"There is little in the New Testament to suggest that the Son is equal to the Father, and not even an explicit assertion of their coeternity. The Word (not yet called the Son) was with the Father in the beginning (John 1.1)—an expression which takes us no further back than the origin of the world, perhaps no more than four thousand years before the incarnation on a strict construal of biblical chronology. He (or should we say 'it'?2) is said to be theos, but the absence of the definite article—used in the previous clause when the subject is God the Father–permits, or may even embolden, us to take this usage of theos as predicative rather than denominative. The New English Bible captures this well in its rendering 'what God was the word was', and the closest parallel in the Bible itself is Exodus 7.1, 'I shall make thee theos to Pharaoh', where the implication is evidently that Moses will be all that Pharaoh knows of God, not that he will be God in substance. There is no other passage in which the word theos is incontrovertibly applied to the Son: even Thomas’s exclamation 'My Lord and my God' (John 20.28) is understood by a minority of readers as a prayer of thanksgiving rather than an apostrophe to the resurrected Jesus."
Source: Edwards, Mark Thomas. “Is Subordinationism a Heresy?” TheoLogica: An International Journal for Philosophy of Religion and Philosophical Theology (2020): pages 2-3.
Saturday, August 10, 2024
Scholar Mark Edwards on Christological Subordinationism (John 1:1, Etc.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
105 comments:
Mark Edwards' interpretation of John 1:1 and Christological subordinationism reflects a particular understanding of early Christian thought that diverges from orthodox Trinitarianism. His argument suggests that the New Testament, particularly John 1:1, does not explicitly support the coequality or coeternity of the Son with the Father. Instead, Edwards interprets the use of "theos" (God) without the definite article as potentially predicative, meaning that the Word (Logos) is not fully equated with God the Father in substance but shares divine qualities in a subordinate role.
Edwards argues that the lack of a definite article before "theos" in John 1:1c allows for a predicative interpretation ("the Word was divine" or "god-like"). However, many scholars and grammarians, such as Daniel B. Wallace, assert that the construction in Greek (anarthrous predicate nominative preceding the verb) often indicates a qualitative aspect rather than indefiniteness. This suggests that the Logos possesses the full nature of God, not merely a similar or subordinate nature.
John's Gospel consistently presents the Logos as fully divine. For instance, John 1:3 states that "all things were made through him," a claim that attributes to the Logos the creative power traditionally ascribed to God alone. Additionally, John 1:18 refers to the Logos as "the only begotten God" (or "the only begotten Son," depending on the manuscript), again affirming the divine nature of the Son.
While Edwards downplays the use of "theos" in reference to the Son, other New Testament passages do affirm the divinity of Christ. For example, in Hebrews 1:8, the Father directly addresses the Son as "God" (using the vocative "ho theos"). This indicates that the early Christian community did not see "theos" as exclusively referring to the Father but also applied it to Jesus in a way that reflects equality in the Godhead.
Edwards suggests that Thomas' declaration "My Lord and my God" could be interpreted as a prayer of thanksgiving rather than an address to Jesus. However, the immediate context suggests that Thomas is directly addressing the risen Christ, which is why most scholars and translations take this as a direct acknowledgment of Jesus' divine identity.
Subordinationism, the view that the Son is inferior to the Father in nature or rank, was indeed a view held by some early Christian thinkers. However, the development of Trinitarian doctrine, as articulated at the Council of Nicaea, responded to these views by affirming the coequality and coeternity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Nicene Creed was not an innovation but a clarification against misunderstandings like those Edwards describes.
Mark Edwards' interpretation offers an intriguing perspective but remains controversial and not representative of the broader scholarly consensus. The Johannine Prologue and other New Testament writings strongly support the divinity and coequality of the Son with the Father, aligning with the orthodox understanding of the Trinity rather than a subordinationist reading.
Reflects Origens understanding- something which Ninc ignores
According to Martyr and Origen ( and maybe others ) God is unbegotten
The son is theos only in a lesser sense according to Origen because of article usage and is only god through participation ( even citing Moses - Hippolytus also understood what I refer as “shiliach tools” as things to be honoured as God but not worshipped)
Why doesn’t he cite the genitives and datives used of the father without the article? Because Origen is honest and knows that these are no parallel to John 1:1 and knows that they can be definite ( or have an implied article) without explicitly writing the article.
It's interesting to see Edwards mix sense with silliness. On the one hand, he recognizes the fact that John 1:1 does not teach the eternality of the Son, yet on the other hand he praises the NEB's risible rendering of John 1:1c, which isn't even possible, grammatically.
1. There is no word for “What” in the Greek. An interlinear rendering of the clause is “god was the Word.”
2. There is only one verb corresponding to “was” (=ην), not two.
And this one is most ironic:
3. The rendering is presumably based on the assumption that θεος is “qualitative,” yet in the rendering “what God was, the Word was,” the word “God” is functioning as a proper name, not a qualitative noun. In other words, proponents of the NEB’s risible rendering are claiming that θεος is qualitative to justify the mistranslation, yet in that very mistranslation the word “God” is functioning as a proper name, which is a definite noun, not a qualitative noun.
See also: https://kazlandblog.wordpress.com/2019/10/07/what-god-was-the-word-was/
Quote on John 20:28:
"The article in Jn 20:28 is explained by the mou (mou, moo, “of me”) which normally requires the article before it; by its use with the vocative [case]...and by its presence in the established formula ‘the lord and the god’...It should be further noted that ‘the god of me’, whether it is taken as vocative [direct address] or nominative, [identification] is predicative in sense and so cannot be used as evidence either way to show whether the god in New Testament usage ever appears as subject of a statement referring to Christ.”—Karl Rahner, S.J., Theological Investigations, Vol. i, p. 136.
Btw, T, I like the Rahner quote.
Sean, what Edwards states is far from being satisfactory, but I was surprised by the observations he did make.
As a reminder, compare https://brill.com/view/journals/hbth/44/2/article-p141_2.xml?language=en#ref_FN000028
The phrase "what God was, the Word was" is a legitimate way to translate the qualitative aspect of the Greek word "θεός" (theos) in this context. This translation aims to capture the essence or nature of the Word, rather than presenting the Word as a lesser or different entity.
The argument contends that if "θεός" is qualitative, it should not be treated as a proper name, yet misunderstands how qualitative nouns function in Greek. In John 1:1c, the word "θεός" without the definite article emphasizes the nature of the Logos, indicating that the Logos possesses the same divine nature as God, but is not necessarily equated one-to-one as the same person.
The NEB’s rendering is not arbitrary but is rooted in a desire to express the theological and grammatical nuance of the text. John’s Gospel emphasizes the intimate relationship and shared divine nature between the Word and God, which this translation seeks to convey.
The examples provided, which mock the NEB’s rendering by applying similar phrasing to other verses, fail to recognize that translation choices depend on context, syntax, and the specific theological implications in each case. John 1:1c is unique in its theological depth, and thus, the NEB’s rendering is contextually and theologically motivated.
The argument presented by Karl Rahner regarding John 20:28, where Thomas exclaims "My Lord and my God" to Jesus, seeks to downplay the significance of the article and the phrase's grammatical structure. Rahner suggests that the article ("the") in this case is explained by the possessive "mou" and implies that the phrase may not definitively identify Jesus as God.
However, this interpretation overlooks the plain reading of the text, where Thomas directly addresses Jesus as "my God," a strong affirmation of Jesus’ deity. The grammatical structure supports this direct address, rather than diminishing its impact. In the context of John's Gospel, which frequently highlights Jesus' divine nature (e.g., John 1:1), this exclamation by Thomas is a powerful declaration of belief in Jesus as fully divine. Rahner’s argument, while technically noting a grammatical point, does not adequately account for the broader theological context and the significance of this passage within the Gospel of John.
I replied to your last comment, only Mr. Foster didn't let it go through moderation.
Origen's view must be understood within the broader context of early Christian theology, where the term "theos" (God) applied to the Son was still affirming His divinity, though nuanced within the framework of the Father-Son relationship. It does not imply a diminished or secondary divinity but rather emphasizes the relational distinction within the Godhead.
The absence of the article before "theos" in John 1:1c does not necessitate a lesser divinity. Greek grammar often uses anarthrous predicate nouns before the verb to indicate a qualitative sense, meaning that the Word possesses the nature of God, not merely a similar or lesser essence.
Origen’s theological framework was complex, and his understanding of the Son's divinity must be read in light of his broader theological system, which affirmed the Son's participation in the divine essence. His view was not a denial of the Son's divinity but an attempt to articulate the mystery of the relationship within the Trinity.
Origen does indeed speak of the Son as "theos" (God) and often without the definite article, but this does not equate to a lesser divinity. Instead, Origen distinguishes between the Father and the Son to maintain the distinct persons within the Godhead while affirming their shared divine essence. He is careful in his language to avoid Modalism, which conflates the persons of the Trinity, but he consistently upholds the Son's full participation in the divine nature.
The term "unbegotten" refers to the Father, the source and principle without origin, whereas "begotten" refers to the Son, who is eternally generated from the Father. This distinction does not imply inequality or a lesser status but rather clarifies the relational dynamics within the Trinity. Early Church Fathers, including Origen, affirmed the full divinity of the Son while maintaining this relational distinction.
The argument regarding the absence of the article before "theos" in John 1:1c must be understood within the Greek linguistic context. The anarthrous "theos" in John 1:1c does not imply a "lesser" divinity but indicates the qualitative aspect of the Logos' divinity, emphasizing that the Word (Logos) is fully God, sharing the same divine essence as the Father (who is referred to with the article in John 1:1b).
While Origen and other early theologians might draw analogies with figures like Moses or the concept of a "shiliach" (an emissary), these are meant to illustrate the relational and functional aspects within the Godhead, not to diminish the Son's divinity. The "shiliach" concept emphasizes the representative authority of the Son, but in the context of Trinitarian theology, this does not reduce the Son's divine nature.
Origen and others were careful to stay within the boundaries of what would later be recognized as orthodox Trinitarian theology. They affirmed the full divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit while also addressing complex theological issues like the relationship between the persons of the Trinity and their roles in the economy of salvation.
"Sean, what Edwards states is far from being satisfactory, but I was surprised by the observations he did make."
Sure, I am glad for the part he got right. Perhaps I should have reserved my focus on the positive part of his comment, but seeing people praise the NEB's risible rendering for me is like hearing fingernails scrapped across a chalkboard!
The article is always used in the nom- Voc idoim I believe
The Smarius paper presents a linguistic analysis that suggests the term θεός in John 1:1 and 1:18 can be interpreted as describing the Logos (Word) as a "second, non-competitive deity" rather than equating the Logos with the Father, traditionally understood as God in Christian theology. The author attempts to provide a linguistic basis for a subordinationist Christology, where Jesus is seen as a lesser god or divine being, separate from and subordinate to the Father.
The article misrepresents the views of early Church Fathers like Justin Martyr and Origen. While Origen and others may have used terms that seem to imply a subordinate role for the Son, they did not deny the full divinity of the Son. They operated within a complex theological framework that maintained the Son's co-eternity and consubstantiality with the Father. Origen, for example, spoke of the Son as being θεὸς in a derivative sense because His divinity is derived from the Father, but he did not mean that the Son was a lesser or created being.
The suggestion that θεός in John 1:1c should be translated as "a god" ignores the broader theological context of the Gospel of John and the NT as a whole. The Gospel consistently presents Jesus as fully divine, as seen in passages like John 20:28, where Thomas refers to Jesus as "my Lord and my God" (ὁ θεός). The use of θεός without the article in John 1:1c does not imply a lesser divinity but rather emphasizes the qualitative nature of Jesus' divinity—He is fully and truly God, sharing the same divine essence as the Father, not a separate or lesser god.
