Genesis 1:26 and 3:22

[Khalid]

“Literally” was a poor choice of words. I meant, “the sense of the Greek is”. No, carrying words over one-for-one does not produce it. It may be even more confusing, as I am generally a staunch opponent of Nida-esque functional translation, but this passage has caused so many problems, modalistic, etc. a functional translation seems to be called for.

It is literal in a sense, that I carry over the word order, which I pay great attention to, believing as I do in plenary inspiration. “God was the Word”. “Everything that God was, the Word was”, are equivalent statements, which “God = Word” being the kernel (according to the system of Chomsky). The latter carries the meaning across in to English with a far greater degree of accuracy and less potential for misunderstanding, in my opinion.

 

[Gorgias]

“God was the Word”. “Everything that God was, the Word was”, are equivalent statements, which “God = Word” being the kernel (according to the system of Chomsky). The latter carries the meaning across in to English with a far greater degree of accuracy and less potential for misunderstanding, in my opinion.

The problem, though, is that “God = Word” maps God onto the Word, whereas the construction “and the Word was God” maps the Word onto God. Hardly equivalent statements…!

More to the point, “God = Word” doesn’t fit in the context of the discourse, as the sentence is locating the Word with respect to God. “The Word was God”, however, does fit the context…

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Can you show me that in the Greek? I’m not seeing the construction “(what) God was the Word was” (i.e., “θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος ἦν”) here:

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

This is a misunderstanding of Koine Greek, then. When used as a subject, the noun would carry an article; other (non-subject) uses of the noun may carry the article, but not necessarily. Therefore, θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος translates literally as “God (predicate nominative) was the Word (nominative – subject)”, or in proper English, “The Word was God”. (Capitalization mine, for clarity.)

(With this in mind, then, your original construction, “what God was the Word was” would likewise have to be “ὁ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος ἦν”, which isn’t present in the text, either.)

I don’t generally recall seeing a construction of that nature in any of scripture.
In the portion of the sentence you have written:

“καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος”, both Word and Theos (God) have the nominative ending.
The can both be part of the same subject (not necessarily the predicate) in English.
“and God, the Word, [Verb]” is how I would translate this into English;
The Greek itself does not have commas or periods in the originals, and that adds to the confusion; since your version of the Greek seems to have invented them; which means that they are a much later scholar’s opinion.

But my comment is just a quick viewing of the sentence, and not a studied opinion.
St. John’s Greek is probably the most difficult I have come across.
I am not going to say it is “bad” Greek – but it is Greek that has a large amount of historical reflection involved in it. He is at least as studied as St. Paul in the usage of the LXX, and far less rash in what he writes.

Just spouting off “Rules” about Greek doesn’t really help us or the Jehova Witnesses come to a fuller understanding of what St. John wrote, because many such “rules” are nothing more than opinions of people who have heard or accepted mistakes, not to mention those who just “make things up” to hide their own ignorance…

I will caution you that when a statement looks difficult in St. Johns writing, with more than one meaning possible – he very often seems to be aware of, and to MEAN, both of them (and sometimes even a meaning I had not noticed at first). In many translations of his work, I believe our English translators in their ignorance reduce the meaning and scope of St. John’s statements to fit their own limited understanding.

He is extraordinarily polished in his writing; something I myself am not able to imitate on a consistent basis.

 

[Gorgias]

“καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος”, both Word and Theos (God) have the nominative ending.

Agreed – but only Logos carries the article, which indicates that it’s acting as a subject.

The can both be part of the same subject (not necessarily the predicate) in English.
“and God, the Word, [Verb]” is how I would translate this into English;

And that would mean, exactly… what? The ‘[verb]’ you omit is “was”: how does “and God the Word was” make any sense here? Moreover, the construction you propose does appear in Greek, but not in the way you’ve shown it. In the construction you mention, we see things like “the God the almighty” (which we would say in English as “almighty God”), but not two nouns (acting as nouns) – if this construction were acting in that way, it would have to be attempting to say “the Word God”, which is something that (to the best of my knowledge) never is attested to in the Scriptures.

