Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

[Brian2]

Trinitarian scholar, minister, and missionary, H. R. Boer admits: The very first Christians to really discuss Jesus’ relationship to God in their writings were the Apologists.

“Justin and the other Apologists therefore taught that the Son is a creature. He is a high creature, a creature powerful enough to create the world, but nevertheless, a creature. In theology this relationship of the Son to the Father is called Subordinationism. The Son is subordinate, that is, secondary to, dependent upon, and caused by the Father.” - p. 110, A Short History of the Early Church, Eerdmans (trinitarian), 1976.

Other respected scholars agree.

“Before the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) all theologians viewed the Son as in one way or another subordinate to the Father.” - pp. 112-113, Eerdman’s Handbook to the History of Christianity (trinitarian), 1977; and p. 114, The History of Christianity, A Lion Handbook, Lion Publishing, 1990 revised ed.

I also see the Son as subordinate to His Father. That is a Father-Son relationship.
I do not see the Son as a creature however and am finding it hard to come across such quotes. If they meant the same as what Arius taught then I guess their teachings would have been seen as heretical.

“The formulation ‘One God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian Dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers [those very first Christians who had known and been taught by the Apostles and their disciples], there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.” - New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 299, v. 14, 1967.

Alvan Lamson is especially straightforward:

“The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity ... derives no support from the language of Justin [Martyr]: and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ. It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and ... Holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact.” - Alvan Lamson, The Church of the First Three Centuries.

I do find quotes from Christian writers in the first 3 centuries who see Jesus as God and who see the Holy Spirit as God. The exact Nicene formulation is probably just a different way of saying the same thing in a tighter way.

Clement of Rome
(wrote c. 96 A.D.)
So what did this famous Apostolic Father tell us about the essential knowledge of God?

[In the early days of Christianity] one believed in the Father, in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, but no tie was available to unite them together. They were mentioned separately. Prayers were addressed, for example, to the Father who ‘alone,’ according to Clement of Rome, ‘was God.’ - Revue d’ Histoire et de Litterature Religieuses (Review of History and of Religious Literature), May-June, 1906, pp. 222, 223.

Yes, Clement of Rome wrote:

“And we will ask, with instancy of prayer and supplication, that the Creator of the universe may guard intact unto the end the number that hath been numbered of His elect throughout the whole world, through his beloved Son Jesus Christ, through whom He called us from darkness to light, from ignorance to the full knowledge of the glory of His Name.

“[Grant unto us, Lord {Jehovah, Father}] that we may set our hope on Thy Name {Jehovah - Ps. 83:18, KJV, Ex. 3:15, NEB, LB, MLB} which is the primal source of all creation ... that we may know thee, who alone abides Highest in the lofty, Holy in the holy ... Let all the Gentiles know that Thou art God alone, and Jesus Christ is Thy Son, and we are Thy people and the sheep of Thy pasture.” - 59:2-4, The Apostolic Fathers, Lightfoot and Harmer, noted scholars. [Information in special brackets { } added by me.]

“Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order.” - 42:1, 2, Lightfoot & Harmer, The Apostolic Fathers.

There are many quotes calling Jesus God, here are some which I have probably posted before.
Nine Early Church Fathers Who Taught Jesus Is God

 

[Brian2]

POST ONE OF TWO

Brian2 claimed : “So both context and word order show that John 1:1c should be translated with "God" as not being "the God" of John 1:1b but as being "qualitative" (post #664)

1) WORD ORDER DOES NOT CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE ANTHROUS PHRASE IN JOHN 1:1C

Word order is irrelevant to the lack of article in John 1:1c.

In this specific phrase (John 1:1c), word order makes no difference to this anarthrous translation. For example, it makes no difference whether the phrase is “θεος ην ο λογος” or “ο λογος ην θεος” (lit. "The word is a God" or "a God is the word"). The phrase STILL lacks the article.

You are probably right about that.

Without the article, grammatically Theos is still “a God” grammatically and it is only a historical CONTEXT which overrides the anarthrous grammatical rule. If you know some grammatical situation which defies this most basic rule of Koine, now is the time to share it with readers.

Theos lacks the article in many places in John's writing and still is translated as God because of the contest. This is not just "historical contest", which you said it is, it is the context of the passage it is written in.

The earliest Judeo-Christian literature such as the Apostolic Fathers tend to describe Jesus/the Messiah and God the Father as different individuals. When I asked for a specific quote from the Apostolic Fathers which you refer to, I am asking for any quote to support your claim that they thought of Jesus and God the Father as “one “God” per your claim in post #661.

The apostolic Fathers were writing in a time when the members of the trinity were still separate individuals (“3=3” type of trinity) rather than the later “3=1” type of trinity where all three make up a single God (in some way).

Examples of “Separateness” and “Heirarchy” (inequality) of individuals in the trinity in Apostolic Fathers literature.

Early Trinitarian Quotes | CARM.org
Quotes from the Early Church Fathers: on the Trinity - Apostles Creed
I found a couple of sites with maybe what you are after.
It does seem that the strength of the quotes concerning the oneness of the 3 gets stronger over time but I imagine that this is to an extent in response to false teachings that may Jesus was a creature or maybe that there were 3 separate Gods.
It certainly is true that the 3 exist and are spoken of as distinct persons and with roles but I don't think hierarchy in the Trinity shows inequality of nature, it just shows relationship in the Godhead.
The Father is God, the only true God, as the New Testament affirms and Jesus did become His servant when He became a man (Phil 2) This can also be seen in your quote of Ignatius to the Magnesians.
Jesus being a servant does not mean He is not also God, as John 20:28 shows us when Thomas called Him "My God". Jesus, the man by nature, the servant, was also Jesus the Son of God, God by nature.
When it comes to the resurrection the New Testament teaches that the Father raised Jesus and also teaches that Jesus raised Himself and may even say that it was through the power of the Holy Spirit, but I'm not sure how important that is.
When it comes to the oneness of God and of the Church we are one (Yachad) one group but we are one (echad) one thing. 3 in one is both one group and one thing. We may call that thing a Godhead or God.
There is both distinctness and oneness in this one God.
The early Church Fathers did not throw away the Old Testament or the New Testament which teach that Yahweh is one (echad) and which points to the Father as Yahweh, the Son as Yahweh and the Holy Spirit as Yahweh. 3 Joined as one Yahweh.

3) REGARDING THE PHRASE THAT JESUS "IS EXACTLY LIKE" HIS FATHER

THE PARAPHRASE OF HEB 1:3 YOU ARE USING IS IN ERROR

This paraphrase (it is not a translation) is incorrect and it does NOT say “the exact representation of his being” and we do not have any Greek source text that says this.

The underlying Greek of this phrase is “Ος ων απαυγασμα της δοξες και Χαρακτηρ της υποστασεως). There are no words for “exact representation” in the greek source text in this phrase. GN-4 translators text shows no Greek variant that says this. NA-28 has no such variation. Your source data upon which you base this phrase “exactly alike” is incorrect.

Your translation is trying to render χαρακτηρ as "exact representation". This is not what it means.

Regarding the Greek word χαρακτηρ (it is the word “Character” in English).
We speak nowadays of a person’s “character” and in doing so, we are generally speaking of his morals, work ethics, etc. However Χαρακτηρ meant more than that anciently. Moulton and Milligan followed the early meaning and useage from “the tool for engraving” to it’s later usage as the “mark” or “impression” made by the tool. So that the word came to represent a reproduction.

For example, a χαρακτηρ / Character pressed into wax by a seal was NOT the seal itself, but rather it represented the seal and was a close enough representation that whoever made the Character,also had access to the seal and was seen as authorized. The Character represented the seal. Some of the early papyri also do refer to Characters as people of a certain type.

My point is that the word χαρακτηρ/Character does not represent exactness or equality such that Jesus is “exact alike” his Father, nor that they are the same being, but that they are similar as a stamp is to its character or that they came in a degree of authority of another whose seal they bore.

Any translation that uses the word “exact representation” is simply incorrect, there is no word for “exact” in ANY of the greek manuscripts in Heb 1:3 in ANY critical greek text. Thus it is an example of the translators theology, contaminating the text they created.

I think the word "exact representation" does show what the impress of a seal would produce. It is not an imperfect painting for example. Jesus, the Son is exactly like His Father and the 2 have a Father/Son relationship. The Son obeys His Father and does all that the Father does and the Father is not the Father without His Son who has been with and in Him from eternity.
Hebrews 1:3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His nature, upholding all things by His powerful word. After He had provided purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.
Even the New World Translation has "exact representation of his very being" even though they have "reflection" instead of "radiance".

There were too many words so I had to delete some of it and hope I did not delete important stuff.

 

[TiggerII]

Brian wrote: "Theos lacks the article in many places in John's writing and still is translated as God because of the contest [sic]. This is not just 'historical contest [sic]', which you said it is, it is the context of the passage it is written in."

We are discussing how John intended his use of an anarthrous predicate noun (theos) in John 1:1c (nominative case, of course). I have found all the uses of theos in John's writings and examined whether they used the article or not when referring to God. You will see that you have been deceived if you examine the following.

Please read section A. of http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2013/02/seven-lessons-for-john-11c-a.html and then read note 5 of the original study:


http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2011/06/note-5-to-definite-john-11c-def.html

 

[YoursTrue]

Hi @Oeste


1) CORRECTNESS OF GRAMMAR VERSUS CORRECTNESS OF CONTENT
Oeste said : “I would say that the WT's translation of John 1:1C is grammatically possible, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it is 'grammatically correct' because that may be stretching things a bit too far.” Post #676

This is simply an admission that you don’t know koine Greek. The J.W. version of John 1:1c is grammatically correct.

