How Early Christians Understood John 1:1

[Pegg]

John 1:1 θεος ην ο λογος. - 'God was the word' OR 'A god was the Word'

Im not going to give you a big long post about why the indefinite article should be used in this verse...im not going to bother with explaining greek grammar or the english equivalent or what the various scholars all say about this verse...im not even going to tell you what you should believe about this verse one way or the other.

I am only going to show you how 3rd century coptic christians translated the greek text into their coptic language. Coptic was a language used in Egypt in the early centuries.
The Coptic manuscripts are very important because Coptic is similar to English as it uses indefinite articles. So if you want to know how the early christians understood John 1:1 and how they translated it....


LOOK AT IT HERE IN THE COPTIC VERSION OF JOHN 1


And I hope you will use this information to make your own determination on whether John1:1 should have the indefinite article (a) inserted.

 

[Scott C.]

I'm intrigued by some similarity between Jehovah's Witness and Latter-day Saint view of the Father and the Son. I agree that the Son is a separate person from the Father. I believe the Father and Son are "one" in their purpose, but not their substance. In what way, if any, do you believe that Jesus and God are "one"? What does it mean when you say that Jesus is "a" god, i.e., "a god was the Word".

 

[Pegg]

I'm intrigued by some similarity between Jehovah's Witness and Latter-day Saint view of the Father and the Son. I agree that the Son is a separate person from the Father. I believe the Father and Son are "one" in their purpose, but not their substance. In what way, if any, do you believe that Jesus and God are "one"? What does it mean when you say that Jesus is "a" god, i.e., "a god was the Word".

Hi,
yes we do have some similar beliefs. We also believe that they were 'one' in the sense of their purpose and 'one' in the sense of unity.

Jesus said that he 'does the will of his Father' and for that reason he is 'one' with his father. Jesus also told his disciples to become 'one' John 17:20 “I make request, not concerning these only, but also concerning those putting faith in me through their word; 21 in order that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us

And we can say that Jesus is a god because the word 'god' is a title. It means 'strong mighty one'
Jesus is a strong and mighty angel of Jehovah....he is the Chief angel of Jehovah God, the first created angel. So in that way, Jesus is also a god. You may know that in the bible satan is also called a god because of his position as a ruler of the earth. 2Cor 4:4 "...whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through

If Satan can be called by the title god, then surely Jesus is also a god.

 

[javajo]

I think one must go to the Greek to get to the root. Here is a good explanation from an New Testament Greek.org: Explanation of John 1:1

 

[Katzpur]

I don't think there's really any question but that the earliest followers of Jesus Christ recognized that the Father and the Son were two separate beings. Furthermore, I don't think they had any of the "issues" Christians three or four centuries later had with the use of the phrase, "I and my Father are one." There are so many, many instances in the Bible where the word "one" is used to mean "united" in some way that it has always amazed me to realize how many Christians insist that the word must be used to denote a quantity of 1. But I guess that's what you get when you start trying to merge Greek philosophical thought with the religious beliefs of the Hebrews.

 

[Pegg]

I don't think there's really any question but that the earliest followers of Jesus Christ recognized that the Father and the Son were two separate beings. Furthermore, I don't think they had any of the "issues" Christians three or four centuries later had with the use of the phrase, "I and my Father are one." There are so many, many instances in the Bible where the word "one" is used to mean "united" in some way that it has always amazed me to realize how many Christians insist that the word must be used to denote a quantity of 1. But I guess that's what you get when you start trying to merge Greek philosophical thought with the religious beliefs of the Hebrews.

yep, things were much less complicated back then because the writings of the apostles were first and foremost. It was only later that other doctrines began to be introduced which muddied the waters.

And its so obvious that when jesus said 'I and the father are one' he did not mean they were the same person because in the same passage he told his disciples to all become 'one' in the same way. How could that be interpreted to mean anything other then unity???

