From Carson's The Gospel According to John Commentary: "More, the Word was God. That is the translation demanded by the Greek structure, theos ēn ho logos. A long string of writers has argued that because theos, ‘God’, here has no article, John is not referring to God as a specific being, but to mere qualities of ‘God-ness’. The Word, they say, was not God, but divine. This will not do. There is a perfectly serviceable word in Greek for ‘divine’ (namely theios). More importantly, there are many places in the New Testament where the predicate noun has no article, and yet is specific. Even in this chapter, ‘you are the King of Israel’ (1:49) has no article before ‘King’ in the original (cf. also Jn. 8:39; 17:17; Rom. 14:17; Gal. 4:25; Rev. 1:20). It has been shown that it is common for a definite predicate noun in this construction, placed before the verb, to be anarthrous (that is, to have no article; cf. Additional Note). Indeed, the effect of ordering the words this way is to emphasize ‘God’ as if John were saying, ‘and the word was God!’ In fact, if John had included the article, he would have been saying something quite untrue. He would have been so identifying the Word with God that no divine being could exist apart from the Word. In that case, it would be nonsense to say (in the words of the second clause of this verse) that the Word was with God. The ‘Word does not by Himself make up the entire Godhead; nevertheless the divinity that belongs to the rest of the Godhead belongs also to Him’ (Tasker, p. 45). ‘The Word was with God, God’s eternal Fellow; the Word was God, God’s own Self.’120"
Monday, December 05, 2022
D.A. Carson and John 1:1c
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
No historical (philosophical/theological) context, and no reception history. He's trying to get much more from the syntax that it could possibly give. I don't know where he's getting "godhead" from, that wasn't a concept that was available at the time that I'm aware of, a transcendent high God and an intermediary (or intermediaries) lower god(s) were redilly avaialbe and assumed in many theological systems, including Jewish ones.
These kind of comments do make me smile - using a translators decision as a proof.
https://www.studylight.org/bible/eng/glt/john/1-49.html
Both with and without the definite article.
These people will go to great lengths to try and make Jesus equal to his God and Father.
Roman, to be fair, I only quoted this part to make a point about how Carson understands John 1:1c, but he does write a lot about the background of the Gospel, historical details and so forth. See his commentary to get a better sense of his overall view.
For Trinitarians, you could replace "Godhead" with Godhood or just "God."
Colossians 2:9 (KJV): "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."
ESV: "For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body."
NIV says "the Deity."
I posted Carson's remarks for informational purposes more than anything.
Duncan, I like that GLT. Good one.
Why is it untenable to say that Son wàs the God but acceptable to say that the Father was the God if they're coequal as our learned friend would claim? So the logos is a God?
Fair enough, I have that commentary actually :).
@aservantofJehovah:
Carson might be saying that one cannot call the Son "the God" within the context of John 1:1 because it presents a difficulty as to how the Son was with "the God" and could be "the God." George Caird brings up this point when he analyzes John 1:1. See also the journal article by P. Harner.
However, we know that Trinitarians try to make a case for Christ being fully God by appealing to John 20:28, which uses the definite article with theos although it's qualified by a genitive pronoun. But Trinitarians attempt to argue from that verse that Jesus is "the God" and not "a god."
Roman: like any commentary, he's got some good stuff in the work, but Carson is always unabashedly Trinitarian. :)
The God would be a God just as the man would be a man hence the God that the son was with would be a God. If trinitarians insists that Jesus is the the Lord and God of Thomas then this must mean that he is a Lord and a God. If they further insists that the union of Jesus and his Father and the spirit is the God then this union is also a God. There are indeed many difficulties in the sacred text for Trinitarians but it seems to me that they are all needless difficulties.