The article's linguistic arguments are selectively applied. While it acknowledges the possibility of interpreting θεός as denoting divine quality, it opts for an interpretation that introduces a second deity, which is inconsistent with both the immediate context of John's Prologue and the broader monotheistic framework of Second Temple Judaism, which underpins the NT. In Hellenistic Greek, θεός is a generic noun that can denote divinity in a qualitative sense, but the context of its usage in John indicates an affirmation of the Logos' full divinity rather than the introduction of a second, lesser god.
The article overlooks the fact that John's Gospel was written within a strict monotheistic context. The early Christian community, which was rooted in Jewish monotheism, would not have tolerated a reading of John 1:1 that introduced a second deity. The Gospel of John presents Jesus as the incarnate Word, fully divine and consubstantial with the Father, not as a separate or lesser deity.
The interpretation of John 1:1 should be consistent with the Christology of the entire Gospel. John's Gospel repeatedly affirms the divine status of Jesus, emphasizing His unity with the Father (John 10:30) and His pre-existence (John 8:58). The prologue (John 1:1-18) sets the tone for the Gospel by affirming that the Logos is both with God and is God, establishing the foundation for the Trinitarian understanding of God.
The article’s reference to Psalm 82 as a precedent for calling lesser beings "gods" does not apply to the NT portrayal of Jesus. In the context of John 10:34-36, where Jesus references Psalm 82, He is not equating Himself with the human judges referred to as elohim but is using a rabbinic argument to highlight the inconsistency of His accusers. Jesus’ subsequent claims in John’s Gospel, particularly in John 10:38-39, clearly assert His unique divinity.
The article's thesis that John 1:1 can be understood as introducing "another god" is based on a selective and ultimately flawed linguistic analysis that fails to account for the broader theological context of the NT. The traditional interpretation, which affirms the full divinity of the Logos as God, is supported by both the linguistic evidence and the consistent witness of the NT. The use of θεός in John 1:1c does not denote a lesser deity but rather affirms the Logos as fully divine, sharing the same essence as the Father, in line with orthodox Trinitarian theology.
It is surprising how much controversy surrounds John 1:1. In comparison, if you look at the link below, you can't see any trace of this in early Christian literature, even though there were a lot of Christological debates out there:
https://t.ly/yRgmk
Reading the citations in the link, it is not surprising that the Smarius paper does not address the early Christian use of the given Johannine passages at all, regardless, this is a serious omission in a publication.
“ Origen, for example, spoke of the Son as being θεὸς in a derivative sense because His divinity is derived from the Father, but he did not mean that the Son was a lesser or created being.” - he also called the son a “ktizma”
Why doesn’t he call the holy spirit such?
If anything that comes “out of” God is a “ktizma” as Origen seems to understand why is it not used also of the spirit?
In my research on John 1:1, I have come to the conclusion that the prologue is underdetermined, one CAN read it in a way that allows for a kind of trinitarian orthodoxy (it of course rules out social trinitarianism, which was always a horrible model anyway), however a trintarian reading requires one to not read the prologue within the context of its contemporary intellectual mileu, in that world the language makes much more sense within a subordiantionist framework.
Nincsnevem, I don't think Origen, if you take his writings at face value, actually do stay within trinitrian orthodoxy, in fact clearly Rufinus thought they didn't, and you see why in his extant Greek writings.
He DID believe in eternal generation (not just of the logos though, but all of the logikoi are eternal in God). But He also believed in an ontologicla/qualitative distinction between the AutoTheos Father and the Son who is theos through participation.
Considering there are many trinitarian scholars who omit to mention information all the time
As do you yourself… I would t be so hasty
Smarius' article is quite good, but he missed a golden opportunity by omitting important evidence in favor of the "a god" rendering: Johannine style, which overwhelmingly favors the "a god" rendering over against the traditional one, as can be clearly seen by simply noting that all comparable nouns in GJohn are rendered into English with the indefinite article by translators. In my judgment, that datum should be at the very heart of any linguistic analysis.
The truth about the NEB's risible rendering is that it was invented as a circumlocution to avoid what the two grammatically possible renderings convey, and as such it ended up presenting readers with a lump of clay that they can shape to their preferences.
The NEB seems to constitute evidence that the Colwell narrative had begun to collapse at least a decade before Harner wrote his article and Dixon wrote his thesis on John 1:1.
The careful reader will notice that Dixon unwittingly expressed the theological (not grammatical) motivation that surely informed Dodd's risible rendering:
“The importance of this thesis is clearly seen in the above example (John 1:1) where the doctrines of the deity of Christ and the Trinity are at stake. For, if the Word was ‘a god,’ then by implication there are other gods of which Jesus is one. On the other hand, if θεος is just as definite as the articular construction following the verb because, ‘the dropping of the article…is simply a matter of word order,’ then the doctrine of the Trinity is denied.” (DTS thesis, The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John), p. 2
Notice that with the collapse of the Colwell narrative came the belief that both a definite and an indefinite rendering undermine Trinitarianism, and so an alternative was needed.
Trinitarians seem to like Dodd's risible rendering precisely because it is a piece of clay that allows one to shape the text to conform with whatever meaning one wants. This is because the rendering is designed NOT to convey what the two valid renderings convey, which creates a sort of vacuum that each expositor fills with whatever sense is theologically desired. How does it do this?
When one reads, "What God was, the Word was" the natural question that emerges is, "Oh, and what was THAT?" God there is Father, so is the Word Father? No. God is the begetter of the Son, so is the Word the begetter of the Son? No. God is ontologically first as the founding member of the triune God under Trinitarianism, so is the Word ontologically first as the founding member of the triune God? No. God is the source of both the Son and Holy Spirit under Trinitarianism, so is the Word the source of the Son and the Holy Spirit? No. Some might attempt to contend that these are “Who” features, not “What” features, but the fact is that they are both. For example, the Father’s position as the founding member of the Trinity is an ontological feature of God under the “orthodox” doctrine, and as an ontological feature of God, it is ipso facto an ontological feature of the Father.
It turns out that each reader allows the "what" to be whatever the person's preferred theology requires, nothing more, and nothing less. This is why Socinians seem to love Dodd’s risible rendering as much Trinitarians do: As a piece of clay, it can be shaped to fit their theology just as easily as it can Trinitarianism, and just as easily as it can Arianism. Dodd wanted to support Trinitarianism, but ended up offering a rendering that is not only risible, but one that is theologically neutral. Since the Evangelist wasn’t theologically neutral, the risible rendering is not consistent with GJohn’s theology.
@Anonymous
The claim that Origen called the Son a "ktisma" (creation) and thus implied that the Son is a created being misunderstands Origen's nuanced theological framework. Origen used the term "ktisma" in a specific context, particularly when interpreting Proverbs 8:22, where Wisdom says, "The Lord created me at the beginning of his work." Origen interpreted this passage allegorically, referring to the Logos (the Son) as the embodiment of divine Wisdom, which contains the preexistent plan of creation. This does not imply that Origen considered the Son to be a created being in the same way that actual creatures are, but rather that the Logos, as divine Wisdom, held within it the blueprint or potential for creation.
Origen's use of "ktisma" is deeply rooted in his understanding of the relationship between the Father and the Son, where the Son is eternally generated from the Father, not created in time like other beings. This distinction is crucial because it reflects Origen's belief in the eternal and unchanging nature of the Son's divine essence, which is derived from the Father but not in a way that diminishes the Son's divinity.
Origen's opposition to the idea of the Son being a "ktisma" in a purely created sense can also be seen in his polemic against materialistic or anthropomorphic interpretations of divine generation, where he rejects any notion of the Father "losing" part of His essence in begetting the Son. This reinforces the understanding that Origen saw the Son's divinity as fully intact and undiminished by His derivation from the Father.
Regarding the Holy Spirit, Origen's writings are less explicit, but he viewed the Spirit as co-eternal and consubstantial with the Father and the Son, in line with his overall Trinitarian framework.
The claim that this usage indicates a lesser divinity for the Son is a misreading of Origen's broader theological intentions.
At the end of the day, there is much room for debate on what Origen meant by ktisma. Here is something I once posted here:
Taken from Photius' Bibliotheca
See http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/photius_03bibliotheca.htm
"Read Origen's four books On First Principles. The first deals with the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. In this his statements are often blasphemous; thus, he asserts that the Son was created by the Father, the Holy Ghost by the Son; that the Father pervades all existing things, the Son only those that are endowed with reason, the Holy Ghost only those that are saved. He also makes other strange and impious statements, indulging in frivolous talk about the migration of souls, the stars being alive, and the like. This first book is full of fables about the Father, Christ (as he calls the Son), the Holy Ghost, and creatures endowed with reason. In the second book he treats of the world and created things. He asserts that the God of the Law and the prophets, of the Old and the New Testament, is one and the same; that there was the same Holy Spirit in Moses, the rest of the prophets, and the Holy Apostles. He further discusses the Incarnation of the Saviour, the soul, resurrection, punishment, and promises. The third book deals with free will; how the devil and hostile powers, according to the Scriptures, wage war against mankind; that the world was created and is perishable, having had a beginning in time. The fourth book treats of the final end, the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, and the proper manner of reading and understanding them."
See Origen's Commentary on John and https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2017/12/origen-of-alexandria-and-hupodeesteros.html
If QEOS at John 1:1c can be understood the way Trinitarians want to understand it, then shouldn't we expect to see that sense exemplified in GJohn? What verse in John do you see a comparable noun that exemplifies the sense for which they argue?
I enjoy reading the differing opinions on this subject. They seem to go in any direction. For me if you leave out the early "church fathers" view point and just go with the verse we see in no way is it saying that the word is co-equal or co-eternal with God I understand Westcott and Hort state the God as ton Theon, while the word is theos.
I am not understanding why the expression a god takes away from the fact that the word is divine, it doesn't. JW's always know Jesus is divine, but that doesn't make him almighty God.
He is divine because Jehovah says so and he made him so. Long before the modern writing of JW's to say the word was a god. The Coptic manuscript used the indefinite article a. It is not completely accurate to go by the Greek since they do not have an indefinite article in their language at that time. That's why we always have one scholar or another trying to explain why it should be translated a certain way. Instead they should all look closely at these other language manuscript and ask why did this language use or not use an indefinite article. The Coptic makes it clear that the word was a god. Westcott and Hort go with small letters and god was the word. Still, I enjoy reading all points of view on the subject.
To respond to the claim about Origen's supposed assertion that the Son was created by the Father, and the Holy Ghost by the Son, it's important to first recognize that the account from Photius is a later interpretation and critique of Origen's work, not a direct reflection of Origen’s own theology.
Origen's theological views have often been controversial and are subject to varying interpretations. However, Origen himself did not equate the Son with created beings in the same way as creatures. When Origen used terms like "ktisma," he was engaging in a complex theological discussion about the relationship between the Father and the Son, not asserting a simple creaturely status for the Son. His views, while sometimes expressed in ways that later church figures found problematic, were part of a broader attempt to articulate the mystery of the Trinity in a way that maintained both the distinction and the unity of the divine persons.
Moreover, Origen's overall theology strongly emphasized the Son's eternal generation from the Father, a concept that inherently rejects the idea of the Son being a creature in the same way that the rest of creation is. The critiques from later figures like Photius need to be understood within the context of ongoing theological debates and the development of doctrine, particularly as the Church sought to clarify its teachings against various heresies.
