John 1:1

[Danno2281]

Actually, you are incorrect. The book reasoning from the scriptures is used by us to prepare us for those who bring up John 1:1. I don’t fault you for not knowing this because the book is primarily a tool to prepare us in our ministry.

Your argument for other anarthrous nouns in John is not based on a good understanding of why we translate John 1:1c as ‘the Word was a god’. I could claim that your bibles are not consistent because they add the anarthrous “a” in English in other places in John 1, for example John 1:6 in the NAB and NJB (A man named John was sent from God).

John 1:1c is a particular construction called a pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominative. In this construction the anarthrous noun (QEOS) precedes the verb HN (imperfect of EIMI). Another example is found in John 4:19.

This is the same construction. The Greek is PROFHTHS EI where the anarthrous noun “prophet” precedes the verb EI which is the present indicative of the same same equative verb EIMI from John 1:1c.

In John 4:19 the sense is that the woman perceives that Jesus can tell the future. It is not rendered as you are the prophet, or you are the Prophet, capital ‘P’ but as you are ‘a’ prophet, someone who can foretell the future.

So as you can see, your objection that you felt that the NWT should is inconsistent with other places where the indefinite article is either found or not found is misplaced. I have seen this argument before. It is a bad argument and misrepresents why the NWT renders John 1:1 as ‘the Word was a god’

In fact I will go so far to say that bibles that render the verse as ‘the Word was God’ are actually inconsistent considering John 4:19 and great many other examples of this construction in the Greek.

If you decide to pursue the Greek exegesis of this passage I will be glad to provide a great many more details.

Dan

in the first place, the Hebrew prophet is a spokesman for God, not a teller of future events (unless that is what God wishes to communicate). Since there is certainly a definite article in Greek. the prophet would be quite easy to convey. The situation in Jin:,1,1 is quite different. The Jews refer to the Deity as HaShem - the Name, and the word “God” is used as a name. A definite article would be inappropriate before it. Put simply, your paralell constructions are hardly paralell.
And in passing, common usage identifies verbs in their infinitive form, not the 1st person singular of the present tense

 

[Dan_Parker]

in the first place, the Hebrew prophet is a spokesman for God, not a teller of future events (unless that is what God wishes to communicate). Since there is certainly a definite article in Greek. the prophet would be quite easy to convey. The situation in Jin:,1,1 is quite different. The Jews refer to the Deity as HaShem - the Name, and the word “God” is used as a name. A definite article would be inappropriate before it. Put simply, your paralell constructions are hardly paralell.
And in passing, common usage identifies verbs in their infinitive form, not the 1st person singular of the present tense

Dan:
My comparison of Exodus 7:1 does indeed relate to Moses as spokesman of God. In John 1 the Word (LOGOS) is also represented as spokesman for God. (NJB John 1:18 No one has ever seen God; it is the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known) In addition in the prologue, Moses is also compared to Jesus as mediator. (NJB John 1:17 for the Law was given through Moses, grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ.) Jesus is superior but they had the same function (ie old versus new covenant.)

I have no idea what your point is with hA SHEM. hA SHEM is not found in either Exodus 7:1 or John 1:1. The tetragrammaton is found in Exodus 7:1 and this is the one who makes Moses elohim (God). None of this has any bearing on QEOS (God) in John 1:1c.

You say:

The Jews refer to the Deity as HaShem - the Name, and the word “God” is used as a name. A definite article would be inappropriate before it.

However in John 1:1, the God who is with the Word **does **have the definite article before QEOS. The Greek is EN ARXH HN hO LOGOS KAI hO LOGOS HN PROS **TON QEON **KAI QEOS HN hO LOGOS.

What I have bolded, TON QEON is QEOS in the accusative which is articular. In any event the word God is not used as a name in either occurence of John 1:1 and elohim is not used as a name in Exodus 7:1. The name in Ex 7:1 is Yahweh, see your own NJB.

As for referring to the verb with EIMI instead of EINAI, I followed the convention as found in Greek lexicons such as Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich (BDAG) and Thayer which uses EIMI for their entries. I am equally conversant with using the infinitive but find that using it greatly confuses another who might be trying to follow the thread and attempting to look the word up in their lexicon.