I don't claim to speak for Trinitarians, but just by reading them for years, I have come across their explanations for Bible verses. And one thing the Trinitarian is trying to assert regarding John 1:1 is that there is a reason why the Word is with "the God" but then John does not use the article in 1:1c when he speaks about the Logos. The common Trinitarian claim is that if John also used the article in 1:1c, then the Word would be with the same God he was with, according to 1:1b. But a thing cannot be with itself or a person cannot be with himself/herself either. Therefore, John 1:1c must mean something else, they claim.
I have seen Trinitarians describe Jesus (the Logos) as "a god," but most claim to see a problem with this usage when it comes to the NWT because they say it implies polytheism. But even when Trinitarians do call the Logos, a god, their meaning is different than the JW use, which adds to the confusion. In the end, I agree with you that it's difficult for them to avoid thinking of God as a deity in some sense. This language does not necessarily connote polytheism.
When trinitarians say that the logos is a God what does that mean? And if as must be acknowledged the Father is also a God in the same way that the Son is a God. How exactly do trinitarians hope to escape the charge of polytheism?After all when we say that the logos and the holy angels are theos all we mean is what is stated at strong's 430 that theos can refer to angels, prophets or divinely appointed rulers,e.g psalm82:1, psalm8:5,Exodus 7:1. I suspect that when trinitarians claim that the logos is a God they are making a much more grandiose claim. than that?
Ps. actually strong's 430 pertains to the Hebrew equivalent of Theos Elohim. Theos is at strong's 2316.
Deuteronomy 10:17
American Standard Version
For Jehovah your God, he is God of gods, and Lord of lords, the great God, the mighty, and the terrible, who regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward.
Again, it's difficult to put all Trinitarians in one bag, so to speak, but I had in mind the statement made by John McKenzie (quoted in the Trinity brochure) that John 1:1c should rigorously be translated as the Word was "a divine being." However, the context of his quote makes it clear that he did not mean the Son is ontologically lesser than the Father.
Trinitarians hope to escape the charge of polytheism and tritheism by arguing that the three persons are/share one divine "substance." In other words, they are not three independent gods but three distinct persons who supposedly possess/are identical to all of divine attributes.
So much has been written on this subject by numerous writers: one of the latest efforts was by Matthew Barrett in a book entitled "Simply Trinity." B.B. Warfield wrote a piece where he tries to explicate the Trinity, but I recently encountered a reply that said he got some things wrong about the Trinity.
In any event, they're attempting to claim that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the same God, but distinct persons of the "Godhead." As we said earlier, it's comparable to three humans who all partake of the "substance" known as human nature, but they're distinct from one another. What makes the three divine persons unique is that God is supposed to be "simple," which means God has no temporal or spatial parts nor any division of being and person in God. However, many thinkers now challenge divine simplicity.
From Murray J. Harris' book, John, in the EGGNT Series. He writes about John 1:1c:
Why is θεός anar.? Several grammatical or theological reasons have been
proposed, some of which are valid and others invalid (for a detailed discussion, see Harris, Jesus 59–67):
1. to indicate that θεός is indefinite;
2. to indicate that θεός is predicative;
3. to accord with principles of word order (viz. Colwell’s “canon”);
4. to indicate a nonreciprocating proposition;
5. to give θεός an adjectival significance;
6. to distinguish the Logos from the Father;
7. to indicate the subordination of the Logos; and
8. to indicate that θεός is qualitative in meaning.
Having distinguished the Logos from the Father (τὸν θεόν, v. 1b), John wished
to point to what they had in common, namely, their Godhood (θεός). Like the Father, and equally with him, the Logos may be included in the category of
Deity as an inherent partaker in the divine essence. If, then, a single reason is to be given for the anar. state of θεός, it is that this noun is qualitative (#8 above), indicating the nature of the Logos rather than identifying his person. But in an incidental manner this anar. θεός also confirms that the art. λόγος is the subject of the clause (cf. #2 above) and excludes the inference that the Word exhausts the category of deity (cf. #4 above) or that the Son is the Father (#6 above).
