in the beginning was the "word"

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I made it quite clear in another thread that it was translated this way numerous times by non-JWs, centuries before the NWT and that it's a common fallacy, if not outright deliberate deception that it's taught by churches and scholars that the NWT was the first and only to do this.

An important point, however, is not simply that the NWT translates John 1:1ff in this way, but that they do so inconsistently:

Yet they did not change other verses in a similar way but only when it suited their doctrine, if it was with some sort of consistancy it would probably be more acceptable.

You mentioned Wallace, who does argue that theos is "qualitative" but also states that "The grammatical argumeht that the PN [predicate nominative] is indefinite is weak. Often, those who argue for such a view (in particular, the translators of the NWT) do so on the basis that the term is anarthrous. Yet they are inconsistent..." p. 267 of Wallace's Greek Grammar

He goes on to quote R.H. Countess: "In the New Testament there are 282 occurrences of the anarthrous theos. At sixteen places NWT has either a god, god, gods, or godly. Sixteen out of 282 means that the translators were faithful to their translation only six percent of the time..."

and again: "The first section of John-1:1-18-furnishes a lucid example of NWT arbitrary dogmatism. Theos occurs eight times-verses 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, 19- and has the article only twice-verses 1,2. Yet NWT sex times translated "God," once "a god," and once "the god."

 

[Shermana]

I'm aware that the NWT is inconsistent, I never claimed it was perfect, there are other translations that seem to be more consistent in this regard, there are many controversial and tricky issues in other verses in which very few translations have dared to go after accurately in which the Greek itself is muddy and the manuscript differences indicate even the scribes weren't sure what it said like in 1:18. However, there's also issues like whether "god of" is the same as "god" such as in those examples:

1, 2, 6, 12, 13, 19-

I have seen those listed before, notice that in 1:6 it is THEOU, which is often an implied article, and thus not necessarily the same as the indefinite, purely nominative Theos. Same with 1:12, and 13. I think you mean 18, of which I believe it should be read as "A god no one has seen" (G-d has apparently been seen before, even CARM fumbles with this verse badly and resorts to circular reasoning). So comparing Theou to Theos I think is something Trinitarian Grammarians are incorrect if not being possibly deceptive about. The traditional construction of 1:18 for "God no one has seen" also is very awkward in relation to the next part, "one and only son', it makes more sense if the "Theon" is in reference to the same subject. There's also the question of whether we should by go by the manuscript that says "One and only son" or "one and only god", which the latter I think may be incorrect.



Nonetheless, the point remains, numerous (secular/non-affiliated) translations BEFORE the NWT have rendered it as such.
\
As for Wallace saying that the indefinite argument is "Weak", I think his reasoning for saying it's weak is weak.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Nonetheless, the point remains, numerous (secular/non-affiliated) translations BEFORE the NWT have rendered it as such.

That's true. For me, however, the questions are whether or not this is the correct translation, and (as the OP asked) what logos means here.

With respect to the first question, apart from any grammatical argument, there is the question of why the trinitarian position arose in the first place. Simplistically (i.e., a summary of a much more complicated historical issue), it was an attempt to resolve a doctrinal/traditional inconsistency. In other words, it seems a majority of christians had a problem with abandoning monotheism. The question is, why would they think they needed to, or that this was an issue which required resolving? From Justin, Ignastius, Tatian, Theophilos (whose To Autolycus is where we find the earliest trinitarian, or at least explicit use of trias to describe god), and others, at least a central reason (and probably THE reason) was John's prologue. It seemed to such authors that John was indeed saying "The logos = God". So either Jesus and God were the same, or there was mor than one god, or the logos was not Jesus (which wouldn't resolve anything). None seemed acceptable, and thus various solutions were proposed.

As interesting as these controversies are from a historical point of view (at least for me, a non-believer), their relevancy here lies in the fact that while our approach and understanding of Greek and language in general is significantly more nuanced and technical, we are not native speakers, and the language has been dead (in the way old english is dead) for hundreds of years. If native speakers thought John was saying logos=God, and therefore needed to resolve what was meant by this, that to me is as powerful as any grammatical argument.