In sum, the use of terms like "ktisma" by Origen does not straightforwardly imply that he viewed the Son as a mere creature, and later critiques like those from Photius should be seen as part of the broader historical debate over the interpretation of Origen's complex and sometimes controversial theological expressions.
@Philip Fletcher
Your argument claims that if we set aside the Church Fathers' interpretations, the biblical text alone does not indicate co-equality or co-eternity between the Word (Logos) and God. However, the Church Fathers' insights are crucial because they were closest to the early Christian understanding and language. They were interpreting the texts within the context of the apostolic tradition.
The distinction between "ton Theon" (referring to God) and "theos" (referring to the Word) in John 1:1 is not about implying a lesser divinity for the Word. The lack of a definite article with "theos" does not automatically make it indefinite or translate to "a god." In Greek grammar, especially in cases of predicate nominatives preceding the verb, the lack of an article often serves to emphasize the nature or essence of the subject rather than to suggest a lesser entity.
The reference to the Coptic manuscript using an indefinite article does not change the understanding of the Greek text. The Greek language at the time of the New Testament did not have an indefinite article, so translation into other languages that do have one (like Coptic or English) requires careful consideration of the context. Most scholars argue that translating "theos" as "a god" distorts the monotheistic context of John's Gospel and early Christian theology.
Jehovah’s Witnesses acknowledge Jesus as divine (maybe in a Semi-Arian Homoiousian sense) but deny His almighty status. However, the traditional Christian understanding, based on the entirety of the New Testament, recognizes that Jesus shares in the fullness of the divine nature (John 1:1, Colossians 2:9, Hebrews 1:3). The use of the term "theos" in reference to Jesus in the prologue of John's Gospel emphasizes this shared divinity, not a lesser or secondary divinity.
The assertion that Johannine style favors the "a god" rendering of John 1:1 because comparable nouns are often rendered with an indefinite article is not entirely accurate. The key issue is not merely stylistic, but theological and grammatical. In Greek, the absence of the definite article with "theos" in John 1:1 is a common construction known as a predicate nominative, where the emphasis is on the nature or essence of the subject. This does not necessitate the indefinite article "a" in English. Translators consider the context, theological implications, and the use of similar constructions elsewhere in the Gospel of John.
Moreover, while some nouns in John might be translated with an indefinite article, these are typically not in theological contexts that deal with the identity of Jesus. The traditional translation of "the Word was God" is supported by the broader context of John's Gospel, which affirms the full divinity of Christ, as well as by early Christian interpretations and the Church Fathers, who were much closer to the original linguistic and cultural context.
The translation "a god" undermines the theological intent of the passage, which is to express the divine nature of the Word, sharing the essence of God while maintaining a distinction from the Father. The consistency in Johannine style should be evaluated with a careful consideration of context and meaning, rather than applying a one-size-fits-all approach based solely on grammatical patterns.
Early Christian thinkers, including those closer to John's time, largely understood the prologue in a manner consistent with what later became Trinitarian orthodoxy. This is evidenced by the writings of Church Fathers such as Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr, who, while differing in some theological details, affirm the divinity of Christ in a way that aligns with Trinitarian thought.
The Gospel of John, particularly the prologue, emphasizes the preexistence and divine nature of the Logos. The phrase "the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1) reflects a relationship of unity with distinction, not subordination. The language used in the prologue is deeply theological, with the intent of expressing the mystery of the Logos' divine nature and relationship to the Father.
The subordinationist framework, which views the Son as inferior or created, conflicts with the broader theological trajectory of the New Testament. Passages such as John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one") and John 20:28 ("My Lord and my God!") affirm the equality and unity of the Son with the Father, reinforcing a high Christology that is compatible with Trinitarian orthodoxy.
The tradition of interpreting John 1:1 within a Trinitarian framework is not anachronistic but rooted in the early Church's understanding of Christ's divinity. This interpretation was not imposed later but developed organically as the Church reflected on the apostolic witness and Scripture.
@Sean Kasabuske
The Trinitarian interpretation of John 1:1c argues that "θεός" is used qualitatively to express the divine nature of the Word (Logos), rather than identifying the Word as "a god" in a polytheistic sense. This qualitative understanding is supported by other instances in the Gospel of John where anarthrous (without the article) nouns are used to express the nature or essence of a subject.
For example, in John 4:24, "God is spirit" (πνεῦμα ὁ θεός), where "spirit" is anarthrous and clearly refers to the nature of God rather than identifying God as a particular spirit among others. Similarly, in John 6:63, "the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (πνεῦμά ἐστιν καὶ ζωή), the anarthrous nouns "spirit" and "life" describe the nature or characteristics of Jesus' words.
These examples suggest that John uses anarthrous predicate nominatives to emphasize the qualities or nature of the subject. Thus, the use of "θεός" in John 1:1c can be understood in a similar way—emphasizing the divine nature of the Word rather than simply identifying the Word as "a god."
The broader context of the Gospel supports the qualitative interpretation, making it consistent with the Trinitarian view that the Word shares the divine nature of God. Therefore, while John 1:1c doesn't explicitly say "the Word was God" in the same way as other verses, it aligns with how John uses language elsewhere to describe the nature of divine or spiritual realities.
The NEB's translation, "What God was, the Word was," is not without grammatical basis. This translation attempts to capture the qualitative nature of the term "θεός" (theos) in John 1:1c, which many scholars argue is not simply identifying the Word as "God" (in a definite sense) or "a god" (in an indefinite sense), but rather expressing that the Word shares the same divine nature or essence as God. This qualitative sense is supported by the anarthrous (without the definite article) construction of "θεός," which, in Greek grammar, often emphasizes the nature or quality of the noun rather than its identity.
The criticism that the NEB's rendering is theologically neutral and therefore inconsistent with the Evangelist's intent is problematic. The goal of translation is not to impose a particular theological interpretation but to faithfully render the meaning of the original text. The NEB's translation can be seen as an attempt to avoid overly specific theological conclusions and instead leave room for interpretation based on the broader context of John's Gospel and the rest of Scripture.
While the NEB's translation might allow for interpretative flexibility, this does not necessarily detract from its validity. Many biblical texts are open to multiple interpretations, and a translation that acknowledges this complexity can be more faithful to the original text than one that forces a specific doctrinal conclusion. The rendering "What God was, the Word was" invites readers to explore the relationship between the Word and God more deeply, considering both the similarities and distinctions between them.
The criticism implies that the NEB's translation was influenced by a collapse in the Colwell narrative and subsequent theological concerns. However, this overlooks the fact that translations are often informed by advances in linguistic and grammatical understanding, as well as a desire to communicate the nuances of the original language more accurately. The NEB's rendering reflects a careful consideration of the Greek text, informed by both grammatical analysis and theological reflection.
Dear Nincsnevem, speaking of misconstruals---John 1:1 is not necessarily a predicate nominative just because it contains a noun without the article (anarthrous). See https://www.jstor.org/stable/3262756
If Origen thought thst the Son and Father and Spirit are coequal and coessential, why makke this statement?
"We can say that the Saviour and the Holy Spirit exceed all creatures without possible comparison, in a wholly transcendent way, but that they are exceeded by the Father by as much or even more than they exceed the other beings" (Commentary On John 130, 25, 151).
Strange, if he believes as you say.
A predicate nominative is a noun or pronoun that follows a linking verb and renames or provides more information about the subject. In Greek, when an anarthrous noun precedes the verb (as in John 1:1c, "καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος"), it is often a predicate nominative, describing the nature or essence of the subject rather than identifying it directly.
In John 1:1c, "θεὸς" (theos) is placed before the verb "ἦν" (was), and it is understood to be a predicate nominative, emphasizing the qualitative aspect of the Word (Logos). This means that the Word shares the nature or essence of God, rather than being a distinct or separate god, which is consistent with the theology expressed in the rest of John's Gospel.
While it is true that not all anarthrous nouns in Greek function as predicate nominatives, in the context of John 1:1c, the grammatical construction strongly supports this understanding. This interpretation is further supported by the broader context of the prologue, which emphasizes the preexistence and divinity of the Word.
Dear Mr. Foster,
first of all, the term "ktisma" in the era before the Arian controversies does not necessarily mean what it means later, considering that the terminology of Trinotology (and of theology in general) was developed and crystallized over centuries. The Nicene Creed essentially condemned that the Son was a product of an "ex nihilo" creative act, not certain words, therefore, but the meaning assigned by their Arians behind them. So Origen could safely call the Son "ktisma" without even being a heretic according to the later Nicene formula.
It is possible to argue about certain quotes from Origen, but the question remains open as to why the Second Council of Constantinople did not condemn Origen's Christology? Why is it that even those orthodox church fathers who attacked Origen's theology on many points, defended his Christology?
Origen’s statement that the Son and Holy Spirit are "exceeded by the Father" may reflect his understanding of the relational dynamics within the Trinity, which he saw as involving a kind of hierarchy. However, this does not necessarily mean Origen believed the Son and the Spirit were ontologically inferior or created beings. Origen often emphasized the unity and co-essential nature of the Trinity, but he also acknowledged a distinction in order and relation, which was common in early Christian thought. The "exceeding" here may refer to relational hierarchy rather than ontological inequality.
"And that you may understand that the omnipotence of Father and Son is one and the same, as God and the Lord are one and the same with the Father, listen to the manner in which John speaks in the Apocalypse: 'Thus saith the Lord God, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.' For who else was "He which is to come" than Christ? And as no one ought to be offended, seeing God is the Father, that the Saviour is also God; so also, since the Father is called omnipotent, no one ought to be offended that the Son of God is also cared omnipotent." (De Principis, On Christ, Book 1, Ch 2)
"Nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification." (De Principis, Book I, ch. 3)
In Origen's theological framework, the Father was often seen as the source or principle (arche) from whom the Son and the Spirit derive, but this did not imply that they were less divine or of a different essence. Instead, it reflects the early Church’s efforts to articulate the distinctiveness of the three Persons while maintaining their unity in substance (homoousios), which was later more fully developed in the Nicene Creed.
@Sean Kasabuske
Let me draw your attention to the rendering of the Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible (EOB):
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was {what} God a {was}.”
APPENDIX:
Although the majority of modern translations render John 1:1c as “and the Word was God,” this translation is somewhat problematic and possibly misleading. As one of the leading scholars on this issue admits:
“[It] is clear that in the translation “the Word was God,” the term God is being used to denote his nature or essence, and not his person. But in normal English usage “God” is a proper noun, referring to the person of the Father or corporately to the three persons of the Godhead. Moreover, “the Word was God” suggests that “the Word” and “God” are convertible terms, that the proposition is reciprocating. But the Word is neither the Father nor the Trinity… The rendering cannot stand without explanation.” (Murray Harris – Jesus as God, p. 69)
In the words of a non-Trinitarian critic of this translation, “Trinitarians do not mean what they say and they do not say what they mean.” Moreover, qualified Greek scholars such as Jason BeDuhn have also taken a public stand against the traditional translation, going as far as to state that:
“Grammatically, John 1:1 is not a difficult verse to translate. It follows familiar, ordinary structures of Greek expression. A lexical ("interlinear") translation of the controversial clause would read: "And a god was the Word." A minimal literal ("formal equivalence") translation would rearrange the word order to match proper English expression: "And the Word was a god." The preponderance of evidence, from Greek grammar, from literary context, and from cultural environment, supports this translation, of which "the Word was divine" would be a slightly more polished variant carrying the same basic meaning. Both of these renderings are superior to the traditional translation which goes against these three key factors that guide accurate translation. The NASB, NIV, NRSV, and NAB follow the translation concocted by the KJV translators. This translation awaits a proper defense, since no obvious one emerges from Greek grammar, the literary context of John, or the cultural environment in which John is writing... (Jason BeDuhn – Truth in translation)
This concern has been taken seriously and a number of alternative translations have been proposed and used in recent versions, including:
(1) The Word was a god or The Word was god (Jannaris, Becker, DeBuhn)
(2) The Word was divine (Moffatt, Goodspeed, Schonfield, Temple, Strachan, Zerwick)
(3) The Word was deity (Dana and Mantey, Perry, Tenney, Fennema)
(4) What God was, the Word was (NEB, REB).