Then Harris continues:
How should θεός be translated? Five suggestions have been made (see Harris,
Jesus 67–70):
1. “The Word was a god” (New World Translation). While this rendering is
grammatically admissible (cf. Acts 28:6), it is theologically inadmissible
since, as a monotheist, John could make an unqualified ontological statement
(ἦν) about only one God.
2. “The Word was divine” (Goodspeed; sim. Moffatt). But in the context of
the FG (see 1:1a, b; 1:18; 20:28), θεός is most naturally taken as subst. and
titular. Moreover, “divine” has come to have a wide range of attenuated
meanings in English, although it can mean “having the very nature of God.”
3. “The Word was deity” (Dana and Mantey 148). The term “deity” has an
abstract flavor (“divine status, quality, or nature”) that is absent from θεός
and it would fit better with the verb “possessed” than with “was.”
4. “What God was, the Word was” (NEB, REB; sim. GNB, Barclay, Cassirer).
Although this paraphrastic rendering catches John’s meaning, it lacks John’s
succinctness and force, and it converts the Greek predicate into the subject.
5. “The Word was God” (NIV, NJB, NRSV, HCSB, and most EVV). This
traditional translation has the advantage of being as simple as the original and of representing a definite Greek substantive by a definite English substantive, each being without the article. However, we must be aware that “God” is being used in a distinctive sense, not as a proper noun that refers to the Father or the triune God (as in normal English usage), but as a generic title that signifies One who inherently shares the nature or essence of God (see further Harris, Jesus 296–298).
We may paraphrase v. 1 as follows. “At the very beginning of creation and time,
the Word as the perfect expression of God the Father had already always existed, and this Word was in active communion with God, and this Word inherently shared the same nature as God.”
From dictionary.com,the definition of a God;any deified person or object.: Basically then trinitarians are attempting to redefine words as their way out. John McKenzie's take is of particular interest because someone like our learned friend dr. James White would claim that the logos is a divine person but not a divine being. Some say that B B Warfield got some things wrong about the trinity? How could he not poor fellow? In one of his books (intellectuals and society ,if memory serves me right) noted thinker professor Thomas Sowell warned about the proclivity of academics to indulge in labrinthine mental constructs that tend to cut the mind off from needed feedback from the real world(in this context logic,common sense,scripture and the dictionary) it seems that the trinity is the epitome of the object of that warning. Alas for Trinitarians John1:1 does not merely distinguish the logos (as Murray Harris for one claims)from the Father(ho pater) but from the God(ho Theos). Once you can push through the gaslighting the necessary implication of polytheism is fairly obvious.
And this is why it's dangerous for a non-Trinitarian to quote a Trinitarian in support of an argument because one cannot take what a Trinitarian says at face value. Moreover, there is not a singular doctrine of the Trinity but many versions of the Trinity.
In the 80's there was a famous pop singer in thu UK called Toya. She wrote a song called - is a mystery. I don't know what she had in mind but I know what comes to mind when I read the lyrics & it's the triune sentiment-
Somewhere in the distance
Hidden from view
Suspended in the atmosphere
Waiting to come through
Sometimes it's so far away
Sometimes it's very near
sound being carried by the wind
Just loud enough to hear
feel its power within me
Bells ringing in my head
So often I have heard its cry
But forgotten what it said
It's a mystery, it's a mystery
I'm still searching for a clue
It's a mystery to me
shot in the dark
The big question mark in history
Is it a mystery to you?
It can treat you with a vengeance
Trip you in the dark
Sirens in the distance
Can steer you from the path
It can lift you to the heavens
Put your troubles in the past
Whisper the elixir
Then vanish in a blast
It's a mystery, it's a mystery
I'm still searching for a clue
It's a mystery to me
shot in the dark
The big question mark in history
Is it a mystery to you?
End
So how does one apply logic to it?