 

[miss interpret]

I'm aware that the NWT is inconsistent, I never claimed it was perfect, there are other translations that seem to be more consistent in this regard, there are many controversial and tricky issues in other verses in which very few translations have dared to go after accurately in which the Greek itself is muddy and the manuscript differences indicate even the scribes weren't sure what it said like in 1:18. However, there's also issues like whether "god of" is the same as "god" such as in those examples:
I have seen those listed before, notice that in 1:6 it is THEOU, which is often an implied article, and thus not necessarily the same as the indefinite, purely nominative Theos. Same with 1:12, and 13. I think you mean 18, of which I believe it should be read as "A god no one has seen" (G-d has apparently been seen before, even CARM fumbles with this verse badly and resorts to circular reasoning). So comparing Theou to Theos I think is something Trinitarian Grammarians are incorrect if not being possibly deceptive about. The traditional construction of 1:18 for "God no one has seen" also is very awkward in relation to the next part, "one and only son', it makes more sense if the "Theon" is in reference to the same subject. There's also the question of whether we should by go by the manuscript that says "One and only son" or "one and only god", which the latter I think may be incorrect.



Nonetheless, the point remains, numerous (secular/non-affiliated) translations BEFORE the NWT have rendered it as such.
\
As for Wallace saying that the indefinite argument is "Weak", I think his reasoning for saying it's weak is weak.

secular translations? which non affiliated actually say a god?to me it is a clear attempt to change the meaning to cover their own doctrinal needs.

 

[Shermana]

Start with the ones I posted.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2850841-post20.html

?to me it is a clear attempt to change the meaning to cover their own doctrinal needs.

And that's exactly what the "orthodox" have been doing since Tertullian.

 

[miss interpret]

Start with the ones I posted.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2850841-post20.html


And that's exactly what the "orthodox" have been doing since Tertullian.

yet every version I have of the bible says exactly the same thing, how odd.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Start with the ones I posted.

Academic does not mean "secular." Nor is it true that religious scholars are incapable of coming to conclusiong from a linguistic/grammatical or historical standpoint which conflicts with their religious beliefs.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2850841-post20.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2850841-post20.htmlhttp://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2850841-post20.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2850841-post20.html

On the contrary, it seems that numerous Objective (i.e. non-Trinitarian)

The quote is from your link. It seems as if you are equating objectivity to non-trinitarian. It's true that (by definition) a trinitarian is not objective when it comes to this issue. However, that applies to anyone whose theology involves god and whose religious beliefs involve accepting the gospel of john as in some way inspired by god (basically, anybody who is christian). Also, being non-objective a priori does not preclude the possibility of objective analysis.

And that's exactly what the "orthodox" have been doing since Tertullian.

Orthodoxy has nothing to do with it. From Justin to Origen, everybody seems to have had problems with what John 1:1 meant.

Also, I'm having some trouble understanding why you are referencing what you do. Looking at your link in full, many of the academic sources (especially the more recent) do not translate "a god" but follow Wallace's qualitative interpretation of theos. As for those you actually list, (12) gives a name and a translation, but then refers to the ZNW and a date and no paper, then a book, and and then a paper. So where does the translation come from? The book, An Historical Greek Grammar chiefly of the Attic Dialect, as written and spoken from classical antiquity down to present time, founded upon the ancient texts, inscriptions papyri and present popular Greek, is horribly, horribly dated. If it were just a descriptive grammar, that would be one thing (although even Smyth required a revision, and that was published decades after this). Jannaris disparages, in his preface, the "...zeal to prove or uphold the unity of the Indo-European imaginary 'Ursprache'..." That's german for what in English is known as Proto-Indo-European and there isn't a single Indo-European linguist now who doubts that it exists. The problem is that Jannaris was writing not only before our knowledge of Greek was enhanced by the deciphering of Linear B, but also before the vast increase in our knowledge of Indo-European thanks to, for example, the discovery and translation of Hittite.

More importantly, or knowledge of NT greek, which at one time was thought to be a unique dialect, has vastly increased thanks to papyri since Jannaris' day.

Your first source is just as dated, and the last is on Coptic.

So on what are you basing your view that "a god" is the best translation?

 

[Pegg]

secular translations? which non affiliated actually say a god?to me it is a clear attempt to change the meaning to cover their own doctrinal needs.