If I say “The boy was a redhead.” It is a grammatically correct sentence. You may argue that the boy is actually a blond (context), but the sentence itself is grammatically correct.

If I want to translate the sentence “The word was a God.” Into Koine Greek. I would say or write “Ο λογος ην θεος.” (word order doesn’t matter). These are the exact words of John 1:1c. Ask someone you trust who knows Koine if they can think of any other way to write this sentence in greek other than word order (which won't change the sentence grammatically).



2) THE CLAIM THAT WORD ORDER MAKES A "HUGE" DIFFERENCE IN JOHN 1:1C

Clear said : “Word order is irrelevant to the lack of article in John 1:1c. In this specific phrase (John 1:1c), word order makes no difference to this anarthrous translation. For example, it makes no difference whether the phrase is “θεος ην ο λογος” or “ο λογος ην θεος” (lit. "The word is a God" or "a God is the word"). The phrase STILL lacks the article.”
Oeste said The word order of John 1:1c makes a HUGE difference within the historic, Orthodox church.” ) Post #676

How does any change in word order in the phrase “και θεος ην ο λογος" create an articulated sentence out of an unarticulated sentence?
How does a change in word order make a "HUGE" difference in this phrase?



3) THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, THE ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD, THE WORD AND MAN - Lack of Textual clarity and the source of many debates

Oeste said : “To be honest, I think it more incumbent on others to show that the church Fathers deviated substantially from scripture… but here's a quote just the same:
Ignatius (30–107ad)
Since, also, there is but one unbegotten Being, God, even the Father; and one only-begotten Son, God, the Word and man; and one Comforter, the Spirit of truth; and also one preaching, and one faith, and one baptism; The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians Chapter IV (post #677)

Ignatius is an Apostolic Father (the “church fathers” were a later group of writing). I’m not sure what point you are trying to make with this statement. For example, while Jesus is “a God”, he is also “the God” in early Judeo-Christian literature. The difficulty and root of many of the debates about the relationship of God the Father with his Son often has to do with conflicting descriptions and lack of clarity in the biblical text.

For example, the text of John 1:18 says “No one has ever seen God. The only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father explained(expounded upon) him”. The Greek is “θεον οטδεις εωρακεν πωποτε μονογενης θεος ο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο.”.

Does the “only begotten God” in the second sentence refer to God the Father? If so, how is he then a “begotten God” when Ignatius (and others) speak of the Father as being “unbegotten”? The text is not perfectly clear about the relationship of the individuals who make up the trinity. Thus we have had debates about the trinity for over fifteen hundred years and the biblical text has not resolved the debates.



4) REGARDING THE HIERARCHY OF GOD THE FATHER, HIS SON/SERVANT/MESSIAH, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT IN EARLY SACRED LITERATURE

Regarding the quote from Polycarp : "...may he give to you a share and a place among his saints, and to us with you, and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead." The Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians 12:2;


Oeste said : “I see where Polycarp states the Father raised Jesus, but what I don't see is where Polycarp states Jesus did not raise himself. Can you point out where Polycarp states Jesus did not resurrect himself? Jesus states he raised himself at John 10:18, as shown in red above. This does not mean he beat the Father to it, or that the Father failed to raise Jesus. (POST #677)


Actually the text doesn’t say Jesus “raised himself”. Look at the verse more carefully.

Jesus, in John 10:17 says “Because of this the Father loves me, that I lay down my soul to take it again.
Verse 18 says “No one takes it from me but I lay it down by my own authority (εξουσιαν) and I have authority (εξουσιαν) to take it again. This commandment (εντολην) I received from my Father.

God the Father as a source of religious authority and power

I don’t know what specific role Jesus might have played in the specific mechanism/process of his own resurrection, partly because the ancient literature doesn’t speak to the actual mechanism of resurrection in any specific manner close to a typical scientific paper. However, the earliest Judeo-Christian literature speaks of basic principles such as God the Father, as the source of power and authority for things such as the shuffling and organizing of elements.

Portions of that power and authority to perform actions for God are delegated from God to others such as to the servant/Son/Messiah/Jesus. Thus, when the Apostolic Fathers and others describe the early doctrine that God the Father raised Jesus from the dead they are speaking from that model.

So while Jesus had authority to take up his own "soul" (whatever that meant to the original writer), he received the authority from and was commanded to do this by God, his Father. I think one can argue that the ancient Christians believed that Jesus may have participated in his own resurrection in some way or other, but it was clear that they believed the Messiah Jesus received the authority and commission from God, who was the source of that authority and power.

I’ve not seen a logical argument where Jesus “gives himself authority” or “commands himself” to do these things.




5) REGARDING THE CREATION OF DOCTRINE OR BELIEFS BASED ON INCORRECT TRANSLATION

Regarding Hebrews 1:3

Oeste said : “Your dispute is not with @Brian2, but with the translation committees shown above”


This thread initially had to do with claim that Jehovahs Witness mistranslated a text to create (or actually to support) a specific doctrine.

My point to Brian2 was that since Hebrews 1:3 implies similarity but the text does not imply “exactness”, then creating a belief or doctrine of “exact representation” from “representation” based on an incorrect translation is the same mechanism for which the Jehovahs Witnesses are being criticized.

While a (gk χαραγμα) such as a statue or a bust of a picture of a person was similar to the person, it was not an indication of exactness. In fact, often pictures and statues and busts were purposefully different than the original. The Greek HAD words for exactness and χαρακτηρ was not one of them.

In any Case Oeste, I hope your own journey and insights are wonderful.



Hi @YoursTrue

Thanks for the kind words. I hope your journey is good as well.

Clear
ειτζακσεφυω

Hello again, Clear. I don't remember exactly where I saw it, but it was pointed out from a scripture that the word 'it' was seemingly referring to Moses, if I understood it correctly. So I'm going to say that grammar in a foreign (?) tongue may mean something different than it does in another language. I could be wrong, so when and if I can recall the exact instance, I'll let you know. Now I was reading another book not about the scriptures, but defining culture (as in music). And, of course, the musical tone or attitude would also reflect the culture of the people, or a nation or a group of people within a nation.

 

[Brian2]

Heb. 1:3 Xarakter


The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia states:

“In He 1 3 the word used is χαρακτηρ (charakter) .... It is derived from xarassw (charasso), ‘to engrave,’ .... hence, generally, the exact image or expression of any person or thing as corresponding to the original, the distinguishing feature, or traits by which a person or thing is known.” - p. 1451, Vol. 3, Eerdmans, 1984 printing.

Since this word is used only in this verse in the entire NT, we may look at its usage by another Christian of this time period.

Clement of Rome (ca. 90 - 100 A.D.) used this term: “[God] formed man in the impress (charakter) of His own image” - 1 Clem. 33:4, The Apostolic Fathers, Lightfoot & Harmer.


And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature - NASB

The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, - NIV

Who— being the radiance of His glory and exact-representation of His essence - DLNT

He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact likeness of his being - ISV

This Son is the radiance of his glory and the exact representation of his nature - Mounce

It should be noted that man has been made in the image and likeness of God. It does not mean that we are the exact representation of His essence or nature.
Jesus however is not said to have been made and in fact the scriptures tell us He has not been made since He is the one who made everything that has been made.

 

[Brian2]

Brian wrote: "Theos lacks the article in many places in John's writing and still is translated as God because of the contest [sic]. This is not just 'historical contest [sic]', which you said it is, it is the context of the passage it is written in."

We are discussing how John intended his use of an anarthrous predicate noun (theos) in John 1:1c (nominative case, of course). I have found all the uses of theos in John's writings and examined whether they used the article or not when referring to God. You will see that you have been deceived if you examine the following.

Please read section A. of http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2013/02/seven-lessons-for-john-11c-a.html and then read note 5 of the original study:

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2011/06/note-5-to-definite-john-11c-def.html

Very interesting but still there are examples of the anarthrous God in John even if maybe not in the nominative and even of the arthrous god which does not, in context refer to The God, the Father.
I certainly agree with you that the God of John 1:1c is not saying that the Logos was the God, the Father. John 1:1b eliminates this meaning imo and even if the Colwell rule is a true rule it eliminates the use of the Colwell rule due to context,,,,,,,,,,,the context being that of John 1:1b.
You don't think that an anarthrous noun should be seen qualitatively for whatever reason. Maybe the reason is that in most cases the English translation can include an indefinite article. Eg The Greek "Jack was thief" can be translated "Jack was a thief?". However it seems that in the Greek mentality this was actually saying that Jack had the nature of a thief. Yet you may be right at least about that it should not be used in every instance. There are times when it could and should be used however and no doubt these are determined by context.
"God is love" for example does not mean that "love" is one of a group of "loves", but is showing the nature of God, hence qualitative.
To me, in context, this is how John 1:1c should be seen. The context being that John a Jew who believed in one God would not be calling anyone else truly a god. The context also being that the was (en) used in John 1:1 in all places is a past perfect indicating that the Logos was with the God in a continuing relationship into the past even before the beginning. But this in not enough to show that the Logos was God unless we can see that the Logos was always with the God. This we can see in John 1:3 which indicates that the Logos was never made or never came into being. So the Logos was always with the God, from eternity.
The context is also being that John 1:11 tell us the the Jews belonged to Jesus, the Logos, they were His own, thus making Him God.
I could go on about the context I guess but these are part of the immediate context and imo show that theos of John 1:1c should not be seen as "The God" or as "a god" but either as qualitative and showing the Logos to be fully God in nature, exactly like the God, this being what Heb 1:3 and other passages tell us, including OT passages where we are told there is only one God and He alone created the heavens for eg (Isa 44:24) and that no other gods have been or will be (Isa 43:10)
You may say that it should indicate that the Logos is one of a group of gods, hence a god, but in the context of the beginning, before the creation began, all there was, was God and in the context of the OT there were never any other gods with the God and where God was alone in the creation of the heavens (a job the Logos did Heb 1:10)
So imo when context is taken into account John 1:1c is showing that the Logos is as much God as the God that He was with from eternity.
Interestingly Heb 1:10 is applied to the Logos in the NT and to Jehovah in the OT thus showing that the Logos is Jehovah. But also we see that the Logos is not the God, the Father (John 1:1b). One Jehovah but more than one person as Jehovah.
But of course the Father is the only true God because the Logos is His Son and so His Father is His source and the Holy Spirit also is the Spirit of the One true God and knows the mind of God and is alive and grieves and wills and teaches etc.
Really it is strange to want Jesus to be a created being when the Bible clearly teaches that He is not created.
Is there anything wrong with the context argument concerning the meaning of John 1:1c?

