Morphemes are minimal units of meaning, but what a difference they make. The Greek morpheme δελφύς/Δελφός means "womb." However, if one prefixes an alpha to it, the word refers to a brother. Conversely, ἄτομος contains an alpha-privative so that the prefix negates the morpheme to produce the meaning, "uncuttable" or "indivisible," etc. The same phenomenon occurs in Latin with the morpheme utilis. By simply adding in to this adnominal, a "useful" tool becomes a "useless" one. These shifts in morphological signification take place due to the derivational feature of morphology.
On the other hand, syntax refers to word order or the architecture of linguistic signs. Cambridge Dictionary defines syntax as "the grammatical arrangement of words in a sentence." The importance of syntax depends on the extent of lingual inflection that a language possesses, yet this does not mean that syntax goes out the window when languages are less inflected with respect to morphology: syntax is still important whether one speaks English, German, French or Spanish.
For example, English, Greek, Latin and other languages distinguish between grammatical subjects and objects (e.g., "The dog bit the man") but the latter tongues indicate which word is the subject or object by means of morphological inflections. For example, in the Latin sentence canis mordet hominem, one knows which word is subject primarily through recognizing morphemic inflections such that canis is the subject and hominem is the direct object of mordet. Furthermore, Latin and Greek display syntactic patterns that are recurrent (subject--verb-object), so syntax is important even in highly inflected languages.
Language is a fascinating wonder that is unique to human beings: it is "one of the skills that separates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom" (Pat Kuhl qtd. in Restak 230). The human ability to utter meaningful sentences is another indication that we are made in a wonderful and awe-inspiring way (Psalm 139:14).
Further Reading:
Fasold, Ralph W., and Jeff Connor-Linton, eds. 2006. An Introduction to Language and Linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Restak, Richard. The Mind. New York: Bantam, 1988.
https://petaa.edu.au/litportal/litportal/Resources-for-Curriculum/Upper-primary/Spelling/Morphemic-awareness-upper.aspx
Sporadic theological and historical musings by Edgar Foster (Ph.D. in Theology and Religious Studies and one of Jehovah's Witnesses).
Dear Mr. Foster,
ReplyDeleteplease allow me to reply to Sean Kasabuske's comment, maybe copy this comment to the other thread.
Your assertion that scholars like Metzger, Bruce, and Barclay misapplied Colwell's rule is fundamentally flawed. Colwell's rule states that a definite predicate nominative preceding the verb lacks the article. This rule, properly understood, is about the likelihood and not an absolute determination of definiteness. The rule indicates that when an anarthrous predicate noun precedes the verb, it is often definite in context. The context of John 1:1c supports the traditional translation "the Word was God," emphasizing the qualitative nature of the Logos.
The argument presented about the inconsistency in the NWT translation fails to address the broader contextual and theological nuances of the Greek text. The translation "a god" in John 1:1c is inconsistent with how the NWT translates other instances of anarthrous θεός. The nominative case, not the genitive, is indeed crucial, but the translation principle should be consistent across different cases and contexts if it truly reflects the underlying theology and grammar. By the way, where did you get that "a god" is only in the nominative, maybe if the Father is in the nominative anarthous θεός, then it is translated as "a god"?
Philip B. Harner, whose work you reference, argued that clauses with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb are primarily qualitative. He suggested the translation, "the Word had the same nature as God." This qualitative understanding aligns with the traditional translation "the Word was God," emphasizing the divine nature of the Logos rather than suggesting a secondary deity. Daniel Wallace supports this view, indicating that the most likely candidate for θεός in John 1:1c is qualitative, reflecting the divine nature of the Word without making it a separate deity.
John 1:1c must be understood within the broader theological context of John's Gospel and the NT. The context of John 1:1 does not suggest a definite θεός in the third clause, but it does emphasize the Logos's divine nature. The qualitative sense avoids modalism and maintains the distinction between the Father and the Logos while affirming their shared divine essence. The translation "the Word was a god" implies a form of henotheism or monolatry, which contradicts the monotheistic framework of John's Gospel. The term θεός is consistently used to refer to the one true God in the New Testament, and introducing "a god" suggests the existence of multiple gods, which is inconsistent with early Christian and Jewish monotheism.