The EOB footnote for this verse explains the difficulty:
“This second theos could also be translated ‘divine’ as the construction indicates a qualitative sense for theos. The Word is not God in the sense that he is the same person as the theos mentioned in 1:1a; he is not God the Father (God absolutely) or the trinity. The point being made is that he is of the same uncreated nature or essence as God the Father, with whom he eternally exists. This verse is echoed in the Nicene Creed: “God from God… True God from True God… homoousion with the Father”
In order to allow the public reader to use the now traditional form “The Word was God,” the EOB uses parentheses to inform the private reader that the second theos should be understood in a qualitative, not personal sense. The liturgical reader also has the option to read the verse as “the Word was what God was” which is indeed a very accurate translation of the grammar and intent of the Greek text.
The biblical texts cannot bear the weight Ninc puts on them…
Origen also calls Christ “the greatest among them” in a context referring to creatures in his comment on John..
Since when is being “a god” mean lesser divinity? There is no such doctrine ever stated in the bible
@Nincsnevem,
You're either not listening or you have an incomplete understanding of word function and how it impacts translation. How many times do I have to remind you of the argument on the table? Let me do so again:
For a noun to be comparable to Θεος at John 1:1c, it must:
1. be singular
2. be preverbal
3. be anarthrous
4. be a predicate nominative
5. be count (not abstract/mass)
6. not be definite (in consideration of Harner’s hypothesis)
Now, I had said:
"What verse in John do you see a comparable noun that exemplifies the sense for which they argue?"
And to that statement you responded by providing examples of nouns that are NOT comparable to Θεος at John 1:1c.
At John 6:63, both "spirit" and "life" are functioning as mass nouns, not count nouns, and so those examples fail criterion #5.
At John 4:24, if "God is spirit" is the correct rendering, which is debatable, then Πνεῦμα is functioning as a mass noun, not a count noun. Thus, this example would fail criterion #5.
On the other hand, if Πνεῦμα is functioning as a count noun there, as many if not most of yesteryears translators understood it, then the correct rendering would be, as they themselves rendered the text:
God is a Spirit or God is a spirit ~ See the KJV, ASV, ERV, GWT, Websters, YLT, Darby, etc.
So, again, we must set aside nouns that are not comparable to Θεος at John 1:1c and focus only on those that are, and when we do so we observe that *EVERY* noun in John’s Gospel that fits the stated criteria is rendered into English by translators with the indefinite article, with one very lonely, theologically motivated exception: Θεος at John 1:1c.
Ninc,
We don't need the early Church followers to understand the scriptures. Holy Spirit does an excellent job helping us to understand them. After the death of the apostles the apostasy starts and continues on until the time of the end. Dan.12:4. The apostle Paul never taught a trinity. And John helps us to see that Jesus is the logos of God, but not "the God".
The translator of the coptic certainly had access to the speaking Greeks at that time.
They would know if the indefinite article was necessary or not. (Koine Greek did not die out until as late as the 6th century).They show that it was. So it wasn't a translator choice. Today we don't have any one that speaks the ancient Koine Greek. Even native speakers of Greek don't fully grasp it. Just like most in English speakers don't grasp the old english today. (The Old English is roughly from the year 700A.D to 1100A.D). Finally and again Westcott and Hort who were Trinitians still favored a small letter "G" for "and god was the word." Hmm I wonder why
@Sean Kasabuske
You say: "it must" etc. —but on what basis do you assert this?
Moreover, the list omits an important point: whether the term in question is monadic, like "God." Saying someone is an Israelite is not the same as saying someone is God. There are, of course, many Israelites, but only one God. This is where all your comparisons fall apart. Before diving into linguistic arguments, you should first consider whether the term "God" is a monadic term within the New Testament's theological framework. The JWs biggest mistake is trying to apply Old Testament terminology, written nearly a thousand years before the New Testament, to the New Testament context, thereby diluting the meaning of the word "God." So, was it common and self-evident terminology in the time of Christ and the apostles to call God's 'sheliḥim' as "gods"? If not, then the debate is already over.
Hence the key issue is that the word "θεός" is not just any noun; it is often used as a proper noun in theological contexts, referring to the unique, monadic concept of God in Christian theology. This is critical because, while it may be linguistically possible to translate "θεός" as "a god", IF (!) the Gospel of John were a polytheistic mythological work, however the context and the monadic use of "God" in the New Testament preclude this.
The monadic nature of "God" in the context of early Christian theology means that when John uses "θεός," he isn't referring to just any god among many, but to the one true God. This context overrides typical grammatical rules that might apply to more common nouns.
In addition, the claim that every comparable noun in John's Gospel is translated with an indefinite article except for John 1:1c oversimplifies the situation and neglects the theological context that distinguishes "θεός" from other nouns. It's not just a matter of grammar but of understanding the theological implications of how "God" is referred to in Christian scripture.
Thus, translating "θεός" as "a god" in John 1:1c doesn't hold up when considering the broader theological context and the unique, monadic usage of "God" in the Gospel of John.
"Since when does being "a god" mean lesser divinity?"
This rendering posits the Son as a separate *being* from God the Father, and as having a partial, homoiousian-sense divinity, which is, as the Logos were, "a god" among many other possible "divine" beings to a lesser extent.
@Philip Fletcher
While personal interpretation and the guidance of the Holy Spirit are significant, the early Church Fathers' writings provide valuable historical context and theological insights that can deepen our understanding of Scripture. They were closer in time to the apostolic teachings and often helped clarify and preserve these teachings against early heresies.
The idea that "apostasy" began immediately after the apostles' death is a particular interpretation. Historical records show that early Christians continued to develop and defend orthodox doctrines, including the Trinity, through councils and debates against various heresies.
While Paul may not explicitly use the term "Trinity," his writings support the concept. For example, in 2 Corinthians 13:14, he references the grace of Jesus, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, indicating a triune understanding of God.
John 1:1 indeed distinguishes between "the Word" (Logos) and "God" (Theos) using the definite article for "God" and an anarthrous "theos" for "the Word." However, this does not imply subordination but rather emphasizes a distinction in persons while maintaining unity in essence.
The Coptic translation does use the indefinite article, which some argue indicates "a god." However, translations must be understood within their linguistic and theological contexts. The lack of an indefinite article in Koine Greek means the interpretation relies on broader scriptural and grammatical analysis. However, the use of the indefinite article here should be approached with caution, as Coptic does not use the indefinite article in the same way modern languages like English do. The term "ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ" (noute, "god") in this context could have a qualitative meaning, indicating the divine nature or essence of the Word rather than suggesting that the Word is a separate or lesser god. This interpretation is supported by linguistic studies indicating that the Coptic indefinite article can convey a qualitative sense, much like the Greek term "theos" in the original text. Scholars like Bentley Layton and Ariel Shisha-Halevy emphasize that Coptic grammar often uses the indefinite article to describe the nature or attributes of a subject rather than strictly identifying a separate entity. Moreover, the Coptic translators used definite articles for "ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ" (pnoute, "the God") when referring specifically to God the Father, reinforcing that the translation's choice of "ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ" in John 1:1 likely emphasizes the Word's divine qualities rather than implying a subordinate or different deity. Therefore, interpreting John 1:1 in the Sahidic Coptic as merely calling the Word "a god" misses the nuance of the translation, which instead underscores the Word's divine nature.
The early Church Fathers' writings, while not infallible, provide crucial historical and theological context that enriches our understanding of Scripture. The doctrine of the Trinity, though complex, is deeply rooted in biblical exegesis and the early Church's efforts to articulate the nature of God as revealed in Scripture.
@Phillip,
As I'm sure you know, the Sahidic Coptic is interesting for several reasons:
1. It was probably completed before the later Arian controversy emerged, and therefore reflects an early understanding of the text.
2. The Coptic Gospel of John was completed while Koine Greek was still a live language, and so if this particular translation choice had been deemed inappropriate then there were plenty of people who could have corrected the translator(s) and convinced them to revise it.
3. Coptic was the first language into which the New Testament was translated that had both a definite and an indefinite article, and they clearly understood the Greek θεος to be an indefinite noun at John 1:1c, which is contra the popular tradition of rendering the verse in English as "and the Word was God."
4. It seems that the Copts understood the third clause of John 1:1 in essentially the same way that Jehovah's Witnesses understand it today.
@Ninc,
1. Based on the reading I've done, the view that QEOS is monadic is a minority view, and it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
2. Yes, QEOS is often used as a proper noun that is semantically equivalent to a proper name, but those usages have no bearing on John 1:1c, where QEOS is being used descriptively.
3. QEOS is not a mass noun, and so you can't use mass nouns to exemplify how it should understood. Fronting doesn't transform nouns into mass nouns.
4. About John's theology, you're just parroting the party line. That's all I see you do, in fact, i.e. offer the same narrative spin that I've grown so weary of seeing after engaging it for too long. There's nothing in John that prohibits the "a god" rendering, while there is much to recommend it. It's quite possible that Jesus in John is the second god of the two powers theology that emerged from within Judaism in light of Daniel 7. As two-powers scholar Peter Schafer put it in Two Gods in Heaven:
"I would like to close by putting forward the thesis that it is likely that the 'one like a human being' or the Son of Man in Daniel 7 is the highest angelic figure distinct from God, presumably the archangel Michael. Elevated to a godlike status, this angelic figure becomes the origin and point of departure for the later binitarian figures who will reach their culmination and end point in Metatron." (Two Gods in Heaven: Jewish Concepts of God in Antiquity), p. 24
and
"The title of this examination, Two Gods in Heaven, is pointedly based on the rabbinic phrase 'two powers in heaven' (sheteirashuyyot), which clearly implies two divine authorities side by side. This does not refer to two gods who fight each other in a dualistic sense ('good god' versus 'evil god'), as we are familiar with primarily from Gnosticism, but rather two gods who rule side by side and together--in different degrees of agreement and correlation." (ibid), p. 6
The fact remains: If John wanted to define a trinity he could of just used his qualitative construction and defined all 3 “persons” as “theos”
The Holy Spirit never has Theos applied to it explicitly
“ The doctrine of the Trinity, though complex, is deeply rooted in biblical exegesis and the early Church's efforts to articulate the nature of God as revealed in Scripture.” - they did not believe the trinity as you do today.. it is very clear, they used the term trinity in quite a different sense
“For example, in 2 Corinthians 13:14, he references the grace of Jesus, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, indicating a triune understanding of God.” - yet another misleading argument from you as Paul also uses angels in a triune statement aswell - are they now God aswell?
Sean,
Thank you I live in a bilingual family my wifes 1st language is Spanish, while she is no Spanish language expert she knows when an expression requires an extra word to give correct meaning. And that is why we can correctly conclude that if the coptic was incorrect, someone would have said something about it. I simply cannot walk around or write anything in Spanish without being corrected. For our comment companion Ninc, it is not going to happen. The coptic says a god and apparently no one wanted to correct it. Unlike today in my house my wife is ready to correct anything I write or say in Spanish that is incorrect. It goes both ways for her when she writes in English I am always helping her to make correction. So a god is correct. but God in Greek or I should say unical Greek is going to be correct because there is no indefinite article for that language. It is just that simple. What I am getting from Ninc is that all the Greek speakers did not see the need to correct the Coptic which they would have done if it was not proper.