 

[Clear]

Hi @Brian2


REGARDING THE WRITERS CONTEXT AS THE MAIN DETERMINANT OF THE WRITERS MEANING

Clear said : “Even Colwells rule (which people refer to but have not read) specifies this when he said “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." Colwell is NOT arguing grammar in this case, but he is arguing CONTEXT.
Colwell SUPPORTS the Jehovahs Witness translation grammatically It is in the context of his personal theology (i.e. context) he argues against indefinitness. As I pointed out, historical context is the ONLY basis upon which one can argue implied directness in John 1:1c.”

Brian2 said : “You are probably right about that.” (post #682)

Thank you so much Brian2 for being insightful. This is rare and good. I hope that, when I am wrong and you are right on a point (it will happen), that I can be so gracious.




Brian2 said : Theos lacks the article in many places in John's writing and still is translated as God because of the contest. (post #683)

I assume you meant “context” and if so, I think you are correct. Context determines original meaning. Context of the original writer overrides grammar and it even overrides bad grammar and it overrides spelling errors. For example, you wrote "contest" but you meant "context". YOUR intention as the original writer determines YOUR meaning.

And I agree with you that John probably would have seen the Messiah Jesus as THE God of the Old Testament CONTEXTUALLY. So far, I have been arguing GRAMMAR of John 1:1c.



Brian2 said : “This is not just "historical contest", which you said it is, it is the context of the passage it is written in.” (post #683)

Yes. The reason I used the term “historical context” is because the ancient literature was written so long ago, it is clothed in a context that existed in a distant (historical) time period (i.e. long ago) and in a historical language (i.e. koine which is not a modern language that is no longer spoken), etc. You can certainly simply use the term “context” instead of “historical context” and this works fine.




Brian2 said : “It does seem that the strength of the quotes concerning the oneness of the 3 gets stronger over time but I imagine that this is to an extent in response to false teachings that may Jesus was a creature or maybe that there were 3 separate Gods.” (post #683)

Historically, many of the doctrines we grown up with today were not part of the early Christian movement, but instead, many doctrines were “worked out” as the Christian movement matured. There were competing theories and doctrines and what became the more popular theories/doctrines gained greater popularity in the “modern” and “western” version of Christianity that most forum members grew up with.

Popularity doesn't mean they were correct, it simply reflects their degree of acceptance which was ultimately called "orthodoxy" by adherents. If we had lived in a different time our “orthodoxy” would have been different and if we were born in a different place, our canon we grew up with would be different just as the modern eastern canon is different than our modern western canon of scripture.

Origen tells us that in the earliest stages of the Christian movement, many, many beliefs and doctrines had not been fully discussed by the apostles and earlier literature. Individuals were asking questions which had not been fully explained by the apostles and for which the early Christian movement had not yet formulated an answer. For example, Origen tells us that the Christianity of his day had not yet decided whether God the Father had a body or not.

Similarly, the nature of the trinity which is still argued at length, was not clarified sufficiently that the details of the trinity had been formulated in great detail. Thus, the development of various models of the trinity were being formulated and discussed and different schisms had competing models. Of the two major models Arianism initially won out in the east while Athanasianism won out in the west in terms of popularity. In the majority of the western Christians, the Athanasian model won out in terms of popularity (which it’s adherents then called “orthodoxy”).

Similar processes were occurring in terms of what literature was going to be part of the emerging “New Testament” literature. In the East, even today, their large canon of old and New Testament is 81 books, while in the West we have 66 books. The Eastern canon includes an Enoch, Jubilees, Barnabas, etc.

In this manner, the various religions with their differing beliefs and canons of sacred texts that we grow up with are, to a certain extent, arbitrary and are affected by the era we are born and to the geographical place we are born into.



Bian2 said : “It certainly is true that the 3 exist and are spoken of as distinct persons and with roles but I don't think hierarchy in the Trinity shows inequality of nature, it just shows relationship in the Godhead.” (post #683)

There are certain Characteristics which God has which are part of his nature (power, authority, knowledge, etc.). The early sacred literature (Bible, etc.) indicates Jesus did not have the same power, the same role, the same authority, the same knowledge, etc. as the father and thus arises the issue of inequality. In two equal beings that have the exact same nature the issue of inequality does not come up.

This is the logical dilemma with claiming absolute equality between two beings that are described as having unequal characteristics (gk χαρακτηρ) and underlies many of the debates we see on the forum and elsewhere.



Brian2 said : “The Father is God, the only true God, as the New Testament affirms and Jesus did become His servant when He became a man (Phil 2) This can also be seen in your quote of Ignatius to the Magnesians.
Jesus being a servant does not mean He is not also God, as John 20:28 shows us when Thomas called Him "My God". Jesus, the man by nature, the servant, was also Jesus the Son of God, God by nature. (post #683)

I very much agree with this specific point. The fact that God has all power and authority, etc. does not mean that he cannot be a servant, and in fact I think one of Gods purposes IS to serve man and to do things for the Good of mankind. This is the essence of service. I am with you on this point. I also agree that John and Thomas probably believed the Messiah Jesus was a God and was the God of the Old Testament.

The Christian claim that a man (Jesus) can also be a God by nature which is the essence of the claim that Jesus is also God causes difficulty for Christianity among world religions. Islam, for example, understandably sees this as a type of blasphemy and dishonor to God to claim that a man (Jesus) can also be a God or the God. Many other religions are also uncomfortable with the Christian claim that a man (Jesus) can also be a God.



Brian2 Said : "When it comes to the resurrection the New Testament teaches that the Father raised Jesus and also teaches that Jesus raised Himself and may even say that it was through the power of the Holy Spirit, but I'm not sure how important that is." (post #683)

As I told @Oeste, John 10:18 does not tell us Jesus actually resurrected himself, but that he was given authority to lay down his “soul” and to “take it again” and that he received this commandment from the Father (again the issue of inequality appears in the text over and over). The text does not tell us specifics of what this means (again Origens description that many questions came up in his day and age which were not specifically answered by Jesus or the apostles).

While the earliest literature repeats the earliest doctrine that God the Father raised up Jesus from the Grave, this does not mean Jesus had no role in the process, the literature simply doesn't spell out what that role was, if he had a role. John 10:18 seems to indicate he had authority to "take his soul again " but John 10:18 doesn't give us details about what that specifically means to have that authority.

Questions on specifics remain. Like others, I am not quite sure what it means to say God gave Jesus authority to lay down his soul and to take it again (the Greek says “take” but not “take it up”, while resurrection is an actual rising). The point is that while base doctrines are declared, the details lack on many points of doctrines.



Brian2 said : “When it comes to the oneness of God and of the Church we are one (Yachad) one group but we are one (echad) one thing. 3 in one is both one group and one thing. We may call that thing a Godhead or God. (post #683)

I realized after spending time on yachad (the early indication of one, "only", “mono” (grk μονος”) that I assumed you understood the concept that echad is used to indicate unity and I was trying to say that even the indication of an ordinal “ONE” (yachad) was also used to indicate unity while echad (also "one") often was used to indicate unity as well.

This is another use of a word for a doctrine where the details lack and thus argument/debates abound.


THE ISSUE OF THE WORD "CHARACTER" (gk Χαρακτηρ) and whether it meant "exact representation" to the writer of Hebrews 1:3.

I notice that the claim that the writer of Hebrews 1:3 meant “exact representation” for the word “Character” (gk χαρακτηρ) is an issue for @tigger2 as well since he gave examples where this error appears in other biblical texts as well (post #860)

Though the word appears only once in the New Testament, it is by no means a rare word in ancient Koine Texts. Let me do a bit of searching to give examples in early literature nearer to the time of the writing of Hebrews to show that this word did not mean “exact representation” to those writers.


Give me a couple of hours.


In any case, I hope your own spiritual journey in life is wonderful @Brian2 (and others).


Clear
ειειτζδρφιω

 

[Clear]

Hi @Brian2

REGARDING THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD "CHARACTER" OR GREEK "ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡ"

Brian2 said : “Even the New World Translation has "exact representation of his very being" even though they have "reflection" instead of "radiance".

Yes, the New World Translation incorporated this same error into their text. I presume that the main creator of the New World Translation, Frederick Franz did not know enough about historical Koine Greek (He had no formal training in Koine) that he did not notice the detail. Also, another error with the NWT is that “radiance” (απαυγασμα) is more correct than “reflection”.



Brian2 said : “I think the word "exact representation" does show what the impress of a seal would produce. It is not an imperfect painting for example. Jesus, the Son is exactly like His Father and the 2 have a Father/Son relationship.