Back to John 1:1. BDAG also makes this comparison between Moses and the Word in John 1:1 both grammatically and contextually. BDAG’s entry for QEOS with respect to the Son of God starts this way:

QEOS 2. Some writings in our lit. use the word q. w. ref. to Christ (without necessarily equating Christ with the Father, and therefore in harmony w. the Shema of Israel Dt 6:4; cp. Mk 10:18 and 4a below), though the interpretation of some of the pass. is in debate. In Mosaic and Gr-Rom. traditions the fundamental semantic component in the understanding of deity is the factor of performance, namely saviorhood or extraordinary contributions to one’s society. Dg. 10:6 defines the ancient perspective: (Greek removed) one who ministers to the needy what one has received from God proves to be **a god **to the recipients

Note that according to the use of this word as expressed by a Christian writer in the 2nd century one can be considered ‘a god’ if one is a savior if one helps others with what one has received from God.

Later on in the entry the direct connection between John 1:1 and Exodus 7:1 is made:

In any event, q. certainly refers to Christ, as one who manifests primary characteristics of deity, in the foll. NT pass.: J 1:1b (w. hO QEOS 1:1a, which refers to God in the monotheistic context of Israel’s tradition. On the problem raised by such attribution s. J 10:34 [cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6];

BDAG distinguishes between QEOS and ho QEOs in John 1:1 and says that the first instance which is articular refers to God in the monotheistic tradition. As for QEOS being used of the Son, they say to compare John 10:34, Ex 7:1 and Ps 81:6.

Dan

 

[Dan_Parker]

You cite the NWT frequently. Would you be good enough to tell us just who is responsible for this translation and what their qualifications in Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew were?

As a matter of fact I have been citing Catholic bibles like the NAB and NJB on this forum but I will be glad to answer your question.

I have heard that there were fluent speakers of Greek and Hebrew on the committee and also that some Bible scholars like Goodspeed and Moffatt were also used as consultants, but the actual names are not published.

Dan

 

[mmmcounts]

Hey. I’m not Catholic, but I like Greek. From what I understand, the phrase in question could be translated as “the Word was God,” “the Word was a God,” or even “the Word was the God” with equal amounts of ease. The rules of Greek translation as far as anarthrous nouns go are fairly straightforward: The inclusion or exclusion of the indefinite article is up to the discretion of the translator, and in certain situations the definite article may be an option as well. It usually doesn’t make any difference except to make the Bible more or less readable. In this case, though, the results are more significant than usual.

The question of “which translation is necessarily the right one” isn’t really…answerable. Any of the three options are equally valid, at least as far as the rules of Greek translation go. The question is this: Exactly how does each translation affect your theology, and does your theology suck as a result? (Particularly with respect to the rest of the Bible and the way it, as a whole, informs your theology). Debate over Greek rules and what they force you to translate is, in this case, fruitless. (It usually is not, but in this case, the rules of Greek do not force you anywhere).

If you are going to conclude that any of these three translations is unacceptable, it must be on the basis of poor results with respect to your theology. Therefore, I contend that the proper mode of discussing John 1:1 is not in the arena of “Your translation sucks, mine is better!” The proper mode is one of precisely defining how your favored translation informs and affects your theology…and then telling the other person their theology sucks, and yours is better.

Kidding aside, it’s a lot more difficult and time-consuming to communicate all of that according to my proposed plan, but it’s really the only viable option. Each of the “translative paths” to the presence or lack of articles is equally valid. The rules of Koine Greek don’t exclude any of them, and they don’t favor any one of them. You have to examine and compare JW theology against…well, I guess it’s Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant theology.

You’ll have to put in quite a bit of work in order to make that happen. Hope you like talking theology.

Oh, just a side note to an earlier poster: The New Jerusalem Translation is available online.

catholic.org/bible/

Real easy. You won’t even need a bookmark.

 

[Danno2281]

Dan:
My comparison of Exodus 7:1 does indeed relate to Moses as spokesman of God. In John 1 the Word (LOGOS) is also represented as spokesman for God. (NJB John 1:18 No one has ever seen God; it is the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known) In addition in the prologue, Moses is also compared to Jesus as mediator. (NJB John 1:17 for the Law was given through Moses, grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ.) Jesus is superior but they had the same function (ie old versus new covenant.)