Ninc of course John 1:1 shows that the word was divine, but that doesn't mean he is the God.
Jesus did not dwell in the divine quality rather it dwelled in him. No the coptic translation is correct Jesus is a god. When you say Snoopy is a dog we can't go with Snoopy is dog because there is no indefinite article in Koine Greek.
While the first God is ton Theon ( the God) the second is theos (god). Anyway the holy spirit is not mentioned here at all. Because there is no trinity of God. There is the God (ton Theon) and god (theos) even if you can't read Greek you can certainly see the difference. The coptic is correct the word was a god.
“the Father was often seen as the source or principle (arche)” - pretty sure Origen doesn’t use arkhe in this sense.
Nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, … by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification." (De Principis, Book I, ch. 3) -the context from this quote seems to be sanctification rather than equalness
@Sean Kasabuske
"Based on the reading I've done" - What JW apologists do under the name of "research" is, in my experience, nothing more than diligently collecting scraps of information to justify their preconception, while ignoring the broader picture that doesn't fit their agenda. I also call it the "dung beetle method".
"you're just parroting the party line" - I could say the same about you, but I'm a fan of less personal jabs and more substantive information.
The question is, if John really wanted to say that "the Word was a secondary, lesser god", was the formula "thos en ho logos" the most suitable, or could he have described it more explicitly with other words?
The claim that the view of "theos" as monadic is a "minority view" is misleading. In biblical scholarship, a "monadic" noun refers to something unique or one-of-a-kind, such as "God." While there might be debates about whether "theos" should always be interpreted as monadic, the context in John 1:1, particularly the relationship between "theos" and "ho logos", heavily implies a unique, singular nature. The broader biblical context supports the monadic interpretation because "theos" in relation to "ho logos" speaks to the divine nature rather than implying the existence of multiple (lesser, secondary) gods.
Even though "theos" is used descriptively in John 1:1c, it does not diminish its significance. The absence of the definite article in Greek does not automatically imply indefiniteness or that "theos" should be translated as "a god." Greek grammar often omits the article when the noun has a qualitative sense, emphasizing the nature or essence of the subject. Thus, the translation "the Word was God" correctly conveys that "ho logos" shares the divine essence, rather than being a separate, lesser deity.
The argument that THEOS is not a mass noun is correct; however, this point is a red herring. The crux of the issue lies in understanding that "theos" in John 1:1c is a qualitative noun, indicating the nature of the Word. The absence of the article does not necessitate an indefinite translation but highlights the nature of the Logos as sharing in the divine essence, akin to how English might use "God" without an article to convey divinity.
The assertion that there is nothing in John's Gospel prohibiting the "a god" translation ignores the broader theological context of the Gospel. John consistently presents Jesus as fully divine (e.g., John 1:18, 10:30, 20:28), which conflicts with the notion of Jesus being "a god" in a lesser or separate sense. The "two powers" theology, while an interesting aspect of Second Temple Jewish thought, does not accurately reflect the Johannine presentation of Jesus. John clearly distinguishes Jesus from other divine or angelic figures by emphasizing his unique relationship with the Father and his role as the incarnate Logos.
The references to scholars like Peter Schafer are interesting, but their interpretations should be understood within the broader context of Jewish and early Christian theological development. The Gospel of John reflects a high Christology that aligns more with the concept of Jesus as fully divine rather than a secondary divine figure.
The basic consensus is that Second Temple Judaism was strictly monotheistic, as opposed to earlier henotheistic-monolatrist tendencies (of which there are traces in earlier OT books), so there was a strict distinction between the one God and non-existent false gods, and the angels were not called "gods". In light of this, it does really matter that the statement that "ho logos" was "theos" is made in the context of such a theological framework. Because a statement like "Zeus en theos" in a Greek mythological work should really be translated as " Zeus was *a god* ", but in a strictly monotheistic work, such as was the default in the Jews of the time of the NT, the situation is already different. And this is exactly what JW apologists tend to ignore regarding John 1:1, because they go into linguistic hocus pocus before addressing this issue.
@Sean Kasabuske
The Sahidic Coptic translation uses the indefinite article in John 1:1c, translating it as "auō neounoute pe pšaʤe." However, many scholars argue that this should be understood qualitatively, meaning "the Word was divine" or "of divine nature." The use of the indefinite article in Coptic does not necessarily imply a lesser god but rather emphasizes the quality of being divine, similar to how some Greek constructions work.
The claim that Coptic Christians saw the Word as "a god" in the sense of a lesser deity is inconsistent with historical Christian beliefs. Coptic Christianity, which predates the Arian controversy, never endorsed Arianism or the idea of Jesus as a lesser god. If Coptic Christians held this view, we would expect to see them as a foundation for Arianism, yet this is not the case.
Coptic Christians were never Arians, unlike, for example, the Visigoths or the Vandals. If the JWs were right, then the Coptic Christians should have been the base of the Arian movement, but there is no indication in the 4th century Arian debates that anyone, including the Alexandrians, referred to this translation. The Arians of the 4th century interpreted it as such, putting a full stop after «God was».
Therefore, interpreting John 1:1c in this way disregards the theological context of early Coptic Christianity.
Experts in Coptic language and early Christian theology, such as Bentley Layton and Ariel Shisha-Halevy, have noted that the Sahidic Coptic translation is more likely to convey a qualitative meaning, stressing the divine attributes of the Word rather than presenting the Word as a separate or lesser god. This aligns with the traditional Christian interpretation rather than the interpretation promoted by Jehovah's Witnesses.
FYI: https://t.ly/TrVlU
@Ninc,
Most of what you've said in your last two posts to me is yet another repetition of the "orthodox" narrative, so for me to interact further would reduce this to an "is so, is not" exchange, and no one benefits from that.
However, I will offer a couple points by way of clarification:
You said:
"...many scholars argue that this should be understood qualitatively, meaning 'the Word was divine' or 'of divine nature.'"
That’s what “the Word was a god” would mean if “god” is being used as a nature term there.
See:
https://kazlandblog.wordpress.com/2021/12/19/and-the-word-was-divine/
and
https://kazlandblog.wordpress.com/2023/03/28/and-the-word-was-god-qualitatively-part-5/
What the Coptic rules out is the traditional rendering with a definite QEOS at John 1:1c.
Interestingly, the context of John 1:1 is about function, not ontology, and I think Dunn's thoughtful suggestion sits comfortably within a functional understanding:
“That John may distinguish two uses of the title from each other is often noted but too little appreciated. The distinction is possibly made by the use of the definite article with theos and the absence of the definite article in the same sentence...As we see in Philo, in his exposition of Genesis 31.13 (De Somniis 1.227-30)...John's Gospel does not attempt similar clarification in his use of God/god for the Logos...But in possibly making (or allowing to be read) a distinction between God (ho theos) and the Logos (theos) the Evangelist may have had in mind a similar qualification in the divine status to be recognized for Christ. Jesus was God, in that he made God known, in that God made himself known in and through him, in that he was God's effective outreach to his creation and to his people. But he was not God in himself.” (Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?: The New Testament Evidence), pp. 134 & 135
Mike Heiser has argued that ELOHIM, one of the Hebrew terms for God/gods, isn't an ontology term, but a realm term, and the Evangelist was a child of Judaism, so his use of QEOS may very well be informed by the sense of the Hebrew counterpart.
You said:
"If Coptic Christians held this view [that "a god" is correct], we would expect to see them as a foundation for Arianism, yet this is not the case."
That's an assumption that is refuted by what even some Trinitarians have conceded. For example, John McKenzie asserted that QEOS at John 1:1c should be rendered "a divine being" (see his Dictionary of the Bible).
David Bentley Hart offered a comparable observation in his book "Atheist Delusions":
“As a general rule, the ‘articular’ form ho Theos–literally, ‘the God’–was a title reserved for God Most High or God the Father, while only the ‘inarticular’ form theos was used to designate this this secondary divinity. This distinction, in fact, was preserved in the prologue to John, whose first verse could justly be translated as: ‘In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was a god’.” (David Bentley Hart, from “Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and its Fashionable Enemies”), p. 204
Have you ever asked yourself where Justin Martyr got the idea that referring to the Logos as a "second god" was appropriate? I think the likely candidate is John 1:1c, and Catholic scholar Adela Yarbro-Collins agrees:
“…the third clause of John 1:1 may be translated either ‘the Word was God’ or ‘the Word was a god’. Justin Martyr apparently understood the passage in the latter way." (Adela Yarbro-Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God), pp. 175 & 176
The analogy between Coptic and modern language corrections within a family does not hold for several reasons. Language translations are complex and influenced by cultural, theological, and historical contexts. The lack of correction in the Coptic text does not imply that it was universally accepted as correct. It might also reflect a different understanding of the text or an interpretative decision by the translators, not an absolute linguistic accuracy.
The claim that "a god" is correct in Coptic because it wasn't corrected by Greek speakers (????) is not substantiated by historical evidence. Early Christian texts were interpreted within specific theological frameworks, and the lack of correction could simply mean that the translation was acceptable within that community's theological context, not that it was universally accurate.
The statement that "there is no indefinite article in Greek, so 'a god' is correct" oversimplifies the issue. Greek often conveys definiteness or indefiniteness through context and word order rather than explicit articles. In John 1:1c, many scholars argue that "θεός" (theos) is being used qualitatively to describe the nature of the Word, not as an indefinite noun implying a lesser deity.
The idea that the Coptic translation proves the Word was "a god" and not "God" is inconsistent with the broader theological understanding of early Christianity, which did not endorse a henotheistic interpretation. The use of "θεός" without an article in John 1:1c aligns with the understanding that the Word shares in the divine essence of God, not that the Word is a separate, lesser deity.
@Anonymous
The argument suggests that John could have used the term "theos" for all three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) if he wanted to define the Trinity. However, the concept of the Trinity is more complex than simply applying the term "theos" to all three persons. The Trinity is about understanding the distinct roles and relationships within the Godhead, and John's writings, particularly in the Gospel and his letters, imply a Trinitarian framework by emphasizing the distinct yet united roles of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. John 1:1 focuses on the relationship between the Father and the Word (Logos), laying the foundation for understanding the divinity of Jesus, while the Holy Spirit is discussed later (e.g., John 14:26, 16:13), emphasizing his role in guiding believers into all truth.
The argument that the early church "did not believe in the Trinity as it is understood today" is partly true but also misleading. The doctrine of the Trinity developed over time as the early Church sought to articulate the nature of God in response to various heresies. The term "Trinity" may have been used differently initially, but the foundational belief in one God in three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—was present in the early Church. The full doctrinal expression of the Trinity, as formalized in the Nicene Creed, reflects the Church's deeper understanding of the biblical revelation and the need to clarify and defend the faith against heretical interpretations.
The mention of Paul using angels in triadic statements is a misunderstanding of Paul's intent. Paul often uses triadic formulas involving the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to express the unity and diversity within the Godhead (e.g., 2 Corinthians 13:14). These statements highlight the distinct roles of each person in the Godhead, not to elevate angels to divine status. The inclusion of angels in other statements does not equate them with the divine persons of the Trinity but rather reflects their role as servants and messengers of God.