The word “Character” (or Greek “χαρακτηρ’) or “Characteristic” does imply a representation of something.

It is the addition of the word “exact” that is the problem.

When a translator renders “Character” as an “exact representation” rather than as a “representation”, we are seeing an adding of a translators bias rather than what the ancient text actually said.

I like @tigger2 example where he points out : Clement of Rome (ca. 90 - 100 A.D.) used this term: “[God] formed man in the impress (charakter) of His own image” - 1 Clem. 33:4, The Apostolic Fathers, Lightfoot & Harmer.

The actual quote from 1 Clement is was "Επι πασι το εξοχωτατον και παμμεγεθε κατα διανοιαν ανθρωπον ταις ιεραις κα αμωμοις χερσιν επλασεν της εαυτου εικονος χαρακτηρα".

Above all, man, the most excellent, and from his intellect the greatest of his creatures did he form in the likeness of his own image by his sacred and faultless hands.”

I like the point that the translations do not say "exact impress" or "exact image", but renders the word as merely impress (impression) or image.




THE WORD CHARACTER OR CHARACTERISTIC OR GREEK ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡ AS A REPRESENTATION OF SOMETHING


Χαρακτηρ. (eng : Character / Characteristic) anciently was some sort of identifying sign or mark. It did not imply “exactness” in it’s base meaning.

For example, when χαρακτηρ/Characteristic was used in Leviticus 13:28 it speaks of a skin lesion that represents something else (The chapter deals with identifying leprosy). The priest is to look as a spot on the skin, and “If, however, the spot is unchanged and has not spread in the skin but has faded, it is a swelling from the burn, and the priest shall pronounce them clean; it is only a scar from the burn. Lev 13:28 (LXX) Και καθαριει αυτον ο ιερευς ο γαρ χαρακτηρ του κατακαυματος εστι.

The scar is a Χαρακτηρ or Characteristic of the burn. It is NOT an “exact representation” of the burn. It looks, in fact, different. But it is a χαρακτηρ or a sign or identifying mark of the burn. No exactness is implied.


A survey of a few ancient koine texts should help clarify this point.

For example, in OGIS 383.60 (a mid 1st century b.c. document) a group is speaking of a statue and they remark Χαρακτηρα μορφης εμης meaning that it is a “Representation of us” (our shape and form). The statue of a single person cannot be the “exact” representation of the group speaking, but rather it represented the group as a whole since it was similar to them.

Similarly, in Syll 226 3.495.16 (of approx. 320 b.c.) the text uses the word Character saying : “ Του δε ξενου φεροντος επι τον χαρακτηρα” which speaks “Of the foreign bearer on the Character”. The Characteristic (χαρακτηρ) in this instance simply identified the bearer as foreign. There is no implication of “exactness” but merely a χαρακτηρ (Characteristic) which identifies as foreign.

In P Flor I. 61.21 (of approx. 85 a.d.) the text Uses the word Character when speaking of the heir to property saying : “…ου των χαρακτηρων μονων κληρονομους δει ειναι” meaning “Of the characters only heir seen is…” While multiple individuals are noted in the document, only one qualifies or is seen as an heir. The other “Characters” are the names of others. The names that appear on a document are not an “exact representation” of the actual person. They are only letters that represent the individual. No exactness is implied.

In the same way, If I do not know how to write and simply make “my x”, that is my identifying character. It is not an exact representation of my name or myself, but it is a character which represents me and is sufficient to identify me.

Similarly, P Leid X xxiv.11 (of 2-3 a.d.) has a text using the word χαραψτερ (Character) which reads : “ τελει τε μοι κυριε τον μεγαν, κυριον αφθεγτον Χαρακτηρα, ινα αυτον εχω.” Meaning “I have finished the Character of my great Lord, Lord Afthegton (or uncorruptible Lord?). I have it.”

Presumably, the great Lord had asked for a bust or picture to be made (the text doesn’t specify) and it was finished. While this is a representation of the Lord, it doesn’t imply an “exact representation”. If it did, the writer could have specified this by saying “χαρακτηρας ακριβης” which means “exact representation”. But he did not say this. He simply said “χαρακτηρα”.

Χαρακτηρ (Character) was used metaphorically as well and enough context had to be present to understand what was meant. We use this word metaphorically nowadays. If I say “Bob is such a “Character”, I imply that he is someone distinguished by some characteristic. You cannot tell if I am implying good or bad or something else without context. However, I am NOT implying that “Bob is such an “exact representation” as something else.

This is true of the ancient usage of this word. For example, in Syll 3 783.23 (written sometime after 27 b.c.) the text speaks of Augustus and Livia and says “μεχρι των Σεβαστειων ευπλοησεν Χαρακτηρων…” which Deissman (LAE.2 p.341 n.1) translates as “He made a successful voyage to the August Persons …(referring to Augustus and Livia).

As with other usage, the text is not referring to an “exact representation”, but it demonstrates the transferred sense of Character (gk χαρακτηρ) into it’s sense of referring to the actual person.

The Stamp or impress implied by the word χαρακτηρ is not necessarily a picture or “ikon” but is more often words or numbers, on a seal. They can be a type of dress or a language spoken. ANYTHING which is sufficient to identify a thing is a Characteristic or Character. The words may represent a person and the numbers may represent a date, but none are specific for an “exact representation” of a thing.

For example the actual impression made by a stamp is a Χαραγμα.

New Testament Revelations text uses it as a reference to “the mark of the beast” (13:17, 16:2, 19:20). It is not an “exact representation” of the beast, but it is merely an identifying characteristic or “mark”.

It was customary to affix to bills of sale or official docuents of 1st and 2nd centuries of the empire, a seal given the year and name of the reigning Emperor. The various seals used may or may not have had any effigy on them.

For example, on the back of CPR I.11 (a text of of a.d. 108) on the agreement of sale of a house, the seal read : Ετους ιβ Αυτοκρατορος Καισαρος Νερουα Τραιανου “(Year one, Emperor Caesar Neura of Trajan”). There is no effigy or ikon on this Χαρακτηρ. The words are enough to identify the person or thing to which the seal refers. There is no implication of an “exact representation”.

Seals were not meant to be “exact representations” of a person or place or thing, but merely represents the authority under which all business took place, or a place or a thing.

The closest examples I could find to using χαρακτηρ as an “exact representation” is when a seal was also used to attest to a copy of a document of writing. The text of Preisigke 5275.11 (written in 11 a.d.) says “… αντιγραφον απ αντιγραφου χαραγματος και υπαγραφης Ελληνικοις γραμμασι “ which says “Copy from copy of engraving and inscription Greek letters”. However, the WRITTEN text is not an “exact representation” of ENGRAVED or INSCRIBED texts. They merely represent the letters of an engraved stone on paper. I think this is the closest example I could find that could be related to an exact representation. But it is the exception to the use and not the rule.

Even effigies and ikons of something were not considered “exact representations”. For example, In BGU IV 1088.5 (written in a.d. 142) an engraved icon was made of a camel “χαλαγμενην Αραβικοις χαραγμαςιν” to demonstrate what an Arabian camel looked like.

I have not seen the engraving, but presumably it is a version like like we might see in a picture book of animals from another place. It is not made to be an exact representation of a specific camel, but merely a representation of the species. It is to demonstrate what a class of camels looks like, but not a specific camel and it is not meant to be an “exact representation” of a specific camel.

Meanings of words evolve. This is true of χαρακτηρ as well.

Because a stamp was most often used for letters, it became used in the sense of a letter itself. For example, in P Lond V 1658.8 (written in 4 a.d.) Ghedini provides the example of “…δια χαραγματων ευχομαι…” which he translates from a larger sentence as “I pray for your health “in this letter”.

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS


POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO

In terms of coins P. Oxy I 144.6 (of 580 a.d.) speaks of “χρυσου εν οβρυζω Χαραγματι” “Gold with a stamp) but this doesn’t tell us if the stamp included an effigy or was to identify the time and place. Coins of Israel generally did NOT have effigies due to the prohibition against graven images but instead, had dates and places and leaders names. Though the text represented the leader or place, there was no “exact representation” implied (the coin may not have been stamped in the place marked on the coin), merely representation.

The word χαρακτηρ came to mean an endorsement as well. For example, in P Ryl II 160(a)10, (written approx. 14-37 a.d.) says “…τω προς το γραφειω Χαραξαντι αποδουναι” in a sentence where the text says “ to pay the clerk of the record office when the has endorsed the deed.”

A Χαρακτηρ or χαραγμα need not even be an official mark of identification. For example

P Lond 854.11 (written 1 to 2 a.d.) speaks of a traveler who writes that he engraved (Εγχαρασσω ) the names of friends on temples he visited. Των φιλων εμων τα ονοματα ενεχαραξα τοις ιεροις. This informal “marking” simply identified his friends. This informal marking need not be an “exact representation” of his friends. He might have even written “Bobby” instead of "Robert". It was not exactness that made it a χαρακτηρ, but merely an identifying mark.

For example, when we took our kids to Disneyland, we “marked” our kids by putting each one in a bright “t-shirt” that had their name and a telephone number written on the inside. This was how we put our own family stamp on them which identified them.

Similarly, in P Oxy XIV 1680.12 (written in 3 to 4 a.d.) a son who is anxious for his fathers’ safety (owing to insecurity of the situation) writes, that “I wanted to stamp a mark on you” “…σημα εθελησα ενχαραξαι σοι.”.