…

BDAG distinguishes between QEOS and ho QEOs in John 1:1 and says that the first instance which is articular refers to God in the monotheistic tradition. As for QEOS being used of the Son, they say to compare John 10:34, Ex 7:1 and Ps 81:6.

Dan

The refeerence was to the case that you cited, Jn:4,19 and the lack of the definite article therein. The woman says very plainly, "I see that you are (a) prophet (theoro hoti prophetes ei su). There is absolutely nothing confusing or obscure in this statement. If she had intended to say the prophjet, the definite article would have been used

 

[Danno2281]

As a matter of fact I have been citing Catholic bibles like the NAB and NJB on this forum but I will be glad to answer your question.

I have heard that there were fluent speakers of Greek and Hebrew on the committee and also that some Bible scholars like Goodspeed and Moffatt were also used as consultants, but the actual names are not published.

Dan

The following is from “A History of the Jehovah’s Witnesses” found on this website:

By means of former Witnesses, the names of the five members of the translation committee eventually came to light. Four of the five members completely lack credentials to qualify them as Bible translators, and the fifth member studied non-biblical Greek for only about two years.

 

[Dan_Parker]

The refeerence was to the case that you cited, Jn:4,19 and the lack of the definite article therein. The woman says very plainly, "I see that you are (a) prophet (theoro hoti prophetes ei su). There is absolutely nothing confusing or obscure in this statement. If she had intended to say the prophjet, the definite article would have been used

Dan:
My argument has nothing to do with whether the statement would be confusing depending on the inclusion or lack of the article. The point is that this is the same syntax as John 1:1c and that all English bibles include the English indefinite article “a” in their translations. In addition, like John 1:1, the force of this syntax is to present a particular individual who has a particular quality. In John 4, Jesus is a person who is a prophet and can fortell the future. In John 1:1 the Word is “a divine being” just like Catholic McKenzie states. He got that one right!

Dan

 

[Dan_Parker]

The following is from “A History of the Jehovah’s Witnesses” found on this website:

By means of former Witnesses, the names of the five members of the translation committee eventually came to light. Four of the five members completely lack credentials to qualify them as Bible translators, and the fifth member studied non-biblical Greek for only about two years.

So, assuming you are Catholic, would you like me to introduce anonymous writers from anti-Catholic websites as truth here for you to defend?

May I remind you that this particular section of the board is for Apologetics related to Scripture? Can you defend your view from Scripture? What you are doing is called “poisoning the well.”

That being said, I already posted on what I have heard as to those who could translate Hebrew and Greek. If you disagree that the NWT is translated correctly, you should be able to demonstrate that from the text itself.

Dan

 

[Dan_Parker]

The refeerence was to the case that you cited, Jn:4,19 and the lack of the definite article therein. The woman says very plainly, "I see that you are (a) prophet (theoro hoti prophetes ei su). There is absolutely nothing confusing or obscure in this statement. If she had intended to say the prophjet, the definite article would have been used

By the way, your comment here on John 4:19 has nothing to do with my refutation of your points in the post to which you are apparently responding. Would you mind responding to those points?

Dan

 

[FCEGM]

As for polytheism based on John 1:1, I have already explained that we view the Word as “a god” because he is the representative of God. Moses was also called elohim (a god) in the KJV, NJB and Greek Septuagint. Surely you don’t consider McKenzie a polytheist even though you view him in error on this.

Dan

Dan, I already addressed this (re Moses) in an earlier post - see post # 14

 

[FCEGM]

I would be delighted to discuss your other proof-texts if you have the time and inclination. Neither Col 2:9, Phil 2:6, John 20:28 or Titus 2:13 are decisive in proving that Jesus and his Father are the same being or the same God, let alone that three are God.

Dan

Prooftexting, Dan, actually isn’t all that productive if one doesn’t begin within the context of the Church as whole, approaching the text with the mind of the Church instead of a mind opposed to it. Scripture, after all - especially the New Testament - arose in the midst of and is the product of the already-believing, already-worshiping, already-liturgical Church and is not up for grabs to any johnny-come-lately individual or organization with no God-given authority to rightly interpret the texts or teach from them.