By the way, WTS publications have not even referred to the Sahidic Coptic translation since 2008, after the expert criticisms about it appeared, perhaps they themselves do not consider it as big a deal as the JW apologists want to indicate.
@Roman
Rufinus often adapted Origen's writings, sometimes omitting or altering contentious sections. However, this does not mean Origen's original views were Arian-like. If Rufinus's Latin translation indeed "Nicenized" Origen's supposedly pro-Arian writings, it still does not resolve the dilemma that Origen's original Greek texts were widely available and read in the Eastern Church without accusations of Arianism. Not only was Origen's Christology not attacked in the Western Church, but it was also not criticized in the Eastern Church. Gregory of Nyssa and other Cappadocians, who read Origen in Greek, provide independent confirmation of Origen's anti-subordinationist stance. This corroborates the authenticity of the contested passages and supports the view that Rufinus' translations reflect Origen's original thought in this regard. Rufinus, while acknowledging possible interpolations, aimed to preserve Origen's original thought. He argued that heretics might have altered Origen's works but believed the core teachings remained intact. Rufinus noted instances where Origen's teachings aligned with orthodox views, such as his support for the title "theotokos" for the Virgin Mary. This shows that Origen's thought was not Arian.
Origen did indeed teach the eternal generation of the Son, which is in line with orthodox Trinitarian doctrine. However, his concept of the "logikoi" (rational beings) being eternal in God is more nuanced. Origen posited that all rational souls were created before the material world and fell into material bodies. This is a complex view that diverges from later orthodoxy but does not necessarily contradict Trinitarian beliefs.
Origen’s language can sometimes *appear* to place a qualitative distinction between the Father (as "Autotheos" or "God in Himself") and the Son (as God "by participation"). This language is challenging and was later criticized, but it is essential to recognize that Origen's intent was not to deny the Son's divinity but to emphasize the Father's role as the source within the Trinity. His works must be understood in the context of early theological development, where precise language was still evolving.
Rufinus, who translated and interpreted Origen's work, aimed to defend Origen from charges of heresy, suggesting that some of Origen’s more controversial statements might have been misinterpreted or exaggerated by his opponents. Rufinus argued that Origen’s views could be harmonized with orthodoxy, even if they required clarification.
@Ninc,
I noted that you are relying on the article by Brian J. Wright and Tim Ricchuiti. They are not Coptic scholars, they're anti-cult apologists who are associated with DTS. I had a review of their article on my blog, but took it down to edit it to make it more diplomatic.
Three points in two or three posts, which I'll try and make as brief as possible:
Part 1
1. Their reasoning is contrived toward an apologetic goal, and reminded me of the sort of thing I've seen by folks like Walter Martin. So I Googled their names and found that they are in fact anti-cult apologists, who are associated with DTS, a seminary that requires both teachers and students to affirm the Trinity.
2. Their approach was methodologically flawed. They only examined how θεος, the Greek word for “G-god”, is rendered in Coptic, rather than taking a broader approach and attempting to determine how the Coptic indefinite article is generally used when included in their translation of count nouns that originated in PNVS and other types of Greek clauses. The reason they took such a narrow approach is because, had they included other count nouns in their sampling, then they would have reached very different results, and their apologetic would have fallen apart.
The Bible is about “the one God” of Jewish and Christian monotheism, and so it is not surprising that most occurrences of the Greek θεος (God) from the NT and the Coptic NOUTE (God) from the ancient Coptic translation(s) are definite nouns rather than indefinite nouns. In the NT, God is typically a proper noun, which usually functions like a proper name. One could therefore argue that there may be a sort of default presumption of definiteness with respect to θεος in the New Testament, unless there are reasons to understand the term differently in a given context. However, at John 1:1c in the Coptic, “G-god” is not definite, as it has the indefinite article. So, our question shouldn’t be “How did the Copts render θεος when it’s definite,” but rather, “How are count nouns that include the indefinite article in Coptic typically understood?”
@Anonymous
The Greek word "arkhe" is usually translated into Latin with the word "principium" (=principle), and is indeed used by Origen to describe the Father as the source within the Trinity. In his Commentary on John (Book 1, Chapter 22), Origen refers to the Father as the "arche" or "source" of the Godhead, emphasizing the Father’s role as the principle from which the Son proceeds.
De Principiis, Book I, Chapter 3: This is literally indeed about sanctification, but the broader context in Origen’s work does affirm the equality within the Trinity. Although the Father is often described as the source, Origen consistently upholds the full divinity of the Son and the Spirit, emphasizing their unity and equality in essence, even if their relationships differ.
Have you read this?
https://t.ly/APahR
@Ninc,
Part 2
3. They allowed their desire to reach a 'useful' (apologetic) conclusion to short-circuit their reasoning.
For example, notice the following argument:
"Our small sample size is itself a clue to the Copts’ use of the indefinite article, or their neglect of it altogether. Of the 25 instances of the AnNS [θεος], the vast majority are reflected in the Sahidic Coptic version with the definite article (21/25; 84%). Of these, the vast majority are also in reference to the God of the Bible’ (20/25; 80%). It is no exaggeration to suggest, then, that the Coptic translators were disinclined to use anything other than the definite article when translating [θεος]. If the Coptic translators were so reluctant to use the indefinite article with [NOUTE], our question must not be ‘what uniformly required the translators to use the indefinite article?’ but instead ‘what individual circumstances required the use of a disfavoured construction?’" (p. 502)
The point they seem determined to massage from the data simply doesn’t follow, logically. Let me restate the pertinent data:
a. “Of the 25 instances of the AnNS [θεος], the vast majority are reflected in the Sahidic Coptic version with the definite article (21/25; 84%). Of these, the vast majority are also in reference to the God of the Bible’ (20/25; 80%).”
b. “[T]he Coptic translators were disinclined to use anything other than the definite article when translating [θεος].”
c. “[T]he Coptic translators were so reluctant to use the indefinite article with [NOUTE] [that] our question must [be] ‘what individual circumstances required the use of a disfavoured construction?'”
Do you see what they’re doing? They’re actually suggesting that the Coptic use of the definite article in contexts where θεος/NOUTE is a definite noun implies that the use of the indefinite article with NOUTE should be considered a “disfavored construction”! This is simply ridiculous. The conclusion they wish to promote simply doesn’t follow. The only valid inference that we can make from the data is the rather uncontroversial observation that the Copts generally would not be inclined to render definite nouns with the indefinite article. But then, who would?
Here’s another example of their flawed reasoning:
“The same category applies to John 1:1c. This qualitative/descriptive understanding makes the best sense within John’s prologue. The Copts understood John to be saying that ‘the Word’ has the same qualities as ‘the God of the Bible’. On the other hand, if one disagrees with our arguments above, the only other viable interpretations given the other usages would suggest that the Copts understood ‘the Word’ to be either ‘a god of the pagans’ (cf. Acts 28:6) or some ‘usurper god’ (cf. 2 Thess. 2:4). Yet, this leaves one with much wider problems.” (p. 509)
Notice how, once again, they seem determined to massage the data. They want to make it seem as though one has to either accept the “qualitative/descriptive” understanding or conclude that the λογος was either “a god of the pagans” or “a usurper god”. The problem — well, one of the problems — with this silly false dilemma is that, contextually (i.e. in the Prologue and the Gospel as a whole) it’s impossible to infer that the λογος is either a “god of the pagans” or a “usurper god,” regardless of translation, because the λογος is used by God the Father to create all things, and has a special place at His bosom!
Sorry, Ninc, but the Wright and Ricchuiti article is not an example of serious scholarship.
A slightly different approach: do you know the difference between "sola Scriptura" and "nuda Scriptura", and what is the significance of this distinction?
@Roman
"Much has been made of the fact that large portions of Origen's writing is preserved only in Latin translations by Rufinus and Jerome. Rufinus, in his preface to the Treatise of First Principles, states that he suppressed some passages on the Trinity which he judged to be inserted by heretics. Jehovah's Witness apologists, when confronted by the quotations I have provided here often reply that we cannot be certain that they reflect Origen's beliefs, but rather are interpolations by Rufinus. First, this objection cannot be raised with regard to the Commentary on the Gospel of John or the Homily 9 on Jeremiah, since we possess the Greek text of the books quoted. The passages quoted from First Principles exist both in Rufinus' Latin and Athanasius' Greek. There is no evidence that these two witnesses are related; therefore, we have two independent sources suggesting that these quotes accurately reflect Origen's original words. As Henri Crouzel notes, Rufinus' translation suffers primarily from omissions, often arising from a desire to abridge or avoid repetition: "Comparisons of the texts in the Philocalia [containing about 1/7 of the Greek text of First Principles] with Rufinus' work yields on the whole a favorable result" (Crouzel, pp. 46-47). Any discrepancies between Rufinus' Latin and Origen's Greek would, then, seem to be in the area of omissions rather than interpolations, and the extent to which Rufinus altered the text has, perhaps, been exaggerated by some. Thus, we have several works, some preserved in Greek, others in Latin but corroborated by independent Greek witnesses, which demonstrate that Origen held the belief that the Son was of the same essence as the Father, co-eternal and uncreated."
Source: https://t.ly/iNLDD
“ The absence of the definite article in Greek does not automatically imply indefiniteness or that "theos" should be translated as "a god." Greek grammar often omits the article when the noun has a qualitative sense” - this is a nominative singular noun before the verb a parallel is John 1:14 - accusatives, genitives and datives do not count, any Greek handbook can tell you this or Origen..
How scummy can you get Ninc, even Wallace, who lied about having an NT manuscript with the divine name in it ( unfortunately he lied, I would love this to be true) - did not add non-relevant examples into the mix for qualitative nouns.
Moffat and Goodspeed ( who Bowman says is one of the greatest American scholars in history) all agree..
Linguistically “a god” cannot be faulted as a rendering.
Even Harner and Dixon who invented the qualitative theory only took parallel examples.
Neither ever cite a genitive or dative or accusative, because as even Origen implies these are not relevant.
I can cite multiple leading scholars who agree with me, all trinitarian and all who oppose Witnesses - but are still more honest
Jw research is no better than your own theologically ramming method.. they are both equally as bad.
And Ninc who claimed that Logos was a second lesser god? That’s a classification you ( and trinitarians make) not the Witnesses or myself..
Your hopelessly trying to ram a square peg into a round hole, you make so many claims with little academic support or agreement ( or fail to cite a credible source, because you have proven you aren’t credible)
You have to reinterpret literally everything to make your beliefs make sense..
Justin martyr claims another god besides the maker of all things
But it was perfectly acceptable to speak of other gods in John’s time, it was the worship of such gods that was condemned and terrible
JWs are not polytheists. Sadly, I find that some often fail to consider what the WT said many years ago: there is one God (capital "G") and anyone/anything else called a "god" is either an image of the only true God or a false deity. Angels are "gods" in the sense of being images of the one God, Jehovah, our Father in heaven. We are not positing gods/deities like the ancient Greeks or Romans did. The Witness belief in gods follows the pattern found in the Hebrew Bible. Maimonides the legendary Jewish rabbi understood this point well.
To my first comment, you do a lot of blabbing but not a lot of proving… Paul in 1 Thess proves he could have defined what trinitarian a believe today.
John could have also done the same thing.. answer the question, don’t blab
But that raises a question: why did it apparently take philosophy like neo platism to explain Gods nature - when the bible does it for us.. in a qualitative statement ..
2 Corin 13:14 - says nothing of what you claim but only lists 3 subjects.
Again I question your motives in citing this as most trinitarians dare not cite this “proof text”because it only proves 3 subjects not roles and definitely not three persons one God
Why are angels listed along side God and Christ in one passage then?