The point of this exercise is to show historical CONTEXT and demonstrate how this word Χαρακτηρ was actually used and what it actually meant to the ancient writers who used it. It was not representation that included “exactness” but was merely an identifying mark, a seal that represented some degree of authenticity, reliability, etc.

If you need some examples regarding the textual indications that Jesus as a divine man was not “exactly” like God, the Father. I can certainly provide them.


I apologize that I was not more organized, but I didn’t realize “exactness” was going to be an issue. Good luck and good Journey Brian2.


Clear
ειειτζσεδρω

 

[Brian2]

REGARDING THE WRITERS CONTEXT AS THE MAIN DETERMINANT OF THE WRITERS MEANING

Clear said : “Even Colwells rule (which people refer to but have not read) specifies this when he said “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." Colwell is NOT arguing grammar in this case, but he is arguing CONTEXT.
Colwell SUPPORTS the Jehovahs Witness translation grammatically It is in the context of his personal theology (i.e. context) he argues against indefinitness. As I pointed out, historical context is the ONLY basis upon which one can argue implied directness in John 1:1c.”

Brian2 said : “You are probably right about that.” (post #682)

Thank you so much Brian2 for being insightful. This is rare and good. I hope that, when I am wrong and you are right on a point (it will happen), that I can be so gracious.

I wrote that about the word order not making a difference. It is supposed to add an emphasis when the predicate is in the nominative position but I cannot see how this changes the meaning. I could be wrong of course as I am no Greek scholar.

Brian2 said : Theos lacks the article in many places in John's writing and still is translated as God because of the contest. (post #683)

I assume you meant “context” and if so, I think you are correct. Context determines original meaning. Context of the original writer overrides grammar and it even overrides bad grammar and it overrides spelling errors. For example, you wrote "contest" but you meant "context". YOUR intention as the original writer determines YOUR meaning.

And I agree with you that John probably would have seen the Messiah Jesus as THE God of the Old Testament CONTEXTUALLY. So far, I have been arguing GRAMMAR of John 1:1c.

John would have seen Jesus as the Son of God and as equal in nature to His Father and as much God and His Father.

Brian2 said : “It does seem that the strength of the quotes concerning the oneness of the 3 gets stronger over time but I imagine that this is to an extent in response to false teachings that may Jesus was a creature or maybe that there were 3 separate Gods.” (post #683)

Origen tells us that in the earliest stages of the Christian movement, many, many beliefs and doctrines had not been fully discussed by the apostles and earlier literature. Individuals were asking questions which had not been fully explained by the apostles and for which the early Christian movement had not yet formulated an answer. For example, Origen tells us that the Christianity of his day had not yet decided whether God the Father had a body or not.
................................................................................
...........................................................
In this manner, the various religions with their differing beliefs and canons of sacred texts that we grow up with are, to a certain extent, arbitrary and are affected by the era we are born and to the geographical place we are born into.

Satan, knowing humans, seems to have a way of asking questions, knowing that it will cause disagreement and divide Christians. It is a good thing that most of the questions are easily answered from what the Bible tells us even if arguments continue.
The unity of Christians is not in what they know, the unimportant doctrines, which is knowledge. It is in being part of the one body of Christ and in loving God and each other.

Bian2 said : “It certainly is true that the 3 exist and are spoken of as distinct persons and with roles but I don't think hierarchy in the Trinity shows inequality of nature, it just shows relationship in the Godhead.” (post #683)

There are certain Characteristics which God has which are part of his nature (power, authority, knowledge, etc.). The early sacred literature (Bible, etc.) indicates Jesus did not have the same power, the same role, the same authority, the same knowledge, etc. as the father and thus arises the issue of inequality. In two equal beings that have the exact same nature the issue of inequality does not come up.

This is the logical dilemma with claiming absolute equality between two beings that are described as having unequal characteristics (gk χαρακτηρ) and underlies many of the debates we see on the forum and elsewhere.

Yes the debates rage on.

Questions on specifics remain. Like others, I am not quite sure what it means to say God gave Jesus authority to lay down his soul and to take it again (the Greek says “take” but not “take it up”, while resurrection is an actual rising). The point is that while base doctrines are declared, the details lack on many points of doctrines.

It is certainly a good way for God to teach Christians to see unity in ways other than details of doctrines which are not really important.

THE ISSUE OF THE WORD "CHARACTER" (gk Χαρακτηρ) and whether it meant "exact representation" to the writer of Hebrews 1:3.

I notice that the claim that the writer of Hebrews 1:3 meant “exact representation” for the word “Character” (gk χαρακτηρ) is an issue for @tigger2 as well since he gave examples where this error appears in other biblical texts as well (post #860)

The NWT is translated like this: "and the exact representation of his very being," in agreement with other translations.

 

[Brian2]

I apologize that I was not more organized, but I didn’t realize “exactness” was going to be an issue. Good luck and good Journey Brian2.
Clear
ειειτζσεδρω

That's OK but I don't think that exactness should be an issue when all the translators use it and the lexicons tell us that is what it means.
Charakter actually comes from the word for "the same as".
The way I understand the passage is that the nature or essence of God is the stamp and Jesus is the impression of that stamp. He is exactly what the stamp is. He is the exact representation of what is on the stamp, the nature or essence of God. This is how close the Son represents His Father in all ways.
There are other places also in the New Testament which show us the exactness of this.
"I and the Father are one", "If you have seen me you have seen the Father", "He is the image of the invisible God", "In Him is the fullness of Deity in bodily form" and no doubt more.
How can Jesus show us the Father (the context of the orange quote when Philip asked Jesus to show them the Father) unless Jesus is the exact representation of the Father?
What makes you want to disagree with the scholars so much about the exactness of the representation? Surely it must be something in your theology that necessitates this.

 

[Oeste]

THE JEHOVAHS WITNESS TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1C IS, GRAMMATICALLY, CORRECT – DISAGREEMENTS ARE BASED ON THEOLOGY, NOT GRAMMAR

This is simply incorrect. It sounds more like a WT/Arian talking point which, IMO, simply asks us to ignore grammatical rules and recast the debate as simple theological differences.

Can you offer anything, from any reputable source, that “a God” is settled grammar between the opposing camps? I’ll be the first to admit that I didn’t get the memo and I'm pretty sure the JW's would have gleefully posted it long before your announcement.

The traditional Orthodox interpretation of John 1:1c is based on sound grammatical rules, context, and theology. It is not simply a matter of “theology” and not of grammar. You may disagree with the theology, you may even disagree with the context, but grammar will be involved nevertheless.

Also, I see you are announcing that the JW's translation is "grammatically correct" after telling us this:

Just so that you understand, it doesn't matter to me at all whether the author meant "and the Word is a God" or whether he meant "and the Word was God". It doesn't change my own Christian theological model either way it is translated.[/quote]​

So we are to believe that the JW's translation is correct but you don't mind using a grammatically incorrect translation, and that grammatically incorrect translations do not change your Christology either way?

Both are fine with me. I am simply speaking of grammatical translation.

But if either is a grammatical translation, and the two are in disagreement, how is grammar not an issue?

1) CORRECTNESS OF GRAMMAR VERSUS CORRECTNESS OF CONTENT

Well this is a new heading as its not a restatement of anything we’ve discussed before. But let’s see where it leads.

Oeste said : “I would say that the WT's translation of John 1:1C is grammatically possible, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it is 'grammatically correct' because that may be stretching things a bit too far.” Post #676

This is simply an admission that you don’t know koine Greek.

Nah, it just means what it says, which is that it’s “grammatically possible”. If it’s an admission of anything else it’s that I am in agreement with the vast majority of NT scholars.

The J.W. version of John 1:1c is grammatically correct.

I think I’ll stand on my prior position that it’s grammatically possible. If you believe “grammatically possible” is incorrect, you can certainly posit a basis.

Also it might help if you could clarify what you mean by “grammatically correct”. Are you saying the JW version is “A” grammatically correct translation or are you saying it’s “THE” grammatically correct translation?

Either way I think we'll need a bit more than your say-so.

If I say “The boy was a redhead.” It is a grammatically correct sentence. You may argue that the boy is actually a blond (context), but the sentence itself is grammatically correct.

Who would says it isn’t? But that would mean we’re moving the goal posts. We need to move them back.

The question apropos for us is not whether “The boy was A redhead”, but whether “The boy is ‘THE redhead’”. Whether the boy was a blonde or not (content) is immaterial.


Exegesis vs. Eisegesis

If I want to translate the sentence “The word was a God.” Into Koine Greek. I would say or write “Ο λογος ην θεος.” (word order doesn’t matter). These are the exact words of John 1:1c. Ask someone you trust who knows Koine if they can think of any other way to write this sentence in greek other than word order (which won't change the sentence grammatically).

Do you understand what you’re asking us to do here?

1. We start with "The word was a God".
2. We translate this into Koine Greek
3. We see these are the exact words of John 1:1c...just like Clear said it would.
4. Our passage now says what we thought it should have said all along. Doubters can just take a look at the passage.
5. We show this method to trusted peers and friends.

This is a horrible way to interpret John 1:1c Clear! This is classic eisegesis, not exegesis. We are placing our interpretation into the text rather than extracting the author’s intent from it. Of course we are going to find exactly what we translated in the text…it was we who put it there!

If I show this method it’s going to illicit a few chuckles and not a few “Hey Oeste…can you show Jim what you just showed me?” at my expense.

 

[Oeste]

2) THE CLAIM THAT WORD ORDER MAKES A "HUGE" DIFFERENCE IN JOHN 1:1C

It’s not just John 1:1c @Clear…word order makes a HUGE difference in all of Koine Greek.

