Jesus fulfilled the role of a true judge as a ‘god’ and ‘son of the Most High’” - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, Vol. 3, p. 187.

To Be Continued

 

[tigger 2]

C.


John 1:1 in NT Greek (cont.):

But, you may ask, Isn’t there a significance to the reversed word order in the Greek (‘god was the word’) which is, in English, ‘the word was god.’?

If you will examine a good NT interlinear, you will find that word order is basically meaningless.

NT Greek authorities, Dr. Alfred Marshall and Prof. J. Gresham Machen tell us in their NT Greek primers that, unlike English, NT Greek does not use word order to convey meanings but instead uses the individual endings on each word (inflections).

“The English translation must be determined by observing the [Greek word] endings, not by observing the [word] order.” - New Testament Greek for Beginners, Machen, p. 27. (cf. New Testament Greek Primer, Marshall, pp. 7, 22 and A. T. Robertson, Grammar, p. 417.) [Emphasis added]

And in a later example illustrating predicate nouns Prof. Machen gave this example: “ho apostolos anthropos estin [word for word translation: ‘the apostle man is’],” and he translated that sentence (which has an anarthrous predicate count noun preceding the verb as in John 1:1c) as “the apostle is a man.” - p. 50, New Testament Greek For Beginners, The Macmillan Company, 1951. Notice the addition of the English indefinite article (‘a’).

But, since the actual grammar of John (and all the other Gospel writers) shows John 1:1c to be properly translated as “and the Word was a god,” some Trinitarians attempted to make this perfectly ordinary NT Greek word order into something else. In 1933, Colwell proposed a rule which many Trinitarians understand as 'the word order could make the definite article understood'! This way the 'understood' ho (‘the’) could make Jn 1:1c say “and the word was [the] god.” And, as we have already found, ho theos (‘the god’) always indicates “God” in English translation for John’s writing.

This need by some trinitarians for a new ‘rule’ is a further admission that theos by itself doesn’t mean “God” in the Gospel of John.

Another new ‘rule’ concerning the word order of John 1:1c has been proposed to make the Word of the same essence as God. These ‘Qualitative’ rules are like Colwell’s rule above except they don’t allow for an understood article (ho) before theos. They say that the word order makes theos ‘qualitative.’

The same method of examining all proper examples that are parallel to John 1:1c in John’s writings proves both modern inventions to be wrong. - http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/def-part-3-appendix.html (about three-fourths of the way down the page).


To Be Continued

…………………………

 

[tigger 2]

D.


John 1:1 in NT Greek (cont.):


It’s been many years since I looked up all the clauses in John’s writing which had predicate nouns (also called predicate nominatives). Then I made a list of all of them which are parallel to John 1:1c (predicate noun coming before the verb). I didn’t have a computer then and had to use a concordance and an interlinear NT Bible. Then I typed it all up into a 50+ page study. Now it’s on my computer and even on some internet sites.

In addition to examining in detail the steps we’ve looked at already, there is a comprehensive listing of all the parallel constructions. When the exceptions (non-count nouns, abstracts, personal and proper names, prepositional modifiers, etc.) are sorted out, we find the following passages to be the only proper examples which are truly parallel to John 1:1c.

Here, then, are all the proper examples (truly comparable to Jn 1:1c) from the writings of John (Westcott and Hort text) for an honest examination of “Colwell’s Rule” (or any related rules, including Harner’s “qualitative” rule, concerning the simple, unmodified anarthrous ((without the definite article)) predicate count noun coming before the verb):

H,W 1. John 4:19 - (“a prophet”) - all Bible translations

H,W 2. John 8:48 - (“a Samaritan”) - all translations

H,W 3. John 18:37 (a) - (“a king”) - all

[H,W 4. John 18:37 (b) - (“a king”) - in Received Text and in 1991 Byzantine Text]

H: Also found in Harner’s list of “Colwell Constructions”

W: Also found in Wallace’s list of “Colwell Constructions”

These are all indefinite nouns. All modern trinitarian Bible translations I have examined render them as indefinite!