Edgar, in my book any serious exegesis of the prologue has to take into account the Logos and Sophia theologies of philosophical Judaism, the middle platonic notions of a chain of divinity, and the reception history of the Idea of Christ as Logos.
I've seen too many exegetes brush of Philo, brush of the demiurgic angelologies in some apocalyptic literature, brush of the logos theology reception history, brush off middle platonism.
The cultural context is much more important, in my opinoin, than the grammer and syntax, especially when such recognizable tropes are being used.
Isaiah9:6NWT"For a child has been born to us,+
A son has been given to us;
And the rulership* will rest on his shoulder.+
His name will be called Wonderful Counselor,+ Mighty God,+ Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." Apparently some trinitarians are quite pleased with the way the NWT has rendered this verse. I'm not sure why.
I appreciate all of the thoughts in this thread and I like the points you made, Roman. You're right that some brush them off. Another problem is how one should interpret all of those things and then how one should apply Philo's ideas or Sophia theologies to Jesus Christ, the Logos of God. There are also debates as to just what it means for Jesus to be the Logos, etc.
For example, Carson is aware of many of the things you mention and so is Gerlad Borchert, who wrote the NA Commentary for John's Gospel (2 vols.). Yet they both do the same thing most other commentators do when it coems to John 1:1 and 20:28. That is why I've become more convinced of Bultmann's observation that apprehensions cannot occur without preapprehensions. But this is not to say I think some degree of objectivity is impossible.
Another consideration is to what extent one believes Hellenism affected Judaism. I've progressively changed my views on that subject, but I still like Louis Feldman's article where he responds to Hengel's book on Judaism and Hellenism.
@aservantofJehovah,
Some Trinitarians try to harp on the "mighty God" part. See Isaiah 10:22. Also, they try to make something of eternal father, but they forget that the Trinity distinguishes Father from Son.
Concerning BB Warfield, see https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/what-b-b-warfield-got-wrong-in-his-doctrine-of-the-trinity/
Actually, I guess it's Isa. 10:21.
Jesus the eternal father? See https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/how-can-jesus-be-our-everlasting-father/
John14:9 is another scripture where they seem to forget that Father and Son are not meant to be identical according to trinitarian orthodoxy.
I've seen people talk in circles about that one too. Specifically, see Rudolf Schackenburg's commentary.
But they still argue that Father and Son are the same God but distinct persons.
Duncan, it is good to read Aquinas' entire view of how one should approach the Trinity, but note what he says here about the Trinity doctrine and reason:
I answer that, It is impossible to attain to the knowledge of the Trinity by natural reason. For, as above explained (I:12:4 and I:12:12), man cannot obtain the knowledge of God by natural reason except from creatures. Now creatures lead us to the knowledge of God, as effects do to their cause. Accordingly, by natural reason we can know of God that only which of necessity belongs to Him as the principle of things, and we have cited this fundamental principle in treating of God as above (I:12:12). Now, the creative power of God is common to the whole Trinity; and hence it belongs to the unity of the essence, and not to the distinction of the persons. Therefore, by natural reason we can know what belongs to the unity of the essence, but not what belongs to the distinction of the persons. Whoever, then, tries to prove the trinity of persons by natural reason, derogates from faith in two ways.
SEe https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1032.htm
Have I got this wrong, or is Aquinas quoting Trismegistus?
Mark12:3⁰NIV"Love the Lord your God ...with all your MIND....’" is a biblical faith possible apart from reason?
How are we to be ready to give a reason for our faith (1Peter3:15)if there is none?
1Corinthians3:19NIV"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight...."
Duncan, Aquinas is quoting Trismegistus. One of the most prolific quotes of Trismegistus, however, is Lactantiys.
aservant: to be fair, Aquinas thinks reasons can be given regarding the Trinity, but He also feels that reason alone will not establish the Trinity or lead someone to conclude that God is triune.
I guess an illogical reason would still be a reason. But I suspect that that is not what Mark12:30 has in mind.
Post a Comment