Stated very basically, the more to the left an item occurs, the more prominence it has (see The New Testament Critically Emphasized, Joseph Rotherham (1878)) By throwing θεος forward John is using word order to place emphasis and show Jesus is God. We do the same in our digital age by using bold. Had he wanted to show Jesus is just a god we would expect to find θεος thrown backwards, as in the phrase “λογος ην θεος”.

In your model there can be many God so yes, I suppose word order is not going to make much of a difference because there are other Gods just like God. But the Christian model has only one God and thus the world order found in John 1:1 takes on an added dimension of emphasis. In other words, by throwing forward θεος John is showing that by his very nature Jesus is God. There is nothing in the Divine nature that is not in the Word.

Martin Luther wrote beautifully about how word order shapes our Christology while he was in exile. See his Christmas Postil.

Church/Apostolic Fathers

Given the traditional and known position of the historic church, I think it would be incumbent upon others to show that the Church Fathers believed there were 3 Gods if that is what you are implying.

Ignatius is an Apostolic Father (the “church fathers” were a later group of writing).

​

Not exactly…”Church Fathers” is a general heading whilst Apostolic Fathers is a specific heading. Being an Apostolic Father does not preclude one from being a Church Father.


“Church Fathers” are sometimes delegated (depending upon the church and their patristics) into 4 categories:

1. Apostolic Fathers
2. Greek Fathers
3. Latin Fathers
4. All others (Syriac, Desert Fathers)

Or 3 categories:

1. Ante-Nicene
2. Nicene
3. Post Nicene

So Ignatius is an Apostolic and a Church Father as well

 

[Oeste]

I see where Polycarp states the Father raised Jesus, but what I don't see is where Polycarp states Jesus did not raise himself. Can you point out where Polycarp states Jesus did not resurrect himself?

Actually the text doesn’t say Jesus “raised himself”. Look at the verse more carefully.

Jesus, in John 10:17 says “Because of this the Father loves me, that I lay down my soul to take it again.
Verse 18 says “No one takes it from me but I lay it down by my own authority (εξουσιαν) and I have authority (εξουσιαν) to take it again. This commandment (εντολην) I received from my Father.

Actually it does say Jesus raised himself. Look at the word authority more closely:


Strong's: 1849 Transliterated: exousian Root: ἐξουσία
1) power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases 1a) leave or permission 2) physical and mental power 2a) the ability or strength with which one is endued, which he either possesses or exercises.


The authority (exousian) used here shows Jesus has the power of choice or liberty to do as he pleases, that is to lay down his soul or to raise it up again. The command to do this comes from the Father (it must if he is performing the will of the Father) but Jesus at all times has the freedom to do as he pleases, just as we do now.

This is an important concept lost on Arians and others who claim Jesus is not God. The idea is that Jesus does not have his own power, it's just the Father acting through him.

The entire fallacy breaks down at the time of Jesus' temptation. Satan asks Jesus to turn stones into bread. Obviously no man can turn stones into bread. Neither can Satan tempt the Father into doing his bidding. The only way the temptation makes sense is if Jesus has the free will authority to do these things on his own behalf.

I’ve not seen a logical argument where Jesus “gives himself authority” or “commands himself” to do these things.

See above

 

[Oeste]

I’m not sure what point you are trying to make with this statement. For example, while Jesus is “a God”, he is also “the God” in early Judeo-Christian literature. The difficulty and root of many of the debates about the relationship of God the Father with his Son often has to do with conflicting descriptions and lack of clarity in the biblical text.

The point is Ignatius had no such “conflicting description and lack of clarity in the biblical text” when he wrote the various churches during the 1st Century. That came later with the rise of Arius and other heretics. Ignatius witnesses that Jesus is God, and not "a God", in the flesh. He is eternal, above all time, and there is no indication that he was raised a "spirit creature" as the WT claims:


Letter To Ephesians chapter 1.

Being the followers of God, and stirring up yourselves by the blood of God, ye have perfectly accomplished the work which was beseeming to you.

In chapter 7:

There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible,— even Jesus Christ our Lord.

Chapter 18:

For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water.

Ignatius letter to the Trallians:

Chapter 9:

Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and did eat and drink. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified, and [truly] died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He was also truly raised from the dead, His Father quickening Him, even as after the same manner His Father will so raise up us who believe in Him by Christ Jesus, apart from whom we do not possess the true life.

Letter to The Romans

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, [I wish] abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.

Chapter 3:

Only request in my behalf both inward and outward strength, that I may not only speak, but [truly] will; and that I may not merely be called a Christian, but really be found to be one. For if I be truly found [a Christian], I may also be called one, and be then deemed faithful, when I shall no longer appear to the world. Nothing visible is eternal. “For the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.” For our God, Jesus Christ, now that He is with the Father, is all the more revealed [in His glory]. Christianity is not a thing of silence only, but also of [manifest] greatness.

Chapter 6:

Permit me to be an imitator of the passion of my God.


Letter to the Symrnæans:

Chapter 1:

I GLORIFY God, even Jesus Christ, who has given you such wisdom. For I have observed that ye are perfected in an immoveable faith, as if ye were nailed to the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, both in the flesh and in the spirit, and are established in love through the blood of Christ, being fully persuaded with respect to our Lord, that He was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh, and the Son of God according to the will and power of God; that He was truly born of a virgin, was baptized by John, in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him; and was truly, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, nailed [to the cross] for us in His flesh. Of this fruit we are by His divinely-blessed passion, that He might set up a standard for all ages, through His resurrection, to all His holy and faithful [followers], whether among Jews or Gentiles, in the one body of His Church.

Chapter 3:

For I know that after His resurrection also He was still possessed of flesh, and I believe that He is so now. When, for instance, He came to those who were with Peter, He said to them, “Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit.” And immediately they touched Him, and believed, being convinced both by His flesh and spirit. For this cause also they despised death, and were found its conquerors. And after his resurrection He did eat and drink with them, as being possessed of flesh, although spiritually He was united to the Father.

Letter to Polycarp:

Chapter 3

Be ever becoming more zealous than what thou art. Weigh carefully the times. Look for Him who is above all time, eternal and invisible, yet who became visible for our sakes; impalpable and impassible, yet who became passible on our account; and who in every kind of way suffered for our sakes.

Chapter 8

I pray for your happiness for ever in our God, Jesus Christ, by whom continue ye in the unity and under the protection of God


Source: The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I: The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. 1885 (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe, Ed.) (p. 49, 52, 57, 69-70, 73,74–75, 76, 86,87, 94 and 96).


It’s important to note again that these letters are going out to the various churches, and there is no hint Ignatius was talking out of his head or that the churches were confused about Jesus’ deity.

 

[Brian2]

The authority (exousian) used here shows Jesus has the power of choice or liberty to do as he pleases, that is to lay down his soul or to raise it up again. The command to do this comes from the Father (it must if he is performing the will of the Father) but Jesus at all times has the freedom to do as he pleases, just as we do now.

This is an important concept lost on Arians and others who claim Jesus is not God. The idea is that Jesus does not have his own power, it's just the Father acting through him.

The entire fallacy breaks down at the time of Jesus' temptation. Satan asks Jesus to turn stones into bread. Obviously no man can turn stones into bread. Neither can Satan tempt the Father into doing his bidding. The only way the temptation makes sense is if Jesus has the free will authority to do these things on his own behalf.

I hadn't thought of Jesus authority in the resurrection and temptations this way.
Thanks.
We get into the habit of reading verses with out views in mind and that tends to stop us seeing other possibilities.
The JWs for example would only see that the authority was given to Jesus and not realise that He had the choice to accept or not. A bit of knowledge about the words can go a long way, and I wonder if their teachers point out the meaning of "authority" and what it implies. It also implies that the dead Jesus was alive in spirit (as 1Peter 3:18 says) and so was conscious and able to make the choice to be resurrected again as an immortal man, to take His human life back.

…John 10:17 The reason the Father loves Me is that I lay down My life in order to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of My own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from My Father.

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO

I am writing between appointments at work.

1) REGARDING JOHN 1:1C “AND THE WORD WAS A GOD” (....Και ο λογος ην Θεος)

A) WORD ORDER MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO MEANING IN JOHN 1:1c.

Brian2 said : “I wrote that about the word order not making a difference. It is supposed to add an emphasis when the predicate is in the nominative position but I cannot see how this changes the meaning. I could be wrong of course as I am no Greek scholar.

The reason that you cannot see how this changes the meaning is that it doesn’t change any base meaning but may simply emphasize the meaning a sentence already has. “The Word was God” has the same meaning as ‘God was the Word” in the Greek text. Both sentences mean that the word was God in Koine.

@Oeste claimed : “It’s not just John 1:1c @Clear…word order makes a HUGE difference in all of Koine Greek.” (post #693).

And he explained that “, the more to the left an item occurs, the more prominence it has" (post #693)

@Oeste, This “prominence” doesn’t change meaning of words nor does it make a “HUGE” difference in Koine in this Phrase in John 1:1c.
I don’t know why you thought it was important to make this claim.
The word “Theos” still means “God”. “Logos” still means “Logos”. No change in meaning occurs.

Word order doesn’t even change the meaning of “God” into “REALLY, REALLY, God.”. It makes no difference to meaning. If you still think word order in John 1:1c changes the meaning of any word in this sentence, ask someone you know who can read Greek to help you with the concept of “meaning” versus “emphasis”.




2) REGARDING HEBREWS 1:3 AND THE ADDITION OF THE WORD "EQUAL" TO THE WORD "CHARACTER" (Or impress / Representation / Likeness, etc.)