The Greek itself does not have commas or periods in the originals, and that adds to the confusion; since your version of the Greek seems to have invented them; which means that they are a much later scholar’s opinion.

True, these are inserted. Nonetheless, one doesn’t need them here – the conjunctions (‘kai’) act as semantic boundaries, much as our commas do. Therefore, we can’t really posit any alternative interpretations based on orthography in this case. Moreover, there’s nothing to suggest a different interpretation for the sentence as a whole!

Just spouting off “Rules” about Greek doesn’t really help us or the Jehova Witnesses come to a fuller understanding of what St. John wrote, because many such “rules” are nothing more than opinions of people who have heard or accepted mistakes, not to mention those who just “make things up” to hide their own ignorance…

Pardon? You’re proposing that our understanding of Koine Greek is predicated on “mistaken opinion”, or deliberately fabricated ignorant ramblings? And what do you have to back up such an interesting assertion…?

I will caution you that when a statement looks difficult in St. Johns writing, with more than one meaning possible

And yet, this isn’t an example of such a construction. Its meaning is straightforward, and its grammatical structure is well-understood. Claiming ignorance – without anything to back up the assertion – is rather difficult to swallow, in this case…!

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Agreed – but only Logos carries the article, which indicates that it’s acting as a subject.

Your statement does not tell the whole truth.
Both are in the nominative, both CAN be subject.
The definite article (eg: The) often appears both in subject and predicate words; it is a poor indicator of subject.

And that would mean, exactly… what? The ‘[verb]’ you omit is “was”: how does “and God the Word was” make any sense here?

It makes sense; God, the word, WAS.
There is a simultanety of existence.

I am not saying alternate meanings are excluded, I am saying that the meaning which uses both words as SUBJECT is necessarily INCLUDED.

Moreover, the construction you propose does appear in Greek, but not in the way you’ve shown it. In the construction you mention, we see things like “the God the almighty” (which we would say in English as “almighty God”), but not two nouns (acting as nouns) – if this construction were acting in that way, it would have to be attempting to say “the Word God”, which is something that (to the best of my knowledge) never is attested to in the Scriptures.

Out of general interest, please list some examples of this construction. It will save me time in doing word searches as my copies of the LXX are on a temporarily disabled machine.

True, these are inserted. Nonetheless, one doesn’t need them here – the conjunctions (‘kai’) act as semantic boundaries, much as our commas do. Therefore, we can’t really posit any alternative interpretations based on orthography in this case. Moreover, there’s nothing to suggest a different interpretation for the sentence as a whole!

Kai does not appear between God and Logos, it appears in a different place altogether.
Kai (“and”) also is sometimes used in a grouping or distributive fashion; (I am not applying this idea to the passage at hand, just noting it – I may apply it later if appropriate).

Pardon? You’re proposing that our understanding of Koine Greek is predicated on “mistaken opinion”, or deliberately fabricated ignorant ramblings? And what do you have to back up such an interesting assertion…?

“our” understanding, includes me, does it not? IF you disagree with me, the point is already proven. What I am indicating is that disagreements and FALSE rules get propagated. The best way I know to deal with this problem, is to actually study what a person says against as many examples of Koine Greek and translations of that material as possible.

And yet, this isn’t an example of such a construction. Its meaning is straightforward, and its grammatical structure is well-understood. Claiming ignorance – without anything to back up the assertion – is rather difficult to swallow, in this case…!

Jehova witnesses would obviously disagree with you. As a courtesy, I think it appropriate that you bring up other NON-contested translational areas of scripture; and provide a study of the issue which can be peer reviewed.

I might perhaps believe that what has been presented in this thread is accurate, but very poorly stated. It isn’t stated in a way that teaches knowledge clearly; ergo claming “ignorance” is undobtedly correct with respect to part of what has been said here.
It is your onus to demonstrate that you are if fact reading “from” scripture, rather than reading theological conclusions “into” scripture.

Peace to you,
Your brother in Christ, Jesus,
–Andrew.

 

[Gorgias]

Your statement does not tell the whole truth.
Both are in the nominative, both CAN be subject.
The definite article (eg: The) often appears both in subject and predicate words; it is a poor indicator of subject.