If we wish to supply more examples, we must include some which are less perfect than these three (or four). The best we can do is to include all those constructions (W and H text) which comply with the other qualifications above but which, unlike Jn 1:1c, have the subject before the verb also. Since trinitarian scholars themselves include such examples, they should not object if we also include all such examples.

When we add those constructions to our list, we have:

H 1. John 4:9 (a) - indefinite (“a Jew”) - all translations

H,W 2. John 4:19 - indefinite (“a prophet”) - all

H,W 3. John 6:70 - indefinite (“a devil”/“a slanderer”) - all

H,W 4. John 8:44 - indefinite (“a murderer”/“a manslayer”) - all

H,W 5. John 8:48 - indefinite (“a Samaritan”) - all

H,W 6. John 9:24 - indefinite (“a sinner”) - all

H,W 7. John 10:1 - indefinite (“a thief and a plunderer”) - all


H,W 8. John 10:33 - indefinite (“a man”) - all

H,W 9. John 18:35 - indefinite (“a Jew”) - all

H,W 10. John 18:37 (a) - indefinite (“a king”) - all

[H,W 11. John 18:37 (b) - indefinite (“a king”) - in Received Text and in 1991 Byzantine Text]

These are all indefinite nouns (not definite, not “qualitative”). All trinitarian Bible translations I have examined render them as indefinite! We should have enough examples to satisfy the most critical (but honest) scholar now. (And I wouldn’t strongly resist the use of the “no subject” examples which clearly intend the subject as being a pronoun included with the verb, e.g., “[he] is,” which would then bring our total of proper examples to around 20.)

To Be Continued

 

[tigger 2]

E.

John 1:1 in NT Greek (cont.):


The above posts show that word order (predicate noun before the verb as found in the NT Greek of John 1:1c) does not change the meaning to an understood article (“the”) as Colwell’s Rule suggests or some nebulous ‘qualitative’ meaning as some other trinitarian scholars insist.

Pay particular attention to two of the verses found in our list in D. above: John 6:70 and John 10:1.


John 6:70 “Jesus answered them…. and one of you [Judas] is a devil.” - KJV. Greek word order: “out of you one devil is.”

“One who sins belongs to the devil, like Cain (1 Jn 3:8, 12); or he is a devil himself, like Judas, the betrayer (Jn 6:70). .... Jesus’ enemies are called children [and sons] of the devil, i.e. those who share his nature and behaviour (Jn 8:44) [Acts 13:10; 1 Jn 3:10].” - p. 472, vol. 3, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan.


So a man who is from [literally “out of,” ek] the Devil (1 Jn 3:8), and is a ‘son of the Devil’ (Acts 13:10), and who is “with the Devil (whether physically or figuratively) may also be called “a devil” (Jn 6:70)! So Judas, for example, could be described in NT terms: “Judas was with ho diabolos [the Devil], and diabolos was Judas.” And no matter how anyone wants to interpret it, it would be incredibly wrong to insist (as many trinitarians do about Jn 1:1c) that this meant Judas was literally, equally the Devil himself! Whether you translate it literally (“Judas was with the Devil, and Judas was a devil”) or ‘qualitatively’ (“Judas was with the Devil, and Judas had the ‘nature’ of the Devil”), it would mean essentially the same thing: Judas simply shared to some degree some (or one) of the qualities of the Devil, but he is not equally the Devil with Satan himself! No reasonable person would accept this as evidence for some mysterious ‘Satanity’! Compare this with John 1:1c.

John 10:1 John 10:1 has this word order, “that (one) thief is and robber” [the first predicate noun is before the verb and the second is after the verb!]. This is always translated as, “that one [or ‘he’] is a thief and a robber” (both indefinite!). It is never rendered, “that one is the Thief and a robber” [Colwell]. And it is never “qualitatively” rendered as “that one has the full essence of thiefness and is a robber.”