Brian2 said : “John would have seen Jesus as the Son of God and as equal in nature to His Father and as much God and His Father.

You will have to offer more detailed explanation and offer some data and logic to support the point regarding “equality” you are trying to make.
My point has been that the word “Character” in Hebrews 1:3 does not mean “exact representation”, but instead, my point is that "Character" means “Character” (or “representation” or “impress” or “likeness” if you like).
IF the writer had meant to write “exact representation”, he could have written “exact representation” (Χαρακτηρα Ακριβης) in koine, instead, he simply wrote “representation”.



Brian2 said : “The unity of Christians is not in what they know, the unimportant doctrines, which is knowledge. It is in being part of the one body of Christ and in loving God and each other.”

This is an insightful philosophy you have Brian2 and I certainly agree with you that certain bits and types of knowledge are more important than others. If eternal life is “that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.”, then this knowledge is more important than to know Greek grammar. To know how to love is more important than to know latin. I like your insight.


A) SOME BIBLES COPY ERRORS OF OTHER TRANSLATIONS

Brian2 said : “The NWT is translated like this: "and the exact representation of his very being," in agreement with other translations.”

Yes, Frederick Franz, in creating his New World Translation, inserted this error into his bible as well instead of translating the Greek text. I presume Franz did not see any reason at the time to change the English version he was copying from just like other individuals when they created their bibles and simply kept the sentence as he saw it in his source text. There may have been another reason he did not correct the text.




B) MOST TRANSLATIONS DID NOT INCLUDE THE ERROR OF ADDING “EXACT” TO THEIR TRANSLATIONS / EXAMPLES

If readers search google for comparisons of Hebrews 1:3, they will see multiple versions (more than 1500 versions exist)

If readers will google various translations for Hebrews 1:3 it will show that most early translations from greek did NOT follow the error of translating χαρακτηρ as “exact representation”.

Early bibles versus later bibles : Early bibles all tend to be actual translations where authors are not copying other english texts. The later, modern bibles tend to have more standard text where translators often copy prior english text that seem "good", rather than retranslate text that seems acceptable to them. I've underlined those with the word "exact" and one can see that they are in the minority. I did not data mine for specific versions.

Hebrews 1:3 Which (sonne) beynge the brightnes of his glory, & the very ymage of his substaunce, = Coverdale’s bible

Hebrews 1:3 and verye Image of his substaunce, = Matthew’s Bible

Hebrews 1:3 and that very ymage of his substance = Great Bible

Hebrews 1:3 and the ingraued forme of his person = Geneva Bible

Hebrews 1:3 and the very image of his substaunce, = Bishops Bible

Hebrews 1:3 and the express image of his person, = Websters bible

Hebrews 1:3 the expresse image of his person = King James (all three versions)

Hebrews 1:3 the impress of His subsistence, = Youngs literal

Hebrews 1:3 the impress of His subsistence, = Youngs revised

Hebrews 1:3 the express image of His essence, = Greens literal

Hebrews 1:3 IMPRESS OF THE SUB STANDING OF HIM, = Westcott and Hort

Hebrews 1:3 (WYC) “… [the] figure of his substance, …”

Hebrews 1:3 (Luther) “…das Ebenbild seines Wesens …” (The image of his being, likeness)


Hebrews 1:3 (TYN) “…very ymage of his substance bearinge …”


Hebrews 1:3 (ASV) “… the very image of his substance…”

Hebrews 1:3 (BBE) “…the true image of his substance…”

Hebrews 1:3 (CEB) “…the imprint of God's being. …”.

Hebrews 1:3 (CEBA) “…the imprint of God's being. …”.

Hebrews 1:3 (CJB) “…the very expression of God's essence, …”

Hebrews 1:3 (CSB) “…the exact expression of His nature…”

Hebrews 1:3 (DBY) “… [the] expression of his substance…”,

Hebrews 1:3 (ESV) “…the exact imprint of his nature, …”

Hebrews 1:3 (GNT) “…the exact likeness of God's own being, …”

Hebrews 1:3 (GNTA) “…the exact likeness of God's own being, …”

Hebrews 1:3 (GW) “…the exact likeness of God's being. …”

Hebrews 1:3 (HNV) “…, the very image of his substance, …”

Hebrews 1:3 (JUB) “…the <em>express</em> image of his substance …”;

Hebrews 1:3 (KJVA) “…the express image of his person, …”;

Hebrews 1:3 (LEB) “…the representation of his essence, …”

Hebrews 1:3 (MSG) “…is stamped with God's nature. …”

Hebrews 1:3 (NAS) “…the exact representation of His nature, …”

Hebrews 1:3 (NCV) “…shows exactly what God is like. …”

Hebrews 1:3 (NIRV) “…the exact likeness of God's being. …”

Hebrews 1:3 (NIV) “…the exact representation of his being, …”

Hebrews 1:3 (NKJV) “…the express image of His person, …”

Hebrews 1:3 (NLT) “…expresses the very character of God, …”

Hebrews 1:3 (NRS) “…the exact imprint of God's very being, …”

Hebrews 1:3 (NRSA) “…the exact imprint of God's very being, …”

Yehudim in Moshiach 1:3 (OJB) “… the exact impress and demut of Hashem’s essential nature, …”

Hebrews 1:3 (RHE) “…the figure of his substance …”:

Hebrews 1:3 (RSV) “…bears the very stamp of his nature, …”,

Hebrews 1:3 (TMB) “…the express image of His person, …”

Hebrews 1:3 (TMBA) “…the express image of His person, …”,

Hebrews 1:3 (WBT) “…the express image of his person, …”

Hebrews 1:3 (Sar Shalom) : “…the very image of his substance, …”

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO


B) HISTORICAL EXAMPLES WHERE “CHARACTER” MEANT “CHARACTER”, “IMPRESSION” MEANT “IMPRESSION” AND “REPRESENTATION” MEANT “REPRESENTATION”. (Full examples of these references are in posts#688 and 689)

In 1 Clement Χαρακτυρ did not mean “exact” impression or “exact” representation.
In Biblical Leviticus Χαρακτυρ did not mean “exact” impression or “exact” representation.
In OGIS 383.60 (mid i/b.c.) Χαρακτυρ did not mean “exact” impression or “exact” representation.
In Syll 226 (3.495.16) of approx. 320 b.c. Χαρακτυρ did not mean “exact” impression or “exact” representation.
In P Flor I. 61.21 of approx. a.d. 85 Χαρακτυρ did not mean “exact” impression or “exact” representation.
In P Leid X xxiv.11 (of 2-3 a.d.) Χαρακτυρ did not mean “exact” impression or “exact” representation.
In Syll 3 783.23 (post 27 b.c.) Χαρακτυρ did not mean “exact” impression or “exact” representation.
In New Testament Revelations Χαρακτυρ did not mean “exact” impression or “exact” representation in none of the three times it is used. (13:17, 16:2, 19:20).
In CPR I.11 (of a.d. 108) Χαρακτυρ did not mean “exact” impression or “exact” representation.
In Preisigke 5275.11 in 11 a.d. Χαρακτυρ did not mean “exact” impression or “exact” representation.
In BGU IV 1088.5 (of a.d. 142) Χαρακτυρ did not mean “exact” impression or “exact” representation.
In P Lond V 1658.8 of 4 a.d. Χαρακτυρ did not mean “exact” impression or “exact” representation.
In P. Oxy I 144.6 (of 580 a.d.) Χαρακτυρ did not mean “exact” impression or “exact” representation.
In P Ryl II 160(a)10, of 14-37 a.d. Χαρακτυρ did not mean “exact” impression or “exact” representation.
In P Lond 854.11 of 1 to 2 a.d. Χαρακτυρ did not mean “exact” impression or “exact” representation..
In P Oxy XIV 1680.12 of 3 to 4 a.d. Χαρακτυρ did not mean “exact” impression or “exact” representation.

You've been given 19 examples from early literature of the normal usage of Χαρακτηρ and none of them mean “Exact impression”
We have no record or historical examples in any ancient koine literature where the word Character is used to mean “Exact" impression.

In the case of the errors in the translations you refer to, the original translator of that version was adding their own impression and theology to the text. While some others followed and left the error in the bibles they created, we don’t have any original source text that reads “exact impression” or “exact representation”. None. Not a single one.



C) CONSULT A SECULAR GREEK DICTIONARY FOR MEANING OF WORDS AND A LEXICON FOR EXISTENCE OF WORDS


I noticed that you referred to a lexicon as evidence that "exact" representation was one of the meanings of the word "Character" (gk χαρακτηρ), however a lexicon is not what you want to refer to for the meaning of a word.

For example, a religious LEXICON will tell you what words are IN a language, and how they are used, but it does not tell you what the word actually meant historically. Perhaps you are mixing up a lexicon with a dictionary?

Early Christianity did not create it’s own special language that it spoke, but it spoke the common language of the people. Just as modern Greek has no definition of Χαρακτηρ that means “exact representation” or “exact” anything, ancient Koine Greek had no definition of “exact representation” for the word Χαρακτηρ. You can certainly try to find it.

If you insist that the word “Character” must mean “Exact Character” then I think you will need some sort of data to support this theory. Other than the erroneous translation errors, can you offer us just five or so examples from historical literature where it meant “exact” impression or “exact” representation?



D) AUTHENTIC ACTIVE TRANSLATION OF ORIGINAL GREEK SOURCE VS SIMPLE COPYING OF PRIOR TEXTS IN THE CREATION OF A BIBLE.

A study of the creators and the creation of an ORIGINAL new testament translation from a Greek source tend to be a process of reference to one or more base texts.