 

[FCEGM]

Actually, you are incorrect. The book reasoning from the scriptures is used by us to prepare us for those who bring up John 1:1. I don’t fault you for not knowing this because the book is primarily a tool to prepare us in our ministry.

I see this as a distinction without a difference, Dan.

John 1:1c is a particular construction called a pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominative. In this construction the anarthrous noun (QEOS) precedes the verb HN (imperfect of EIMI). Another example is found in John 4:19.

This is addressed here:

catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9110chap.asp

 

[Dan_Parker]

Prooftexting, Dan, actually isn’t all that productive if one doesn’t begin within the context of the Church as whole, approaching the text with the mind of the Church instead of a mind opposed to it. Scripture, after all - especially the New Testament - arose in the midst of and is the product of the already-believing, already-worshiping, already-liturgical Church and is not up for grabs to any johnny-come-lately individual or organization with no God-given authority to rightly interpret the texts or teach from them.

Dan:
I agree with you on proof-texting. I selected those verses above because those are the ones McKenzie cited after dropping the bombshell that John 1:1 should be rendered ‘the Word was a divine being.’

As for my interpretation, it is the same as the Israelites and the apostles. Only the Father is the ‘one God’ of Jewish/Christian monotheism. (cp Mal 2:10; 1Co 8:6)

Dan

 

[PJM]

=Dan Parker -I make this post in another thread as a reply to a request to explain how I view John 1:1. Since it is really a different subject from the original thread I will use it to start a new one.

Originally Posted by tobinatorstark
Exactly why do you feel that way?? Assuming that you have an NWT, compare it to the KJV and Douay-Rheims John 1:1. See what you come up with. Two totally different doctrines

**
Dan:**
Perhaps you don’t understand how Jehovah’s Witnesses view John 1:1. We view the Word in John 1:1 as being presented as the spokesman of God in a similar manner to how Moses was the spokesman for God.

If one accepts a translation of “the Word was God” then I would view this as similar to how the NWT renders Ex 7:1

***For those who may not know the “NWT = New World Testament” is snipits and pieces of the bible culled and edited to justify their "New "[and one assmumes better world because they temselves become gods]. It is a completely frabricated theology that denies God is Divine, Christ is too God, the existence of both heaven and hell, and of course thinks the bible is akin to a comic book.

Given this information, it does not seem prudent to allow the NWT to be compared to any Christian Bible, other in the broadest sense to discuss religious differences. Actually JW’s and Morman’s are a cult, not a religion at all as they do not accept the idea of a Divine God, or Trinity. Their reasoning is if “they can’t understand [comprehend it] it can’t be true.”***

NWT Exodus 7:1 Consequently Jehovah said to Moses: "See, I have made you** God to Pharaoh**, and Aaron your own brother will become your prophet.

The KJV renders this verse:
KJV Exodus 7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

In John 1:1 the Son existed in heaven with his Father before he became a human being. He was the Word or spokesman for his Father. He was not the Father nor was he a second God alongside his Father. The former would be modalism, the latter polytheism.

Interestingly, the Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich Greek lexicon financed by the Lutheran Missouri Synod says to compare Exodus 7:1 (LXX) to John 1:1.

The matter of John 1:1 is more a matter of interpretation than it is a matter of translation. That being said, I do believe that the Greek QEOS HN hO LOGOS (lit a god was the Word) is the best translation for the verse. Discussing that is beyond the scope of this short post.

You have not shared how you view John 1:1. Even amongst Trinitarians there is a large difference.

For example Catholic John L McKenzie, S.J.

Note that McKenzie is a Trinitarian and a Catholic who interprets John 20:28 and Titus 2:13 as examples where he feels the Son is called God with the definite article. But he agrees with Jehovah’s Witnesses that Jesus was “a divine being” and not “God” in John 1:1.