Andrew,

It can, in which case you have to dig deeper to distinguish the subject from the predicate nominative. However, in this case, only Logos has the article, and therefore, it is the subject. Cf Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan 1996, p 42-43 – “(i)n Greek equative clauses, the (subject) will be distinguished from the (predicate nominative) in one of three ways”. The second rule is “the subject will be articular”. Again, on p 242, “(g)enerally speaking, the subject will be distinguished from the predicate nominative by having the article.” See also the discussion of John 1:1 at p. 266ff.

It makes sense; God, the word, WAS.
There is a simultanety of existence.

If this appeared in a vacuum, you might be able to make your case. In context, though, the assertion doesn’t work:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God, the Word, was.”

How does this make sense? In the first place, the idea being explained is that of the Word; in your construction, we switch from statements about the Word to a statement about God. Secondly, your construction ends up repeating itself – the first clause already demonstrates that the Word was (i.e., existed); why repeat this in the third clause?

I am not saying alternate meanings are excluded, I am saying that the meaning which uses both words as SUBJECT is necessarily INCLUDED.

Can you provide me with an example in Scripture – preferably in John, since we noted that he has a particular stylistic approach – where we have this construction that takes the meaning you wish to include?

Out of general interest, please list some examples of this construction. It will save me time in doing word searches as my copies of the LXX are on a temporarily disabled machine.

Well, I guess I’m thinking about noun/adjective constructions in the second attributive position (article-noun-article-adjective). Even though the construction is different from John 1:1, it acts in the way you want John 1:1 to act. Some examples listed by Wallace: Mt 5:29, Acts 11:15, Heb 6:4, Rev 19:2, Mk 3:29, Lk 1:59, 1 Cor 7:14, 1 Tim 5:25, Heb 4:4, James 3:7.

Note that the usage you’re claiming does show up in the NT, but when it does, it’s simple apposition: it’s not a predicate nominative, where the claim is that the one thing is the other. In apposition, the relationship is assumed – which means that the sentence is saying something else (cf Wallace, 48). Some examples: Mt 3:1, Mk 15:40, Lk 1:24, Rev 1:5.

“our” understanding, includes me, does it not?

LOL – no, I’m not asserting that no one has ever said this; just that no one who speaks as an authority on Koine Greek has ever asserted this. If there’s someone out there who has made this claim in print, could you provide me with a citation? Otherwise, the claim doesn’t work any better than the assertion that “the moon is made of green cheese” – it’s an assertion, too, but not one that anyone believes…

As a courtesy, I think it appropriate that you bring up other NON-contested translational areas of scripture; and provide a study of the issue which can be peer reviewed.

I’m not certain I understand what you’re asking for, nor the relevance here. You claimed that John is mistranslated by scholars ignorant of John’s intent. I replied that the meaning of John 1:1 is generally understood as I’ve stated it. Now I’m supposed to provide other “non-contested translational areas of Scripture” in order to demonstrate that there are examples of general consensus? Are you serious?

It is your onus to demonstrate that you are if fact reading “from” scripture, rather than reading theological conclusions “into” scripture.

This is more reasonable. You want to know whether the interpretation I’ve advanced here is the generally accepted one, as I’ve claimed it is? Sure…

See “New Testament Christology”, Matera, p. 216ff, and especially note 9 on p 291; “John”, D. Moody Smith, p 50; “An Introduction to the new Testament”, Brown p 337 (cf his bibliography pp 379-382, especially Anderson, Bultmann, Dodd); and Green, McKnight, and Marshall’s “DIctionary of Jesus and the Gospels”, pp 481-484, but especially p 483).

Does that work for you, for a start?

Blessings,

G.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Andrew,
It can, … However, in this case, only Logos has the article, …Cf Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan 1996, p 42-43
…
In context, though, …

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God, the Word, was.”

How does this make sense?

As I said, there can be multiple meanings. (I like it as Word God & no commas).
St. John here references the “beginning”; Which automatically includes Genesis, and the logic thereof. Genesis references the formation of chaos (formlessness) into logical being.

Without the logic of God coming into contact with us and abiding with us, we could in no way be imprints of him but only animals.