Or some combo like that
I don’t have time to dig for the passage, I think it’s in 1 Tim or 1 Corin
@Edgar,
You said:
"Maimonides the legendary Jewish rabbi understood this point well."
As does anyone who has seriously studied the nature of ancient Jewish monotheism critically. One of the problems in these discussions is that the historical information that helps us determine the shape of ancient Judeo-Christian monotheism isn't helpful to partisan apologists who wish to simply regurgitate the "orthodox" narrative. So some seem to simply ignore the historical data to preserve and promote their preferred narratives. Christians can often behave very much like partisan politicians, which isn't something about which one should be proud.
Mr. Foster,
the claim that Jehovah's Witnesses are not polytheists because they view other "gods" as images of the one true God, Jehovah, rather than as independent deities, aligns more closely with henotheism than monotheism. Henotheism acknowledges one supreme God while accepting the existence of other gods.
Additionally, while some older OT passages refer to angels or judges *metaphorically* as "gods" (e.g., Psalm 82), this usage is rare even in the OT, and the NT does not continue this pattern at all. The Bible generally reserves the term "God" (with a capital "G") for Yahweh alone, emphasizing monotheism rather than a spectrum of divine beings.
@Anonymous
The argument presented against translating "theos" as "a god" in John 1:1 is based on the nuanced understanding of Greek grammar, specifically the absence of the definite article. However, the omission of the article does not automatically make "theos" indefinite. Greek often uses an anarthrous noun (a noun without an article) to emphasize the qualitative aspect of the noun, meaning that "theos" in this context describes the Word's divine nature rather than identifying the Word as a lesser deity.
Furthermore, the comparison to John 1:14, where "the Word became flesh," shows that the qualitative nature of "flesh" is used similarly to "theos" in John 1:1. This demonstrates that in both cases, the focus is on the nature or essence rather than on identifying the subject as one among many in a category.
The mention of scholars like Wallace and Harner supports this qualitative reading, as they argue that the absence of the article often highlights the inherent qualities of the noun rather than indicating indefiniteness. The translation "a god" thus fails to capture the intended meaning in the context of John's high Christology, which portrays the Word as fully divine, not as a lesser or secondary god.
James Moffatt understood the phrase "the Word was God" to mean "the Word was divine" in a way that aligns with orthodox Trinitarian views. However, Moffatt's interpretation of "divine" does not imply that Jesus was merely one of many gods, but rather that he was fully and truly God, consistent with the Nicene Creed and the Chalcedonian Definition, which affirm the full divinity and humanity of Christ. Moffatt did not support the interpretation of "a god" as implying a lesser deity, but rather saw "divine" as expressing the full, co-equal divinity of the Word with God the Father.
While Dr. Goodspeed may have offered some positive comments about the Greek Scriptures portion of the NWT, his overall endorsement of the translation is questionable. Specifically, there is evidence that he criticized certain translations within the Hebrew Scriptures for grammatical issues and did not recommend the NWT for general use. Moreover, there are doubts about the authenticity of a letter purportedly endorsing the NWT, and Dr. Goodspeed reportedly criticized key NWT translations in private conversations, including the translation of John 1:1. This casts doubt on the claim that Dr. Goodspeed, a respected biblical scholar, fully endorsed the NWT as a reliable translation. Instead, it seems that his views were more critical than the Watchtower Society has presented.
Finally, the critique that certain grammatical cases like genitive, dative, or accusative are irrelevant in this discussion overlooks the broader linguistic principles at play. Greek syntax and semantics must be considered holistically, and isolating specific cases can lead to misinterpretation. Therefore, the scholarly consensus leans towards understanding "theos" in John 1:1c as qualitative, emphasizing the Word's divine nature rather than as an indefinite noun.
@Anonymous
Firstly, regarding the concept of the Logos as a "second lesser god," it's essential to clarify that early Christian writers like Justin Martyr used language that might sound confusing without proper context. When Justin Martyr refers to the Logos, he does not mean a "second god" in the henotheistic sense but rather as an expression of the relationship within the Godhead, which is consistent with the Trinitarian understanding of one God in three persons. The language of "another god" or "second god" was used in a philosophical sense to explain the distinct personhood of the Logos (the Son) while still affirming monotheism.
Secondly, the accusation that Trinitarians "reinterpret literally everything" to make their beliefs make sense is a common but inaccurate critique. The doctrine of the Trinity was developed through careful theological reflection on the entirety of Scripture, not through reinterpretation or forcing ideas onto the text. The consistency of Trinitarian thought across the centuries, backed by extensive scriptural and philosophical analysis, demonstrates its credibility and depth.
Finally, it’s important to note that the early Christians, including figures like Justin Martyr, were acutely aware of the need to differentiate Christian monotheism from the polytheism of their surrounding culture. The worship of the one true God was central, and any references to other "gods" were understood within a monotheistic framework, rejecting the existence of multiple deities as seen in Greek and Roman religions. Therefore, the claim that it was acceptable to speak of other gods in John’s time is misleading; such references were always subordinated to the recognition of the one true God, with Jesus as the incarnate Logos within that divine unity.
@Sean Kasabuske
The argument that "the Word was a god" is the correct rendering because of the lack of a definite article before "theos" (God) in John 1:1c is not universally accepted. While some scholars argue for a qualitative sense of "theos" here (i.e., "the Word was divine"), the translation as "a god" does not hold in the broader context of Johannine theology. The Gospel of John consistently presents Jesus as fully divine, as seen in passages like John 1:18 and John 20:28, where Thomas refers to Jesus as "My Lord and my God." Additionally, the structure of John 1:1c, where "theos" precedes the verb, is often indicative of a qualitative sense, emphasizing the nature of the Logos rather than introducing a separate, lesser deity.
Justin Martyr's reference to the Logos as a "second god" must be understood in the context of his attempt to communicate Christian theology to a Greco-Roman audience. His use of "second god" was likely a rhetorical tool to express the distinct personhood of the Logos while affirming monotheism. He did not mean to imply that the Logos was a lesser deity in the way that polytheistic systems understand gods. Instead, he was emphasizing the relational distinction within the Godhead, which is consistent with early Christian attempts to articulate the relationship between the Father and the Son.
The broader theological and liturgical practices of Coptic Christianity consistently affirm the full divinity of Christ, aligning with the Nicene Creed, which clearly rejects Arianism. The absence of Arian tendencies among Coptic Christians further underscores that their interpretation of John 1:1 was consistent with orthodox Trinitarian theology, not with the idea of a lesser, created deity. In addition, the Coptic language and translations are nuanced, and their usage of articles or lack thereof cannot be straightforwardly mapped onto Greek grammar without considering the theological context. The Coptic rendering at John 1:1c is better understood within the broader tradition of affirming Christ's divinity rather than implying a lesser, secondary deity
The argument that the Coptic version of John 1:1c supports the translation "the Word was a god" is based on a misunderstanding of Coptic grammar and syntax. While the Coptic language does use an indefinite article, its usage does not necessarily imply a classification of the Word as "a god" in the sense of a lesser or separate deity. Instead, it can indicate a qualitative sense, such as "the Word was divine." This interpretation is further supported by how the Coptic text handles other verses, like John 1:18, where "God" is used definitively.
Moreover, scholars like Bentley Layton point out that the Coptic syntax could predicate either a quality or an entity, and it's up to the reader to discern the intended meaning. In this context, the use of the definite article in John 1:18 to describe Jesus as "God" strongly suggests that the Coptic translator viewed John 1:1c as describing the Word's divine nature rather than presenting the Word as a lesser god. Thus, the translation "a god" does not fully capture the qualitative nuance that many scholars, including those analyzing the Coptic version, recognize in the text. The evidence, therefore, leans more towards understanding the passage as expressing the divinity of the Word in unity with the one true God, rather than as a separate or lesser deity.
While some scholars like David Bentley Hart and John McKenzie have explored alternate translations of John 1:1c, the overwhelming consensus in Christian tradition has been to interpret this passage as affirming the full divinity of the Logos. The translation "the Word was God" reflects this understanding, which has been upheld by the major ecumenical councils and creeds throughout Christian history. The minority position, which suggests "a god," does not align with the broader theological and scriptural context.
Btw. it's not the first time I've heard the name Yarbro-Collins from a JW apologist, otherwise I'm surprised how much JWs rely on skeptical (generally Christian-trasher) researchers like Bart D. Ehrman as well.
@Sean Kasabuske
The assertion that Brian J. Wright and Tim Ricchuiti's work is flawed simply because they are associated with DTS and have anti-cult leanings is a classic example of an ad hominem fallacy. The validity of their arguments should be assessed on the basis of their content and methodology, not their affiliations. Critiquing their work without addressing the actual arguments presented is not a strong rebuttal.
The claim that Wright and Ricchuiti only focused on how θεος is rendered in Coptic without broader linguistic analysis is misleading. Their work specifically investigates how theological terms are translated, which is a valid approach when dealing with theological texts like the New Testament. It’s entirely appropriate to focus on key terms like θεος when discussing passages that are central to theological debates.
While the argument suggests that a broader analysis of Coptic usage would have yielded different results, this overlooks the importance of the specific theological context of John 1:1. The presence of the indefinite article in Coptic does not necessarily imply a lower divinity, as the qualitative understanding of "a god" has been supported by other scholars. Moreover, dismissing their findings without engaging with the substance of their argument about the use of indefinite articles in Coptic misses the point of their research.
@Sean Kasabuske
While it’s true that Wright and Ricchuiti have theological affiliations (who doesn't?), this does not automatically discredit their scholarly work. Scholarship should be evaluated based on the merits of the argument and evidence presented, not merely the perceived motivations or affiliations of the authors. Ad hominem arguments, which attack the person rather than the argument, are not a valid basis for dismissing scholarly work.
Your criticism suggests that Wright and Ricchuiti’s focus on the translation of θεος into Coptic, rather than a broader linguistic analysis, is a flaw. However, their focus is entirely appropriate given the context—they are examining how theological terms, specifically θεος, were understood and translated in a key biblical text. Their methodology is consistent with standard practices in both biblical studies and translation studies, which often focus on specific terms to understand broader interpretive trends.
The critique about the conclusion they draw regarding the use of the indefinite article is a misunderstanding of their argument. Wright and Ricchuiti are not arguing that the indefinite article is "disfavored" in general but are pointing out that its usage in the context of translating θεος is significant and requires careful consideration. Their argument that the Coptic translators’ use of the indefinite article in John 1:1c suggests a qualitative rather than purely indefinite sense is well-supported by linguistic analysis and not merely an apologetic contrivance.
The accusation that Wright and Ricchuiti set up a false dilemma regarding the interpretation of John 1:1c overlooks the nuance in their argument. They acknowledge the complexity of translation and interpretation and argue for the most contextually appropriate understanding based on the evidence. Their suggestion that other interpretations lead to theological inconsistencies within the Gospel of John is a valid point that deserves consideration, rather than being dismissed as a "silly false dilemma."
@Sean Kasabuske
Regarding your first link: The argument hinges on the idea that because θεος (theos) is a noun, it should not be rendered as "divine," which is an adjective. However, Greek nouns can carry a qualitative sense, especially when anarthrous (lacking a definite article), as is the case in John 1:1c. Many scholars, including those who support a qualitative reading, argue that "divine" is a legitimate and contextually appropriate translation because it conveys the nature or essence of the Word without implying polytheism, which "a god" might suggest.