The word order does not change the meaning. Both the predicate nouns are still indefinite.

To Be Continued

 

[tigger 2]

F.


John 1:1 in NT Greek (cont.):


Origen, the great Christian scholar (185 - 254 A.D.), spoke Koine Greek as his native language and knew it so well that he even taught it professionally. He was “probably the most accomplished Biblical scholar produced by the early Church” (Universal Standard Encyclopedia) and “the greatest scholar and most prolific author of the early church. ... not only a profound thinker but also deeply spiritual and a loyal churchman.” (The History of Christianity, p. 107, a Lion Book, 1990). He certainly knew the Greek used by the NT writers better than any other scholar since.

In his Commentary on John, Origen explained that John 1:1c meant that the Word was not equal to the only true God, the Father, the God (ho theos) but was, instead, theos without the article as are many others who are close to God.

“And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods [angels] beside Him, of whom God is the God” - Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John Book 2, Chapter 2 (as quoted on p. 323, Vol. 10 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Eerdmans Publ., 1990).

Furthermore, some of the very earliest translations of John were into the Coptic language of Egypt. This was at a time when Koine Greek was still the common language of the Mediterranean area and well-understood by translators of the time.

This language did have the indefinite article (“a” in English) and existing early copies of the Coptic manuscripts use that indefinite article at John 1:1c - “the Word was a god.” - http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/


…………………………..

Even some noted trinitarian scholars are forced to admit that grammatically John 1:1c in NT Greek may be literally translated as “the Word was a god”! These include:

W. E. Vine (p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983 printing.);

Dr. C. H. Dodd (director of the New English Bible project, Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, vol. 28, Jan. 1977);

Dr. Murray J. Harris (p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992);

Rev. J. W. Wenham, p. 35, The Elements of New Testament Greek, Cambridge University Press, 1965;

Dr. Robert Young (p. 54, ‘New Covenant’ section, Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, 1977 printing).

Dr. William Barclay (p. 205, Ever yours, edited by C. L. Rawlins, Labarum Publ., 1985).

Of course, being trinitarians, they often insist that the correct interpretation of such a literal translation must be, somehow, trinitarian in spite of the actual literal meaning.

To Be Continued

 

[tigger 2]

G.


John 1:1 in NT Greek (cont.):


The Word (ho Logos)

A few trinitarians actually attempt to “prove” that John 1:1c should be translated as “and the Word [Logos] was God” rather than “and the Word [Logos] was a god” by appealing to one of the strictly pagan concepts of “The Logos”!

But, as we will see, what it all boils down to (and many of the most authoritative trinitarian sources agree) is this: either the Gospel of John (written around 90 A.D.) truly reflects John’s Jewish background and the teaching of Jesus and the first century Christians (the “primitive” Church) or it reflects popular pagan Greek philosophies of the time and is, therefore, “a work of imagination, a theological romance of a type not unparalleled in [pagan Greek] literature.” If it were the latter, of course, it wouldn’t matter what Jn 1:1c says anyway, since it would certainly not be the inspired word of God. If it is the former, all the best evidence (as a number of trinitarian scholars themselves admit) proves John is basing his Logos [‘Word’] concept on that of the Jewish teaching of Philo.

Philo (who lived about 20 B.C. - 50 A.D. in Alexandria, Egypt*), the best-known, most-respected Hellenistic Jewish theologian by those living in the first and second centuries, clearly and repeatedly taught that the Logos is a god (one lesser than God) and frequently showed this in his writing by using theos (θεος) without the definite article (“a god”) to refer to the Logos but used theos with the definite article ho theos ὁ θεος) when referring to God. Since John obviously based most of his Logos statements on Philo’s concept, we would expect him to use theos without the article (“a god”) to refer to the Logos. And that is exactly what he did at John 1:1c!


........................................................

* Not coincidentally, the two oldest (by far) manuscripts (p66 and p75) with John 1:1 were found in Egypt.

........................................................