Dan

***I have no idea of what you mean by “divine being” if not God?

Haydocks Catholic Comentary: Ver. 1. In the beginning was the wordr rather, the word was in the beginning. The eternal word, the increated [uncreated?] wisdom, the second Person of the blessed Trinity, the only begotten Son of the Father, as he is here called of the same nature and substance, and the same God, with the Father and Holy Ghost*. This word was always; so that it was never true to say, he was not, as the Arians blasphemed. This word was in the beginning. Some, by the beginning, expound the Father himself, in whom he was always. Others give this plain and obvious sense, that the word, or the Son of God, was, when all other things began to have a being; he never began, but was from all eternity. — And the word was with God; i.e. was with the Father; and as it is said, in the bosom of the Father; which implies, that he is indeed a distinct person, but the same in nature and substance with the Father and the Holy Ghost. This is repeated again in the second verse, as repetitions are very frequent in St. John. — And the word was God. This without question is the construction; where, according to the letter we read, and God was the word

Jn. 14: 10 “Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. 11* Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves.” **

Here is evidence of the Trinity is a single passage Jn. 3; 133 “Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. 14 John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness.” Then he consented. And when Jesus [The 2 nd.Person of the Trinity] was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, [The Third Person of the Trinity] and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” [God the Father, the first Person of the Trinity”[/COLOR]

Friend as noted below, TRUTH always remains THEE Truth!

 

[Dan_Parker]

I see this as a distinction without a difference, Dan.

This is addressed here:

catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9110chap.asp

I am sorry, but I don’t debate links. If you would like to summarize the points you feel are relevant in this forum and explain them in your own words, I will be happy to evaluate them.

Dan

 

[Dan_Parker]

PJM:
For those who may not know the “NWT = New World Testament” is snipits and pieces of the bible culled and edited to justify their "New "[and one assmumes better world because they temselves become gods]. It is a completely frabricated theology that denies God is Divine, Christ is too God, the existence of both heaven and hell, and of course thinks the bible is akin to a comic book.

Dan:
You appear to have JWs confused with some other denomination. We don’t teach we will be gods. The rest of your comments don’t address any of my arguments.

Dan

 

[PJM]

“Jesus is the Son of God, the firstborn of all creation. He was the first one created by Jehovah God, and it was by means of him that the Father created all other things. Jesus often prayed to God, so it is clear that he is not God. A correct translation of John 1:1 testifies to this fact: ‘In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with god, and the Word was a god.’ Jesus knew who he was, and he so admitted, ‘The Father is greater than I.’ Only the Father is God, which in Greek is ho Theos. Jesus may be a mighty god, but only Jehovah is almighty God.” Reasoning from the Scriptures, 209-18.

***Christ / Lord was speaking if himself in his human nature when he says this.

Jn. 14: 10 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves.

*And 'The Father and Jesus ARE ONE" Jn. 17: 11, Jn. 10; 30 "30 I and the Father are one." ****

As a FYI do you know the origin and date of origin of the term Jahova?**

Haydocks CC “Ver. 28. The Father is greater than I.[3] According to the common exposition, Christ here speaks of himself, as made man, which interpretation is drawn from the circumstances of the text, Christ being at that time, going to suffer, and die, and shortly after to rise again, and ascend into heaven, all which agree with him, as man, and according to his human nature. But the Arians can take no advantage from these words, (though with divers of the ancient Fathers, we should allow them to be spoken of Christ, as the Son of God the Father may be said in some manner to be greater than the Son, if we consider the order of the divine processions, that is, that the Father is the first person, and proceeds from no other; whereas the Son proceeds from the Father. If any one, says St. Chrysostom, will contend, that the Father is greater, inasmuch as he is the cause, from which the Son proceedeth, we will bear with him, and this way of speaking: provided he grant that the Son is not of a different substance, or nature. St. Athanasius allows the same, and takes notice, that though the Father is said to be greater, yet he is not said to be better, nor more excellent, than the Son; because they are one and the same in substance, nature, and other perfections”

Which simply illustrates - as has been shown - that McKenzie is likewise in error.

Dorry, not true.

Love and prayers,

 

[Dan_Parker]

PJM:

Which simply illustrates - as has been shown - that McKenzie is likewise in error.

Sorry, not true.

Dan:
So you think Catholic McKenzie was correct when he said John 1:1 should be rendered “the Word was a divine being”?

Dan

 

[Dan_Parker]

I see this as a distinction without a difference, Dan.

I can also point to my experience on this site. I did not bring up John 1:1, someone else did. That is very typical.

Dan

 

[kkoleon]

the greek "en arche hn o logos, kai o logos hn pros ton theon, kai theos hn o logos
" literally is “in the beggining was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.” who ever gave you that translation themselves is in error.