St. Paul (paraphrase) says – even one of your poets has said – In him we live and move and have our being.

Can you provide me with an example in Scripture – preferably in John, since we noted that he has a particular stylistic approach – where we have this construction that takes the meaning you wish to include?

The onus is on you to exclude my meaning, not the other way around.
I have not studied the passage sufficiently to conclude exactly why John chooses this particular set of constructions, I will study when I get my bible tools functioning again.

Well, I guess I’m thinking about noun/adjective constructions in the second attributive position (article-noun-article-adjective). …
Note that the usage you’re claiming does show up in the NT, but when it does, it’s simple apposition: it’s not … where the claim is that the one thing is the other. In apposition, the relationship is assumed – …

Hmmm… Good, but – I’m going to have to get back to you on this. I would like to examine all locatable relationships (adjectival) between “Word” and “God”; and I can’t yet.

I’m not certain I understand what you’re asking for, nor the relevance here. You claimed that John is mistranslated by scholars ignorant of John’s intent. I replied that the meaning of John 1:1 is generally understood as I’ve stated it. … Are you serious?

Let me give a simple example of what I meant; On the cross, in John, Jesus’ last word is “te-tele-s-tai”.

There is a variant word “te-tele-tai” in scripture also – grammar books confound the two, and I can demonstrate they are used differently.

There are no explicit “it” or “is”, just a perfect participle which ought to act as a Noun.

This is Jesus’ last word on the cross, with a loud exhale, and when I look in the grammar books and lexicons – they force the word to contradict those of the other scriptures which indicate he called on the name of his Father as he died.

Upon noting that the word (by inspection of LXX and primary sources) actually carries the sense of “being” in Greek, and the extra “s” on it distinguishes it from the other word – I think it becomes fairly obvious that St. John chose this word precisely because it would stand out as UNUSUAL. I think he wanted to allow Koine readers to search for where they heard this word before.

John also uses it two sentences previous, which excludes any chance that it means “it is finished”; for two sentences earlier it is the VERY reason he chooses to do something more.

The word clearly doesn’t mean “finished/Kaput.” – for the exact same spelled word is found almost exclusively in the LXX in places where a new beginning and fullness of God’s will is coming into being. The slightly differently spelled word, itself, is about being and fullness. Jerome says “consummate”; which is close.

Consider, the Name of the father is Being (YHWH) in Hebrew.
Here, on the cross, in bringing the Greek/Gentiles into the Covenant, Jesus speaks an equivalent VERB-NOUN word espousing “do-being” in exactly the same place where the other Gospels record “Father”. You won’t be able to convince me common translation is anywhere near sufficient, nor grammar books. They fail.

This is more reasonable. You want to know whether the interpretation I’ve advanced here is the generally accepted one, as I’ve claimed it is? Sure…
…
Does that work for you, for a start?

Blessings,

G.

Not really, I like to actually compare the scriptures and primary sources themselves. Scholars are often suspect (hence my comments on JW’s accepting your argument) and dry rules don’t fare nearly as well as examining scriptures in a parallel fashion.



What I am getting at is that St. John, when his construction is UNCOMMON often appears (to my inspection) to be condensing several simultaneous meanings.
He is, to be sure, astute and careful with his words; and I fear to translate him rashly.

What I am asking of you is to dig deeper, and to compare more of the original sources yourself. Give the JW’s the benefit of the doubt, and find places where simple sentences without advanced grammar questions prove the points you wish to make.
As St. Thomas said, “My Lord and My God – to Jesus” is a simple statement of that kind.

When John says, the Word was God (preserving word order), the passing tense makes me look at this with a big question mark. Is this Word, then, a passing breath? eg: I think of our new covenant; and the scripture that says: Man does not live by bread alone, but by every Word that falls (ex-pire?) from the mouth of God.

And, in the eucharistic prayer – the Liturgy now says something in connection with that first “breath” in Genesis which “caried the water above, aloft” The priest now says (paraphrase) “send your Sprit … like the dewfall”.

All these things intertwine with John’s stylistic power and glory of theological reflection.
If there is good reason, by example, to exclude alternate phrasing – I’m all ears. I just haven’t seen it yet.