“The outstanding Alexandrian Jew [‘the chief representative of Alexandrian Judaism’ - J. B. Lightfoot’s commentary: Epistle to the Philippians, p. 130] is, of course, Philo Judaeus (20 B.C.-A.D. 50). .... It has been said rightly that the history of Christian philosophy ‘began not with a Christian but a Jew,’ namely Philo of Alexandria.” - p. 35, The Rise of Christianity, W. H. C. Frend (trinitarian), 1985, Fortress Press.

“Philo, the famous Jewish philosopher, .... is the most important example of the Hellenized Jews outside Palestine... he believed wholly in the Mosaic scriptures and in one God whose chief mediator with the world is the Logos” - Philo, vol. 5, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, 1988.

Philo also (unlike the pagan Greek Stoic philosophers) “gives the Logos the titles of Son of God [John 1:34], paraclete [‘Comforter,’ ‘Advocate,’ ‘Helper’ - 1 John 2:1], and mediator between God and man [1 Tim. 2:5].” - Americana, 1957, v. 21, pp. 766, 767.

Philo also:

“differentiates the Logos from God as his work or image [compare 2 Cor. 4:4].” Philo’s Logos is also “first-born son [cf. Ro. 8:29]....divine [theos, a god - Jn 1:1] but not God, is with God [Jn 1:1], is light [Jn 1:4],...manna [Jn 6:31-51],...and shepherd [Jn 10:11].” - Encyclopaedia Britannica, p. 251, vol. 14, 1968. (Cf. Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. 8, p. 135.)

And,

“Philo describes the Logos in terms which often bear striking resemblance to NT descriptions of Christ .... Philo distinguishes God as the cause by which [and]..., the Logos as that through which (di’ hou),... the cosmos originated” [Jn 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6] and “even as θεος [‘a god’] in a subordinate sense” [Jn 1:1] and one “from which drawing water one may find eternal life instead of death [Jn 4:14].” - A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 135, vol. 3, Hastings, ed., Hendrickson Publ., 1988 printing.


In fact, Philo even said that

“the Logos is the eldest son [first-born or created] of God.” [Ro. 8:29] - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (trinitarian), p. 639, vol. 3 (also vol. 1, p. 178), 1986, Zondervan.


“Philo of course conceives of the Logos - which he occasionally calls divine (theos) [literally, ‘a god’], but never ‘God’ (ho theos) - as the highest angel and as the highest idea at the same time....” - p. 126, John 1, Haenchen, Fortress Press, 1984.

After discussing all other trinitarian-proposed origins of John’s concept of the Logos (including, of course, those of the Stoics; the OT Wisdom concept; etc.) and rejecting them all, a highly-respected trinitarian work concludes:

“In the question of the origin of the Logos-concept [by John], pre-eminent significance is therefore to be attributed to Hellenistic Judaism [Philo].” - p. 1117, vol. 3, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan.

Respected Church historian Cairns (trinitarian) also tells us:

“Multitudes were later mentioned as becoming a part of the Church (Acts 5:14). It is rather interesting that many of these were Hellenistic Jews (Acts 6:1)” - p. 60, Christianity Through The Centuries, Zondervan, 1977.

Even the famed Hastings’ Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics tells us that John must be referring to Philo’s conception of the Logos:

“It is clear from the tone of the Prologue [John 1:1-18] that Philo’s conception of the Logos, or something akin to it, was already familiar to those for whom the Evangelist [John] wrote. No explanation of the word Logos is given [anywhere in the entire Gospel]; and almost every verse in this Prologue might be paralleled from Philo [and only Philo].” - p. 136, vol. 8.

And if John were writing to a group of the “many ... Hellenistic Jews” who had become a part of the Church (or who were at least interested in Christianity), there would be no need to explain the Logos concept which they were already very familiar with from Philo’s Hellenistic Judaism. (The lack of any explanation of his Logos concept by John has been very troubling to many students of the Prologue of the Gospel of John.) And that concept is that the Logos (although the second highest power in the universe, the Son of God, the Mediator between God and Man, the one through whom God created all things) is an intermediate entity who is not the Most High God but is ‘a god’!