 

[Pegg]

I think one must go to the Greek to get to the root. Here is a good explanation from an New Testament Greek.org: Explanation of John 1:1

no, because the greek is a language without indefinite articles and our language uses indefinite articles.

the only way for us to know if we should use an indefinite article in that verse is either to ask John himself or look at how the early christians translated the verse into a language similar to our own.

The coptic christians added the indefinite article because they understood John 1:1 to mean Jesus was 'a' god and not God Almighty. The verse makes so much more sense when its read that way anway because it also says

'The Word was WITH God'.... why would John use 'with' if Jesus was God. That would not make sense.

 

[Shermana]

I'm intrigued by some similarity between Jehovah's Witness and Latter-day Saint view of the Father and the Son. I agree that the Son is a separate person from the Father. I believe the Father and Son are "one" in their purpose, but not their substance. In what way, if any, do you believe that Jesus and God are "one"? What does it mean when you say that Jesus is "a" god, i.e., "a god was the Word".

The Joseph Smith translation of John 1:1c is interesting, even if not completely accurate word for word, the concept is closer than others to the intended point than nearly all others, though the NWT (and the versions before it that were similar) are the most accurate by translating the Anarthrous as "a god".

http://www.centerplace.org/hs/iv/iv-joh.htm

1 In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God.

The concept nonetheless, JS seemed to hit quite accurately for 1:1c, but I think he misunderstood the meaning of "Logos".

 

[Shermana]

I think one must go to the Greek to get to the root. Here is a good explanation from an New Testament Greek.org: Explanation of John 1:1

I think your link tries to get into the oft-discredit "Colwell's rule" which many Evangelicals rely upon but is far from universally accepted. It was basically made up just for John 1:1c it appears. There just so happen to be no other actual examples where Colwell's rule applies, and plenty of places where it is disproven. That would be great if anyone could make up their own grammar rules and cite them as proof without having to show other examples or explain all the exceptions.

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/def-part-2.html

6 But notice what Colwell himself really said. Colwell published his rule in a 1933 JBL article entitled, "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament." In that article he wrote: "A predicate nominative [or predicate noun] 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 in spite of the absence of the article." - p. 20, JBL, 1933, vol. 52.

Nowhere did Colwell ever say that all (nor even most) predicate nouns that precede the verb in NT Greek are definite nouns. Not any inviolable rule of NT Greek grammar, but context alone, says Colwell, must guide the translator in such cases. And, as we have already seen (and according to some of the best trinitarian scholars themselves - see the QUAL study), the context of John 1:1 makes it clear that if the Word were with the God of the Bible he could not himself be that God. Even context alone makes it certain that John meant "the Word was a god."

7 But let's return to the trinitarian misinterpretation of Colwell's Rule: "a predicate noun that has no definite article must be considered definite anyway when it comes before the verb in NT Greek."

One of the first things a beginning student of New Testament Greek learns is that word order has very little, if any, significance as far as the meaning is concerned. (This is especially true when one is examining nominative case nouns - see the THEON study.) For example, respected 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 p. 417, A. T. Robertson.)

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 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. Also see p. 148, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, where trinitarians Dana and Mantey translate an example they admit is parallel to John 1:1c as "And the place was a market," The Macmillan Company (see PRIMER pp. 1-2 for similar examples).[6]

8 But even if you haven't even begun studying NT Greek, you can prove the trinitarian misinterpretation of Colwell's Rule to be completely false simply by actually going through the Gospel of John in a Greek-English Interlinear New Testament and finding all the places where a predicate noun precedes the be verb. (Skim through and find all the `be' verbs, then see if there is a predicate noun that has no definite article coming before that verb. Then check all Bible translations to see if that predicate noun is translated with a definite article or not.) - For a detailed examination of all proper examples (those most equivalent to Jn 1:1c) see the Appendix of this paper.

 

[Katzpur]

How could that be interpreted to mean anything other then unity???

Beats me, but evidently, when there's a will, there's a way.