1808 “and the word was a god”
The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.

1864 “and a god was the Word”
The Emphatic Diaglott (J21, interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.

1935 “and the Word was divine”
The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed,
Chicago.

1950 “and the Word was a god”
New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn.

1975 “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word”
Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz,Göttingen, Germany.

1978 “and godlike sort was the Logos”
Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by Johannes Schneider,Berlin.

1979 “and a god was the Logos”
Das Evangelium nach Johannes,by Jürgen Becker, Würzburg, Germany.


Here is the explanation from the Watctower translators as to why they also chose 'a god' for the New World Translation bible.
These translations use such words as “a god,” “divine” or “godlike” because the Greek word θεός (the·os&#8242 is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous the·os′. The God with whom the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek expression ὁ θεός, that is, the·os′ preceded by the definite article ho. This is an articular the·os′. Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone. Therefore, John’s statement that the Word or Logos was “a god” or “divine” or “godlike” does not mean that he was the God with whom he was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same as God himself.

 

[Pegg]

Orthodoxy has nothing to do with it. From Justin to Origen, everybody seems to have had problems with what John 1:1 meant.

the 3rd century Coptic Christians in Egypt did not have an issue about how to translate the verse.

The language is the Sahidic dialect of Coptic. The Sahidic text is especially interesting because it is one of the earliest copies of the scriptures and it reflects an understanding of christianity dating from before the fourth century, which was when the Trinity became official doctrine. And the Coptic grammar is very close to English grammar in that they do use the indefinite articles.

So the Coptic translation provides us with evidence of how John 1:1 was understood back then. Their translation reads: “And the Word was a god.”

It is evident that those ancient christians realized that John’s words recorded at John 1:1 did not mean that Jesus was to be identified as Almighty God. The Word was a god, not Almighty God and that is how we too believe Johns words should be understood. Amazingly, all the contradictions in scripture melt away when we stop calling Jesus God.

 

[bribrius]

Im normally non confrontational. But i think i enjoy watching these debates because you can actually learn alot just watching. Carry on at will. :clap


so is the logos jesus?


Is john really the fulfillment of elijah?

i actually watched a show on the early church, about as deep as my knowledge gets im out numbered by other knowledge on this thread. But in the show they actually were discussing the changes in the religion under the early catholic church, the different books selected to be in the bible and the ones not. And there were questions of different sects that disagreed on a number of things. Was jesus a man, a god in flesh, or just a spirit? Was there more than one god, or two gods or just one god?
The documentary seemed to suggest that some sects disagreed and took separated themselves from the process. And the end result of jesus being man and god, and the trinity, and the books included in the bible was the result of compromise trying to appease multiple groups that didnt agree.
I am not sure i agree, but im not sure if i disagree either. It just makes me question some things.
jesus being the word, and as mentioned already the trinity, and the books in the bible (i have starting reading the not included enoch), are things i am attempting to gain more understanding of.
Thankyou and God bless

 

[Pegg]

Im normally non confrontational. But i think i enjoy watching these debates because you can actually learn alot just watching. Carry on at will. :clap

if you have any questions, feel free to jump in

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It is evident that those ancient christians realized that John’s words recorded at John 1:1 did not mean that Jesus was to be identified as Almighty God.

All that is evident is that they believed it meant "a god." That's it. We have commentary by people who spoke the language John was written in as their native tongue who disagreed (and disagreed with each other). If it the greek clearly meant "a god" then we wouldn't have commentators from Justin and Origen to Eusebius and beyond arguing about it. The trinitarian view didn't pop out of no where, any more than arianism or marcionism or any other view. A central issue (even within Paul there are hints) was the status of Jesus' humanity and the nature of his being. The prologue to John became one of the most contentious and problematic lines within early christianity not because it was unclear whether "a god" or "god" was a better rendering, but because the line actually goes beyond saying the logos was near/towards/with god, but actually was god. We're talking about a movement that began within Judaism and resisted movements (like many which fall under the modern categorization "gnostic") which sought to reject the OT and expunge judaism from christianity entirely. Promoting any human to godhood was at least as radical and problematic as polytheism. If it were clear that theos simply meant "angelic" or "divine" to people speaking John's language from birth, we'd never have seen the ensuing controversy. The reason we do is because the line equates Jesus and god, and for the early christians, this was either a form of polytheism, or there had to be some way that Jesus could be god and not god at the same time.