The End

 

[amadeus]

@tigger 2

I am not a trinitarian but I also did not read all of what you posted here. I do appreciate your efforts [especially if you did all of the leg work yourself] and hope that it accomplishes something for God.

Should you expect a miracle?

 

[tigger 2]

I've been throwing it out for discussion for years now, So far no miracles. In fact, I don't believe anyone has even read it all. Maybe If I post the 50+ page original I completed 30+ years ago ....

 

[amadeus]

I've been throwing it out for discussion for years now, So far no miracles. In fact, I don't believe anyone has even read it all. Maybe If I post the 50+ page original I completed 30+ years ago ....

Being very honest on this, I tend to skip such lengthy writings unless I have a strong interest in the particular writing. This would usually mean because of the subject matter or because of the writer.

On a controversial subject, it is unlikely that most people already opposed to you on the subject would accept your expertise as a basis for them changing their understanding and belief. People change because their heart is open and an answer is set on the table before them. If they are really hungry and thirsty for the righteousness of God then they will receive His truth.

But there are too many variables for us to untangle to determine why one does and another does not convert. We simply must remember that when it comes down to it, if it is really an increase only God gives it.

 

[ScottA]

I've been throwing it out for discussion for years now, So far no miracles. In fact, I don't believe anyone has even read it all. Maybe If I post the 50+ page original I completed 30+ years ago ....

What do you see?

You have done likewise, but have used language that was confounded by God at the tower of Babel. You may as well have used DNA code. But it is a shame that after many warnings you must still believe that the work of lawyers is of some actual service to God. Why have you not taken to heart that the scriptures must be discerned spiritually?

Ecclesiastes 12:12
And further, my son, be admonished by these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is wearisome to the flesh.

 

[tigger 2]

As Aspen wrote on another thread:

"Typical response.
Let anyone one else do the research and then, dismiss it with an opinion"

Anyone who complains about the results of another's honest, reproducible study (mostly NT Greek as used by John) and refuses to examine it lacks wisdom. - Hypoxia 7:3.

 

[Helen]

The following seven posts are an example of why I like to discuss with a person without disruptive comments from others

Then can I politely ask you...Why you are on a Public Discussion Forum?
Why not just write a Blog?

Just saying.

 

[tigger 2]

I have a blog with 80% of my research on it, but I can reach out to even more people in discussion groups like this.

 

[Wormwood]

tigger,

This is normative argumentation from JWs, but displays a significant lack of understanding of NT Greek.

1. Colwell's rule does not demand that an anathrous predicate nominative be translated with a definite article. It simply argues that some contexts demand this kind of translation. You are creating a straw man to make your argument look viable. This is what the rule actually says:

Colwell discovered that "Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article ... a predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because of the absence of the article; if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun ...

Thus, it is the context which determines if the predicate is definite...according to the rule.

Here is an example of Colwell's Rule:

ὥστε κύριός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ τοῦ σαββάτου.

Here we see, the predicate "Lord" precedes the verb "is" and does not have a definite article. Yet, clearly it is definite. According to you, this should be translated: Therefore, the son of man is a lord even of the Sabbath.

Obviously this translation would make no sense. Thus, the context determines that it should be translated "the Lord" or "Lord" (capitalized showing it is specific and definite).

2. Your part B is also in significant error. First, Theos ending in a sigma is no different than Then ending with a nu. The only difference is one is an object and one is a subject. The reason JWs like to argue that John always uses an article with Theos is because in verse 18 we see Theon without an article and it clearly is definite.

Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

Obviously, this shouldn't be translated, "No one has ever seen a god...." It should be translated, "No one has ever seen (the) God." The use of the sigma or nu at the end of Theo in Greek only indicates whether or not it is subject or object and has absolutely NO bearing on the use of articles in the Greek language. This is nothing more than slight of hand by JWs to create their own set of Greek rules in order to fulfill their theological preconceptions.