The argument that "God" is used as a proper name for the Father and thus should be translated differently is a misunderstanding of the Greek usage and context. In the NT, θεός often functions as a proper name, but the context determines its translation. The qualitative nature of "θεός" in John 1:1c emphasizes the Logos's divine attributes, consistent with the usage of θεός for the Father.
Regarding your link: The argument presented regarding the consistency of the NWT of John 1:1c lacks soundness on several fronts. Their primary defense hinges on the claim that "theos" is a count noun and must therefore be either definite or indefinite. This position is inherently flawed due to several reasons.
ReplyDeleteThe claim that "theos" must be a count noun and cannot be purely qualitative overlooks significant linguistic principles. Notably, many linguists and Greek scholars recognize that anarthrous predicate nouns in Greek, especially in pre-verbal positions, often carry a qualitative emphasis. This qualitative aspect is well-supported by the seminal study by Philip B. Harner, which argues that such constructions primarily express the nature or character of the subject.
The criticism that the NWT inconsistently translates "theos" as "a god" in John 1:1c while rendering it differently in other contexts (e.g., John 1:6, 1:12, 1:13) is valid. The defense offered in your article that "God" functions as a proper name in those contexts does not hold, as "theos" without the article can be definite, indefinite, or qualitative based on context. The NWT translators' selective application appears theologically motivated rather than strictly grammatical.
Your assertion that the traditional translation misapplies Colwell's Rule by assuming an anarthrous pre-verbal predicate noun is definite is a misunderstanding. Colwell's Rule itself does not suggest definiteness; rather, it notes that definite predicate nominatives preceding the verb usually lack the article. The qualitative translation aligns better with Johannine theology and the broader NT context, emphasizing the nature of the Logos rather than implying a secondary deity.
The argument that translating "theos" as "a god" prevents modalism is a theological presupposition rather than a linguistic necessity. Trinitarian theology can accommodate the qualitative sense, recognizing the Logos as sharing the divine nature without implying modalism. The insistence on an indefinite translation seems to stem from a theological bias that the text itself does not necessitate.
John 1:14 ("the Word became flesh") uses "sarx" in a parallel construction to John 1:1c. If "sarx" here emphasizes the nature of the Word as fully human, then "theos" in John 1:1c should likewise emphasize the divine nature of the Word. This parallel supports a qualitative understanding rather than an indefinite one.
Your arguments fail to convincingly refute the qualitative translation of "theos" in John 1:1c. The traditional translation ("the Word was God") remains consistent with Greek grammar, Johannine theology, and the broader context of the NT Christology. The attempt to defend the NWT's translation as "a god" appears more theologically driven than linguistically or contextually justified.
John’s statement refers to the nature, essence, and being of the Word, and answers the question, what was the Word? John answer: THE WORD WAS …. GOD, - and not something else, thus excluding any other possibility.
ReplyDeleteJohn does not state "the Word was (a) god" (ho logos theos en), which would place the Word among the "gods," contrasting with God. He does not say "the Word was divine" (ho logos en theios), which would attribute divine qualities to the Word but separate it from God. Nor does he say "the Word was the God" (ho logos ho theos en), which would equate the Son with the Father, suggesting that the Father and the Son are merely different manifestations of the same God (modalism). Finally, he does not state "the Word was another God" (ho logos theos heteros en), which would make the Son a completely separate deity (polytheism). John could have used any of these expressions but did not, and there was a reason for it.
The Bible states that only one being can be called God by nature and eternally: God, Yahweh, beside whom there is no other god, neither before nor after (Deut. 32:39, Isaiah 43:10-11, 44:8, 45:5, James 2:19). Paul states, "There is no other God but one," since "even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God" (1 Corinthians 8:4-6). Believers, while still pagans, served gods who "by nature" or "by their very nature" were not gods (Galatians 4:8). There is only one God, and it is a different matter how many persons exist within this one God.
In biblical usage, New Testament writers referred to the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit interchangeably using "theos" with or without an article. The singular "theos" is used approximately 1,430 times in the New Testament, always referring to the one true God. Only seven instances refer to something else: the unknown god of the pagans (Acts 17:23), false gods (Acts 7:43, 12:22), Satan (2 Cor. 4:4), the Antichrist's self-declaration (2 Thess. 2:4), deified pleasures (Philippians 3:19), and people mistakenly thought to be gods (Acts 28:6). In these cases, it is always in the context of falsehood, error, hubris, or irony.