The Word was a god, not Almighty God and that is how we too believe Johns words should be understood. Amazingly, all the contradictions in scripture melt away when we stop calling Jesus God.

Lot's of contradictions "melt away" if you change what the text actually says. What doesn't melt away are the problems within the text.

While Wallace and other are quite right to point out that applying Colwell's rule here is actually applying the inverse, and thus a logical fallacy, applying inverse probability or a posteriori probability is not.

 

[james2ko]

God is one, three in one and why would anyone change the text to add something that should not be there such as "a god" not just God.

The text did not need to be changed in order to establish the duality (no mention of a third member here) expressed in these passages. God the Father and Christ are a family--the "God" family. In the beginning was one great personage called the Word, the Spokesman [Christ]. And the Word was with another personage, God [The Father]. And the Word was God. The question is how could Christ be God and be with God? You might say in a certain residence was Bill, and Bill was with Smith, and Bill was Smith. Does Bill have to be the same person as Smith? Not necessarily, Bill could be Mr Smith's son. They are two different people in the same Smith/God family.

 

[miss interpret]

The text did not need to be changed in order to establish the duality (no mention of a third member here) expressed in these passages. God the Father and Christ are a family--the "God" family. In the beginning was one great personage called the Word, the Spokesman [Christ]. And the Word was with another personage, God [The Father]. And the Word was God. The question is how could Christ be God and be with God? You might say in a certain residence was Bill, and Bill was with Smith, and Bill was Smith. Does Bill have to be the same person as Smith? Not necessarily, Bill could be Mr Smith's son. They are two different people in the same Smith/God family.

Personally I agree as the trinity makes sense to me but I think the jehovas witnesses change it to "a god" to totally seperate the bible from the notion that Jesus is God.

 

[sojourner]

Personally I agree as the trinity makes sense to me but I think the jehovas witnesses change it to "a god" to totally seperate the bible from the notion that Jesus is God.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

All that is evident is that they believed it meant "a god."

I would have to give the scholars and theologians, Pegg mentioned, a little more credit that simply (believing that's what they thought that verse says or meant)

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I would have to give the scholars and theologians, Pegg mentioned, a little more credit that simply (believing that's what they thought that verse says or meant)

In the post I was responding to, she did not mention any scholars or theologians, merely an ancient coptic translation. An argument from a scholar/theologian is one thing. A translation doesn't tell us why the translator thought this the best translation, what reasoning they had, their capacity to understand the nuances of greek grammar, etc.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

In the post I was responding to, she did not mention any scholars or theologians, merely an ancient coptic translation. An argument from a scholar/theologian is one thing. A translation doesn't tell us why the translator thought this the best translation, what reasoning they had, their capacity to understand the nuances of greek grammar, etc.

She presented a list of known bibles that render it as (a god). But I guess the same can be said for those of the Septuagint who rendered it (God).

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

She presented a list of known bibles that render it as (a god). But I guess the same can be said for those of the Septuagint who rendered it (God).

The point was simply that presenting a translation in Coptic is not evidence that

the 3rd century Coptic Christians in Egypt did not have an issue about how to translate the verse.

or that these christians "realized" something that people who spoke koine greek even earlier somehow missed concerning the nuances of Greek grammar. It's certainly evidence that some early christians thought this was what the line meant. And there are others. But my point was if the line clearly said this, we wouldn't have any history of controversy. We do because grammaticaly the line says "and the logos was god." Whether or not theos is "qualitative" rather than definite (which is from an a posteriori probability point of view unlikely) is a good question. Grammar is one thing, but the context of John has to be considered as well. Even if the most likely grammatical view is that theos is definite, there is still the question of how likely it is that the author of John conceptualized a pre-existing "mind" of god, which was god, and which "became flesh" through the person of Jesus.

 

[miss interpret]

I would have to give the scholars and theologians, Pegg mentioned, a little more credit that simply (believing that's what they thought that verse says or meant)

I think the Scholars pegg is referring to could be Greber and thompson other than those you have to go really obscure to defend their position.