C. It is true that word order in Greek does not convey meaning, but that does not mean word order is meaningless. Often, the word order has more to do with emphasis. That is why Colwell's Rule applies in some situations. The use of the definite article was sometimes used to distinguish the subject from the predicate nominative. Its also an error to suggest that Colwell's Rule was created in order for Trinitarians to establish their views. Christians translated John 1:1 as "the word was God" long before Colwell and his rule came about. Colwell simply provided explanation for a grammatical structure that was often observed and understood in the NT. I suggest you read:

Journal of Biblical Literature, 52 (1933): 12-21
A DEFINITE RULE FOR THE USE OF THE ARTICLE IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

The rule is quite rational and is primarily based on textual variants that substantiate his position.

D. Again, this is a straw man. You are not understanding the rule (and again, the rule isn't even demanded for a trinitarian understanding of John 1:1 in the first place. I suggest you read the article above for a better understanding of the rule and how it is seen in the NT, and specifically in the various textual variants that support his findings.

E. Again, you are missing the fact that context makes all the difference. The contexts you cite are very different. Another example...

οἱ δὲ ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ προσεκύνησαν αὐτῷ λέγοντες· ἀληθῶς θεοῦ υἱὸς εἶ.

This is translated, "So in the boat they worshipped him saying, "Truly you are the Son of God." Clearly "son" is definite even though there is no article. It is not "Truly you are a son of God" or "a son of a god" as you seem to argue the grammar demands.

F. Typical. Okay, if we are going to cite Church fathers to validate our point, I think you are going to lose that argument rather quickly. Most heretical views try to find one person in history that agrees with them and then use them for support (even though often they are misquoting or misunderstanding that particular person). The fact is, if you want to point to church history, there is an avalanche of support that not only John 1:1 refers to the normative translation we see today, but almost all of these scholars believed Jesus to be the incarnate God.

G. Using Philo as proof of how early Christians would have understood John's writing is pure nonsense. Philo held to a purely allegorical rendering of the OT scriptures. There is simply no proof that John was borrowing from Philo's concepts when he wrote his Gospel.

In sum, your writing displays a very poor understanding of the concepts you are attacking. This looks like you cut and pasted a JW tract. There is a reason every single translation translates this passage "and the Word was God" except the JW's New World Translation. I assure you it is NOT because they are all Trinitarians who are trying to pull a fast one. These grammatical rules you are citing regarding the Theos with a sigma or excluding all the citations to only John's writings are nothing more than a means of trying to limit the sample size of Greek grammar to fit your preconceptions. Its like me saying, "Ok, I am going to give you a grammar lesson, and we can only look at one English book written by one author with a very specific construction as proof that my rules apply as how the language worked." And lastly, there are a host of texts that point to the divinity of Christ. My suspicion is that your views on Jesus have much more to do with your theology than Greek grammar....there are simply far too many texts that make this teaching abundantly clear.

 

[Helen]

I can reach out to even more people in discussion groups like this.[/QUOTE]

But you say that you don't want discussion...except with one person.
I won't go to a "Church" meeting with ONE man who hogs the pulpit every week and the Body of Christ just have to sit and listen. Nothing like Paul clearly lays out re meetings in 1 Cor 14:26.

But, each to their own I guess.

 

[tigger 2]

I don't mind people joining in when they stick to the subject and ask questions when they don't understand. And I hate personal attacks, red herrings, etc.

 

[Helen]

I don't mind people joining in when they stick to the subject and ask questions when they don't understand. And I hate personal attacks, red herrings, etc.

Okay...I get that....and understand.
Thanks.

 

[tigger 2]

Wormwood wrote:

This is normative argumentation from JWs, but displays a significant lack of understanding of NT Greek.

1. Colwell's rule does not demand that an anathrous predicate nominative be translated with a definite article. It simply argues that some contexts demand this kind of translation. You are creating a straw man to make your argument look viable. This is what the rule actually says:

Colwell discovered that "Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article ... a predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because of the absence of the article; if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun ...