The plural form "theoi" always refers to false, pagan gods. The Bible does not call angels "gods," but "sons of God" (b'nei Elohim), so Michael the archangel cannot be scripturally called a "god" or "the Son." Additionally, God mockingly refers to the corrupt judges of Israel as "the congregation of the gods" and individually as "gods," who could decide matters of life and death and might think of themselves as gods, but due to their wickedness, God's judgment is upon them, and they will die like ordinary men (Psalm 82:1-7). This is the spectrum of the term "GOD" in biblical meaning. For completeness, Hebrew also uses the word "god" in some possessive constructions as an adjective meaning "giant" or "mighty": for example, Nineveh is described as "the city of God," meaning "great city" (Jonah 3:3).
Christ, the Son, obviously does not fall into the category of a corrupt judge, a deified human, or a false, pagan god. Thus, the only valid interpretation is that the Word was God, by nature and eternally.
Jehovah's Witnesses cite multiple translations that seemingly support the NWT version of John 1:1. However, the translators often did not consider WHY these versions align with the NWT. Some translators are unknown in the field (e.g., Tomanec, Kneeland, Schulz), while others are Unitarians (e.g., Wilson, Newcome). The third group (e.g., Barclay, Moffatt, Smith & Goodspeed, Young, Schoenfield, Menge) are Trinitarians. They interpret "theos" as "divine" or having a divine nature, not as a lower, semi-divine being, indicating that the Word belongs to the category of God.
Okay, if Sean or anyone else wants to answer you, Nincsnevem, I will allow it. Otherwise, this thread will be closed since it is dealing with other matters. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteNincs,:The plural form "theoi" always refers to false, pagan gods. The Bible does not call angels "gods," but "sons of God" (b'nei Elohim), so Michael the archangel cannot be scripturally called a "god" or "the Son." Additionally.
ReplyDeleteMe:psalms Ch.8:5NKJV"For You have made him a little lower than [d]the angels(Elohim)
And You have crowned him with glory and honor."
Exodus Ch.7:1KJV"And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. "
It is not the fall into corruption that made the ones at psalms 82:1-6 gods but JEHOVAH'S Solemn Decree. Psalms Ch.82:6KJV" I((JEHOVAH)said, Ye are gods, And all of you sons of the Most High."
It is not the corruption that is being addressed here but the their responsibility to the one who exalted them to their status.
Just as king Jehoshaphat did at 2Chronicles 19:6NKJV"and said to the judges, “Take heed to what you are doing, for you do not judge for man but for the LORD, who is with you [b]in the judgment."
So you are simply wrong on this score.
From brown driver briggs"rulers, judges, either as divine representatives at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power: האלהים Exodus 21:6 (Onk ᵑ6, but τὸ κριτήριον τοῦ Θεοῦ ᵐ5) Exodus 22:7; Exodus 22:8; אלהים Exodus 22:8; Exodus 22:27 (ᵑ7 Ra AE Ew RVm; but gods, ᵐ5 Josephus Philo AV; God, Di RV; all Covt. code of E) compare 1 Samuel 2:25 see Dr.; Judges 5:8 (Ew, but gods ᵐ5; God ᵑ6 BarHebr.; יהוה ᵑ9 Be) Psalm 82:1; Psalm 82:6 (De Ew Pe; but angels Bl Hup) Psalm 138:1 (ᵑ6 ᵑ7 Rab Ki De; but angels ᵐ5 Calv; God, Ew; gods, Hup Pe Che).
b. divine ones, superhuman beings including God and angels Psalm 8:6 (De Che Br; but angels ᵐ5 ᵑ6 ᵑ7 Ew; God, RV and most moderns) Genesis 1:27 (if with Philo ᵑ7 Jerome De Che we interpret נעשה as God's consultation with angels; compare Job 38:7)."
Edgar,
ReplyDelete"Okay, if Sean or anyone else wants to answer you, Nincsnevem, I will allow it."
When someone is misinformed but willing to be corrected, then continued dialogue could be fruitful; but when someone is misinformed and NOT willing to be corrected, then there's really no point in continued dialogue. As you know, my brother, Jehovah's Witnesses don't argue for argument's sake.