Changes that occur from text to text tend to be driven by theological and monetary and social considerations.

If you are interested the history of who first added "exact" and how “exact” was added to “Character” of Hebrews 1:3, you certainly could engage in some historical research.

You could research which bible it first appeared in and which of the subsequent bibles simply used that English translation as their model for creating their own bibles.

For example, you pointed out that the New World Translation used “exact representation”. However, it’s main creator, Frederick Franz did not have any formal training in Koine Greek. None. It is therefore, likely that he created his bible by simply copying what he liked from other bibles and changing the text he did not like with some reference to Greek (he had, I think two semesters in modern or perhaps classical Greek). Someone correct me if I am incorrect on this point since I am going from memory.

How many other creators of bibles simply did the same thing?



E) THEOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF INSISTING A “REPRESENTATION” OF GOD BY JESUS MUST MEAN “EXACT REPRESENTATION” OF GOD.

If the man Jesus is an “Exact” representation of God’s nature, this will have theological consequences that logically, must follow “exactness”. IF Jesus is “exactly like God” in their nature (character) then God must share characteristics which are not particularly “Godly”

God the Father must be a servant of another since Jesus was.

God the Father must follow the commandments of his Father since Jesus did.

God the Father must have been born of a mother since Jesus was.

God the Father must have grown up, since Jesus did.

God the Father must sometimes become tired and sleep,

God must eat,

God must be ignorant of certain facts,

God must have power which is given him by another,

God must have a Father,

God must have a body and hair and perhaps brown eyes.

God must have a body which can die.

Rather than insisting on "exact" representation and "exact" equally, there MUST be some logical and rational allowance for God to have some differences to the man Jesus in some natural ways, rather than God having “exactly the same” nature as Jesus otherwise one must accept the logical theological consequences of the father being exactly like the Son.



At any rate, the two points are that :
1) John 1:1c is grammatically correct in either form : "The word was a God" or "The word was God" and historical context (i.e. what John meant to say) determines which is correct theologically.

2) We have no greek source text for Hebrews 1:3 which carries the meaning of "exact" representation, "exact" likeness, "exact" nature, but these terms are qualified similarity.


Good luck and good journey in this Life Brian2

Clear

I will be traveling starting tomorrow evening for a couple of days so this will give you some time to do research to see if you can find anywhere in the literature where Koine Character meant "exact" if you want. Or not.
ειειδρσετωω

 

[TiggerII]

A. John 1:1c

The late Dr. Julius Mantey, noted NT Greek scholar and strong trinitarian, allegedly wrote a powerful attack against the accuracy and honesty of the NWT. We will look at a point raised concerning the NWT in a July 11, 1974 letter to the Watchtower Society attributed to Mantey (when he was 84!) which anti-Watchtower writers are fond of reproducing and quoting.

John 1:1

His first concern was with John 1:1. His complaint that the WT Society dishonestly used his book to support their translation is incredible! It’s undoubtedly true that he didn’t intend anything in his book to support a non-trinitarian interpretation of John 1:1. (The Watchtower Society never claimed he did.) But the fact is that Mantey's own translation found in his Grammar does support it nevertheless! The quote by the Society refers to an example used by Mantey in his book which is grammatically identical to John 1:1 (articular subject after the copulative verb and anarthrous predicate noun before the copulative verb) and which Mantey has translated as, “and the place was a market" - p. 148, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Macmillan Publishing Co., 1957 ed. - an exact parallel to the NWT’s “and the Word was a god.” - see NWT 25-28.


We can see the very same thing happening with all such parallel examples found in John's writings. The most important exception would be with anarthrous predicate nouns which are modified by prepositions or genitives.

Here are a number of respected trinitarian scholars writing about the use and non-use of the definite article with "prepositional" and genitive-modified anarthrous nouns:

+++ As Dana and Mantey tell us, “The use of prepositions, possessive ... pronouns, and the genitive case also tend to make a word definite. At such times, even if the article is not used, the object is already distinctly indicated.” - p. 137, D&M Grammar.

+++ In section VIII, ‘The Absence of the Article,’ Professor A. T. Robertson quotes Gildersleeve and tells us, “prepositional phrases and other formulae may dispense with the article” - p. 790. And “(b) with GENITIVES. We have seen that the substantive MAY still be definite if anarthrous, though not necessarily so. Cf. pulai hadou (Matt. 16:18), anastasis nekron (Acts 23:6), [etc.]” - p. 791, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament .

And, this highly respected trinitarian New Testament Greek authority also tells us:


“In examples like this [“prepositional” constructions] (cf. ... Mt. 27:54) ONLY THE CONTEXT CAN DECIDE [whether the anarthrous noun is definite or indefinite]. Sometimes the matter is wholly doubtful.... [Please note that the example Robertson has given (Matt. 27:54) has the anarthrous predicate noun coming before the verb as in Colwell’s Rule!] In Jo. 5:27 [‘son of man’] may be either ‘the son of man’ or ‘a son of man.’” - p. 781. [Robertson says this in spite of the fact that John 5:27 also has an anarthrous predicate noun preceding its verb!! It’s “prepositional” (noun modified by a genitive noun in these cases) and, therefore, the use/non-use of the article is ambiguous!] - A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, A. T. Robertson, 1934.

+++ C. F. D. Moule says: “9. Finally, note that the use or non-use of the article may, in some cases, be due to the influence of Semitic idiom rather than deliberate desire to modify the sense. A noun in the construct case [similar to a noun modified by a genitive noun in NT Greek, e.g., ‘man of God’] in Hebrew is never allowed to carry the article, and this may sometimes be sufficient to explain an anarthrous noun in a Greek equivalent phrase: aggelos kuriou might be a Hebraism for the angel of the Lord; so doxa kuriou.” – p. 117, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, Cambridge University Press, 1990 printing.

+++ J. H. Moulton tells us: “the matter [of identifying an anarthrous ‘spirit’] is complicated threefold by the question of the non-use of the art[icle] with proper nouns, and in prepositional expressions ..., and even (in Biblical Greek through influence of the Heb. construct state) before a genitive. In none of these situations need the lack of the art[icle] indicate any indefiniteness of reference” - p. 175. And, “(d) Absence of Article before a noun which governs a genitive. In Heb. a noun may be in the construct state or have a suffix attached to it, and in either case it would be anarthrous. This influenced the LXX [Septuagint] and, in turn, the NT writers in varying degrees. Thus aggelos kuriou is not ‘an angel’ but the angel’, doxa laou is ‘the glory’.” - pp. 179-180, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. III, J. H. Moulton, 1963.

+++ “The article … is sometimes missing, especially after prepositions … and with a genitive which depends on an anarthrous noun (especially a predicate noun): Mt 27:43.” - Blass & Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, p. 133, University of Chicago Press, 1961.


+++ - "A genitive qualifier tends to make the head noun definite even though it might not have the article." - Dr. Richard A. Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek, p. 67, Broadman and Holman Publ., 1994.

+++ Henry Alford wrote concerning Titus 2:13 in his The Greek Testament, “It [‘saviour’] is joined with [hmwn, ‘of us’ (genitive)], which is an additional reason why it may spare the article: see Luke 1:78; Ro. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3” - p. 420, The Greek Testament, by Henry Alford.

+++ “….(2) definiteness is not expressed only by the article but may [not always] also be indicated by an accompanying genitive or possessive pronoun; …(4) Biblical Greek sometimes reflects the Semitic idiom in which the noun in the construct state [comparable to ‘angel of Lord’], even if definite, is anarthrous … and (5) there is a tendency for nouns to be anarthrous that are used in familiar or stereotyped expressions that may date from the prearticular age of Greek - expressions such as idiomatic prepositional phrases.” - p. 304, Jesus as God, Murray J. Harris, Baker Book House, 1992. (Emphasis added)

+++ “#1146. A substantive followed by an attributive genitive and forming with it a compound idea, usually omits the article.” - H. W. Smyth’s A Greek Grammar for Colleges, p. 291.

+++ Also see pp. 150-151 in Dr. G.B. Winer's A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek.

Since John 1:1c does not have its predicate noun with a “prepositional” construction anyway, it is necessarily a part of proper research to select parallel examples (i.e., without “prepositional” constructions) in any attempt to show a similar effect as claimed for John 1:1c.

 

[TiggerII]

B. John 1:1c


So, here again are the non-modified predicate nouns preceding the verb found in John's writings.

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 9:25 - indefinite (“a sinner”) - all

H,W 8. John 10:1 - indefinite (“a thief and a robber”) - all ('thief' is before verb - 'robber' after)


H,W 9. John 10:33 - indefinite (“a man”) - all

H,W 10. John 18:35 - indefinite (“a Jew”) - all

H,W 11. John 18:37 (a) - indefinite (“a king”) - all

[H,W 12. John 18:37 (b) - indefinite (“a king”) - in Received Text and in 1991 Byzantine Text]

………………………………................................

H,W 13. Jn 8:44 (b) - liar (he) is.

H,W 14. Jn 9:8 (a) - beggar (he) was.

H,W 15. Jn 9:17 - prophet (he) is.

H,W 16. Jn 9:25 - sinner (he) is.

H,W 17. Jn 10:13 - hireling (he) is.

H,W 18. Jn 12:6 - thief (he) was.

19. 1 Jn 4:20 - liar (he) is.

H: Also found in Harner’s list of “Colwell Constructions”(end note #16, JBL)

W: Also found in Wallace’s list of “Colwell Constructions”(Greek Grammar & Syntax)

Will SOMEONE please look up the translation of these in the best Bible translations? Do they not all use the indefinite article in English translations? So should the same construction in John 1:1c.