[I understand what Colwell said (which is not true). And I understand how many trinitarians have interpreted and presented Colwell's Rule which is even more untrue. And I understand how his examples are mostly flawed examples.


Here is what he wrote in his 1933 JBL article: "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb. Of course, this can be claimed as a rule only after it has been shown to describe the usage of the Greek New Testament as a whole or in large part." And at the end of the article he adds: "The absence of the article does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb; it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it."

But when proper examples are used he is completely incorrect as I have made clear in my original posts A, and E.]

Thus, it is the context which determines if the predicate is definite...according to the rule.

Here is an example of Colwell's Rule:

ὥστε κύριός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ τοῦ σαββάτου.

Here we see, the predicate "Lord" precedes the verb "is" and does not have a definite article. Yet, clearly it is definite. According to you, this should be translated: Therefore, the son of man is a lord even of the Sabbath.

[Yes, this is the kind of faulty example Colwell, Wallace, Harner, et al. like to use. There are other examples which cause ambiguous use of the article, but this one which I call a "prepositional" example because I am trying to make it clear to everyone (not just those familiar with NT Greek) is the most used by Trinitarians seeking 'proof.' As I wrote in Lesson A. those nouns modified by 'prepositions' (including genitives) often make the use or non-use of the article ambiguous. In fact the lack of an article in such cases more often than not are found to be understood as to be definite, which is why trinitarians tend to choose those which are definite. Your example above is just one of the many like this. "Lord ... of the Sabbath." As my posts go on to show, using proper examples only, anarthrous predicate nouns before the verb are invariably shown to be indefinite and translators use the indefinite article with them.]

Obviously this translation would make no sense. Thus, the context determines that it should be translated "the Lord" or "Lord" (capitalized showing it is specific and definite).

["The Lord" would be correct because of the flawed example used, not because of word order.]

2. Your part B is also in significant error. First, Theos ending in a sigma is no different than Then ending with a nu. The only difference is one is an object and one is a subject. The reason JWs like to argue that John always uses an article with Theos is because in verse 18 we see Theon without an article and it clearly is definite.

[No, simply because John 1:1c uses an anarthrous theos before the verb. If you want to analyze the use of articles with theon, I would be glad to have you start another thread.]

Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

Obviously, this shouldn't be translated, "No one has ever seen a god...." It should be translated, "No one has ever seen (the) God." The use of the sigma or nu at the end of Theo in Greek only indicates whether or not it is subject or object and has absolutely NO bearing on the use of articles in the Greek language. This is nothing more than slight of hand by JWs to create their own set of Greek rules in order to fulfill their theological preconceptions.

[off-subject]

C. It is true that word order in Greek does not convey meaning, but that does not mean word order is meaningless. Often, the word order has more to do with emphasis. That is why Colwell's Rule applies in some situations. The use of the definite article was sometimes used to distinguish the subject from the predicate nominative. Its also an error to suggest that Colwell's Rule was created in order for Trinitarians to establish their views. Christians translated John 1:1 as "the word was God" long before Colwell and his rule came about. Colwell simply provided explanation for a grammatical structure that was often observed and understood in the NT. I suggest you read:

Journal of Biblical Literature, 52 (1933): 12-21
A DEFINITE RULE FOR THE USE OF THE ARTICLE IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

The rule is quite rational and is primarily based on textual variants that substantiate his position.

[I have read it and have it in my files. It is highly flawed as I have already mentioned above. Even many scholars today have dropped it and replaced it with the equally flawed "Qualitative" hypothesis.]

D. Again, this is a straw man. You are not understanding the rule (and again, the rule isn't even demanded for a trinitarian understanding of John 1:1 in the first place. I suggest you read the article above for a better understanding of the rule and how it is seen in the NT, and specifically in the various textual variants that support his findings.

[ditto above]

E. Again, you are missing the fact that context makes all the difference. The contexts you cite are very different. Another example...