 

[javajo]

I think your link tries to get into the oft-discredit "Colwell's rule" which many Evangelicals rely upon but is far from universally accepted. It was basically made up just for John 1:1c it appears. There just so happen to be no other actual examples where Colwell's rule applies, and plenty of places where it is disproven. That would be great if anyone could make up their own grammar rules and cite them as proof without having to show other examples or explain all the exceptions.

Examining the Trinity: DEF - Part 2

Ok, I just try not to bring any theology into the picture and rely solely on what the very best Greek experts say and the context it is written in. It works ok for me.

theos en ho logos
God was the word
the word was God

 

[Shermana]

The "Very best Greek experts" are not exclusive to Evangelicals. In fact, many of these "very best experts" are disagreed against on critical issues. As far as context goes, the whole "With" issue wins that one alone on how to read it. Context is a Trinitarian's (and Antinomian's) worst enemy. Additionally, "Context" would include knowing that John was writing to an audience generally well acquainted with Philo.

If it works ok for you, great! But this is not the discussion board.

 

[javajo]

Well, I think its good to lay theology aside and just learn what it really says, neither one of which is easy.

 

[Shermana]

Well, I think its good to lay theology aside and just learn what it really says, neither one of which is easy.

Somehow I doubt you'd consider applying this logic yourself. Well, if you want to say that Colwell's rule is correct, please show some examples of it where it is used other than John 1:1c.

 

[idea]

I'm intrigued by some similarity between Jehovah's Witness and Latter-day Saint view of the Father and the Son. I agree that the Son is a separate person from the Father. I believe the Father and Son are "one" in their purpose, but not their substance. In what way, if any, do you believe that Jesus and God are "one"? What does it mean when you say that Jesus is "a" god, i.e., "a god was the Word".

This is our version of John 1:1

(JST | John 1:1)
1. In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God.

Whoops - someone already posted the JST

here is another quote though -
http://lds.org/general-conference/2...eng&query=trinity+(name:"Jeffrey+R.+Holland")

" We believe these three divine persons constituting a single Godhead are united in purpose, in manner, in testimony, in mission. We believe Them to be filled with the same godly sense of mercy and love, justice and grace, patience, forgiveness, and redemption. I think it is accurate to say we believe They are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance, a Trinitarian notion never set forth in the scriptures because it is not true."

 

[javajo]

Nah, I'll let you all duke it out. I'm satisfied.

 

[sojourner]

How early Christians understood John 1:1 is irrelevant. How we understand John 1:1 is relevant.

 

[Pegg]

How early Christians understood John 1:1 is irrelevant. How we understand John 1:1 is relevant.

not if its wrong!

 

[Katzpur]

How early Christians understood John 1:1 is irrelevant. How we understand John 1:1 is relevant.

Why do you say that, sojourner? I mean, I agree that how we understand it is relevant, but if the first and second century Christians understood it one way and the fourth and first century Christians interpreted it completely differently, wouldn't that be an issue worth looking into?

 

[Scott C.]

Hi,
yes we do have some similar beliefs. We also believe that they were 'one' in the sense of their purpose and 'one' in the sense of unity.

Jesus said that he 'does the will of his Father' and for that reason he is 'one' with his father. Jesus also told his disciples to become 'one' John 17:20 “I make request, not concerning these only, but also concerning those putting faith in me through their word; 21 in order that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us

And we can say that Jesus is a god because the word 'god' is a title. It means 'strong mighty one'
Jesus is a strong and mighty angel of Jehovah....he is the Chief angel of Jehovah God, the first created angel. So in that way, Jesus is also a god. You may know that in the bible satan is also called a god because of his position as a ruler of the earth. 2Cor 4:4 "...whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through

If Satan can be called by the title god, then surely Jesus is also a god.

Do you believe that Jesus created the world, as in John 1:3 "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

In your view, what role, if any, did Jesus play under God the Father from the creation of the world until his birth?