οἱ δὲ ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ προσεκύνησαν αὐτῷ λέγοντες· ἀληθῶς θεοῦ υἱὸς εἶ.

This is translated, "So in the boat they worshipped him saying, "Truly you are the Son of God." Clearly "son" is definite even though there is no article. It is not "Truly you are a son of God" or "a son of a god" as you seem to argue the grammar demands.

[Clearly. You had to use another flawed example which I discussed in my first posts and in this post. If you would have read more carefully or merely asked me questions or used the links I provided, you may not have had to call me incompetent so often.]

In sum, your writing displays a very poor understanding of the concepts you are attacking. This looks like you cut and pasted a JW tract. There is a reason every single translation translates this passage "and the Word was God" except the JW's New World Translation. I assure you it is NOT because they are all Trinitarians who are trying to pull a fast one. These grammatical rules you are citing regarding the Theos with a sigma or excluding all the citations to only John's writings are nothing more than a means of trying to limit the sample size of Greek grammar to fit your preconceptions. Its like me saying, "Ok, I am going to give you a grammar lesson, and we can only look at one English book written by one author with a very specific construction as proof that my rules apply as how the language worked." And lastly, there are a host of texts that point to the divinity of Christ. My suspicion is that your views on Jesus have much more to do with your theology than Greek grammar....there are simply far too many texts that make this teaching abundantly clear.

[In sum, your post displays a very poor understanding of what I actually wrote and the evidence I presented. I took nothing from JW publications. In fact I have seen none of this (except what I have referenced) in this condensation of my 50+ page many years of study. I have given links to the most relevant parts of it which you chose to ignore. I have pages of my lists of all the predicate nouns in John. I have a long list of all the predicate nouns which are found before their verbs. I have, for the most part stuck to John's writings, because as I said originally, it's his grammar we are interested in for a study of John 1:1c.

Why don't you go back to Lesson A. and carefully analyze what I actually wrote and show me? - please ask questions for anything I wrote there .

 

[Wormwood]

tigger,

I think I recall debating this information with you in the past. Seems like the same original post and replies.

1. You don't determine Greek grammatical rules by trying to limit the sample size to the point that it proves your assumption. You wrote:

Since different NT writers varied somewhat in their grammar and usage of the Greek, we need to stick to John’s usage if we wish to analyze John 1:1c properly.

First, the word in question is θεος (theos in English letters). Notice that this form of the word ends in ‘s.’ Theos can be used to mean ‘God’ or ‘god.’ Also notice that, as used in John 1:1c, theos stands alone. That is, it has no modifiers such as “almighty theos,” or “theos of Israel, or “theos to me,” etc.

You're arguing that we should establish a rule based on "sticking to John's usage," "word [must] end in 's'" and "it has no modifiers" including adjectives or even prepositional phrases.

Clearly what is happening here is you, or the JW professor who taught you this nonsense, examined Colwell's Rule as well as other explanations about the translation of John 1:1 by every Greek scholar out there....and then proceeded to try to find ways around them to validate your own theological presuppositions. I.e., if early Greek texts as a whole do not support our New World Translation, we will limit it to John's writings alone. If John's writings alone do not support our translation and theological presuppositions, we will extract all those verses by finding nuances that distinguish them from what we are looking for....i.e. it must only end in sigma, it must not have an adjective, and it must not have a prepositional phrase.

Look, you can get numbers and letters to tell you anything you want if you torture them long enough. However, that is not how real Grammar works. Grammatical rules are not established by approaching the text with what you want it to say and then sifting things down to the point that you can create your own constructs and rules based on finding ways to eliminate texts that don't agree with you.

In sum, I am not going to get in to a lengthy argument with you because clearly this is just JW propaganda that is being used to try to substantiate a mistranslation that pretty much no Greek scholars except except those who belong to the JW camp itself. I just want your readers to know, who do not know NT Greek, what is going on here so they can recognize that there are good reasons for the translations we have and your own "research" is clearly agenda driven.