The claim that we cannot know whether the Evangelist was thinking in ontological or functional categories overlooks the broader context of John's Gospel. John consistently presents the Logos (Word) as fully participating in the divine essence, beginning with "In the beginning was the Word," which echoes Genesis 1:1 and establishes a strong association with the Creator God. The phrase "the Word was with God" also implies a unique relationship that goes beyond functional subordination. Thus, understanding θεος as describing the divine nature of the Logos fits the context of John's theological narrative.
The argument that "a god" is more neutral and allows for both ontological and functional interpretations is problematic because it introduces ambiguity that was likely not intended by the author. Early Christian monotheism, especially in the context of Jewish thought, did not accommodate the idea of multiple true gods. Therefore, translating θεος as "a god" could mislead readers into thinking the text supports a form of polytheism or henotheism, which is inconsistent with the overall monotheistic framework of the New Testament.
@Sean Kasabuske
Regarding your second link:
The argument assumes that an indefinite noun used descriptively (qualitatively) should be translated with an indefinite article in English, as in "a god." However, Greek grammar often uses nouns without the article (anarthrous) to indicate a qualitative sense, especially when the noun precedes the verb, as in John 1:1c. This qualitative use does not require an indefinite article in English translation. The context of John 1:1 suggests that the Logos shares the divine nature, which is better conveyed as "the Word was divine" or "the Word was God" rather than "a god."
The comparison with everyday examples like "a MAN" to illustrate the supposed neutrality of "a god" versus "divine" overlooks the specific theological context of John's Gospel. John 1:1 is situated within a monotheistic framework, where introducing "a god" would suggest a polytheistic or henotheistic interpretation, which is contrary to the overall message of the New Testament. The Logos is presented as fully participating in the divine nature, not as a separate or lesser deity.
The qualitative sense of θεος (theos) in John 1:1c indicates the nature or essence of the Logos as divine, rather than categorizing the Logos as one among many gods. The examples provided in the argument confuse the issue by implying that qualitative use always allows for a lesser or partial quality, which is not the case in the context of John's theological exposition. The qualitative interpretation aligns with the traditional understanding of the Logos as fully sharing in the divine nature, rather than being a distinct or lesser god.
@Anonymous
First of all, you completely misunderstand orthodox biblical hermeneutics, we do not think in such "proof texts" ("one liner" jolly joker verses that can be added to another, like a piece of gravel) as those who use the flawed "nuda Scriptura" approach, like the JWs. We know very well that the ancient Christians believed in the Trinity even when there was no canonized New Testament.
Your argues that Paul in 1 Thessalonians could have defined the Trinity clearly, and that John could have done the same. However, the development of the Trinitarian doctrine was a gradual process that occurred as the early Church wrestled with the implications of Scripture. The Trinity is implicit in the New Testament, with texts like Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 pointing to a triune understanding, but the full articulation of the doctrine developed as a response to various theological challenges over time.
The assertion that the Trinity was influenced by Neoplatonism is a common critique, but it's important to understand that early Christian theologians sought to explain biblical revelation, not impose external philosophies. While philosophical terms were sometimes employed, the core of the doctrine remains firmly rooted in Scripture, particularly in the way it addresses God's nature as revealed in Christ and through the Spirit.
You claims that 2 Corinthians 13:14 merely lists three subjects without implying roles or persons. However, the use of this triadic formula by Paul is significant because it reflects the early Christian understanding of the distinct roles of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the life of the Church. The verse emphasizes the distinct functions of each, which is consistent with Trinitarian theology, even if it doesn't explicitly spell out the doctrine in later, creedal terms.
The mention of angels alongside God and Christ in certain passages does not equate them with the divine persons of the Trinity. For instance, 1 Timothy 5:21 mentions "God, Christ Jesus, and the elect angels," but this is a rhetorical device to emphasize the solemnity of Paul's charge to Timothy. Angels are never portrayed in Scripture as having the same divine status as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, thus this analogy is false. The inclusion of angels in these passages does not challenge the uniqueness of the Trinity but highlights the hierarchy and order within the spiritual realm.
@Sean Kasabuske
The argument that Jehovah's Witnesses are not polytheists because they believe there is only one true God (Jehovah) while others called "gods" are either images of God or false deities is a nuanced point. However, this position resembles henotheism more than strict monotheism, where one supreme God is worshiped, but the existence of other lesser gods is acknowledged. While Jehovah's Witnesses do not equate these lesser "gods" with the divine status of Jehovah, their acknowledgment of other beings as "gods" in a lesser sense introduces a complexity that can blur the lines between monotheism and polytheism.
Furthermore, the assertion that angels or others can be called "gods" as images of the true God lacks strong biblical support, especially in the New Testament, where the term "god" is applied almost exclusively to the Father and, in some contexts, to Jesus. The use of the term "god" for angels or humans is extremely rare and typically appears in a metaphorical or symbolic sense, as in Psalm 82:6 or John 10:34, rather than indicating actual divine status.
As for the appeal to Maimonides and ancient Jewish monotheism, it's important to note that Maimonides was a strict monotheist who would not have endorsed the idea of lesser gods, even as images of the true God. His concept of Jewish monotheism did not allow for the worship or acknowledgment of any other beings as gods, reflecting the strong monotheistic stance of classical Judaism.
In conclusion, while Jehovah's Witnesses may not be polytheists in the traditional sense, their theology introduces complexities that can be seen as diverging from classical monotheism. This distinction is important for understanding how their beliefs are categorized within the broader spectrum of religious thought.
@Ninc,
You said:
"While it’s true that Wright and Ricchuiti have theological affiliations (who doesn't?), this does not automatically discredit their scholarly work."
What discredits their work is that it is extremely flawed in the ways that I presented, which are valid, despite your predictable groundless assertions to the contrary. Their partisan disposition merely helps one understand how they came to error as egregiously as they did. Theological desires can short-circuit reason just as often as political desires can for those who participate in politics, and any other desires that have worldview impacts.
Please stop addressing me with your comments. If this were Facebook, I'd block you, just as I typically do when I encounter people who hide their identities so that they can troll the internet without repercussions.
Sean: I agree with your comments 100%.
Nincsnevem: I must respectfully disagree with yours. Firstly, how anyone would know that ancient Israel used Elohim metaphorically when speaking of angels or certain humans puzzles me. Context normally suggests what's metaphorical and what is not, but I see no clues contextually (using that word broadly) that they meant for Elohim to be understood metaphorically. Secondly, Jehovah's Witnesses chiefly get their (our) usage of "gods" from the Hebrew Bible. While some have tried to characterize the Hebrew Bible as henotheistic or monolatrous versus being monotheistic, none of these moves are necessary and neither are they when analyzing Witness belief. Use Elohim if you like rather than "gods," our intent is not to be polytheistic or henotheistic or even monolatrous per se.
Dear Nincsnevem, I wonder if you'd call the late Charles Ryrie a henotheist or polytheist. He makes this pronouncement about the biblical use of elohim, writing that humankind is "lower than angels since they belong to a class of superhuman beings (elohim) who are stronger than man by nature and, unlike man, not subject to death" (Basic Theology, p. 127).
D.S. Russell (The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic) writes:
"There is ample evidence to show that [the OT] conception of monotheism was held in conjunction with a belief in a spiritual world peopled with supernatural and superhuman beings who, in some ways, shared the nature, though not the being, of God" (page 235).
In place of "gods," we could call angels and human judges, powerful ones.
This thread will close around 12:00 AM tonight, EST
Ninc,
The WT stopped commenting on John 1:1C because Jason B.Duhn (not a Jehovah's Witness) said all that is needed to be said on the verse. Furthermore the 1st one to use a god in more recent times is Archbishop Newcome's new testament of the year 1808. Hmm I wonder where he got that Idea from it wasn't the WT. Seems like some Catholics view the scripture as a god. What's going on there. By the way was Archbishop Newcome a Roman Catholic or part of what is referred to as an eastern orthodox Catholic. Seems to me that there are 2 catholics. What's going on there?
@Philip,
Just as FYI, Archbishop Newcome's NT was edited/revised and published by the Unitarians, so the "a god" rendering would have to be attributed to them. If you take a look at the footnote you'll notice that they apply the text to Jesus' earthly life. So, the "In the beginning," in the view of the editor(s), was the beginning of Jesus earthly or ministry, probably the later, but I don't recall for sure as it's been quite some time since I've looked at it.
We actually don't need it, as we have the data, namely, the fact that all nouns in GJohn that are comparable to QEOS at John 1:1c are rendered into English with the indefinite article.
Dear Mr. Foster,
"Jehovah's Witnesses chiefly get their (our) usage of "gods" from the Hebrew Bible." - Exactly, Q.E.D., or more precisely from the most ancient OT books from the First Temple period.
The argument regarding the metaphorical use of "Elohim" and the interpretation of divine titles in ancient Israel requires a nuanced understanding of the historical and theological context of the Hebrew Bible. Scholars have noted that the ancient Israelites' belief system evolved from a form of henotheism, where Yahweh was worshipped as the supreme God among others, to a strict monotheism, particularly emphasized during and after the Babylonian Exile. Prophets like Isaiah played a crucial role in this shift.
Regarding the use of "Elohim," it is crucial to distinguish between the early usage, where it might refer to various divine beings or spiritual entities, and the later Second Temple period, where the term became exclusively associated with Yahweh, the one true God. This later development is significant because it shapes the theological framework of the New Testament, which does not apply "Elohim" to angels or humans but reserves it solely for Yahweh.
Thus, attempting to interpret New Testament passages like John 1:1c through the lens of earlier Old Testament texts like Exodus 7:1 or Psalm 82 is problematic. These texts come from a different historical and theological context, where the use of divine titles was more fluid. By the time of the New Testament, Jewish monotheism had fully developed, and such titles were no longer applied to anyone other than Yahweh. Therefore, the understanding of "God" in John 1:1c should be seen within this later monotheistic context, not as a carryover from earlier, more flexible uses of divine language.
The problem here is that the JWs just skip a thousand years or so and bring up these old OT passages and don't address whether angels were named in era of the apostles as "elohim". It is not by chance that JW critics talk about "knight-jump hermeneutics". These ancient OT books were written how many hundreds (thousand) of years before the NT books? The Jews of the Second Temple period did NOT call the angels, the high priest, the prophets, or anyone but Yahweh as "elohim". The fact that calling creatures "gods" (elohim, theoi) was completely foreign to this strictly monotheistic Judaism is also clear from the fact that in Psalm 8:5 "elohim" was not translated as "theoi" in the LXX, but as "aggeloi" (and the NT also quotes it this way!). And the New Testament already received this theological framework.
I simply sidestep this question and the answer is "yeah, the NT calls Jesus 'theos', but it's not a big deal, since Exodus 7:1 calls Moses 'elohim'".
Well, this is completely insufficient, here it should be proved that it was so self-evident in the apostolic age that calling someone "theos" is really not such a big deal.
This citations from Charles Ryrie and D.S. Russell about the use of "elohim" in the Bible need to be understood within their specific theological contexts. Ryrie is acknowledging that the term "elohim" can refer to supernatural beings in the Psalms, like angels, who are indeed described as powerful entities in biblical literature. However, this does not make him or anyone who recognizes this usage a henotheist or polytheist. Instead, it reflects the complexity of ancient Hebrew language and theology, where "elohim" could denote beings with supernatural power but does not imply that these beings are gods on par with Yahweh.
Moreover, Ryrie and Russell are not suggesting that these "elohim" share the divine nature in the same way Yahweh does. The distinction they maintain is that these beings, while powerful, do not possess the unique, uncreated, and sovereign nature of God. They are created entities, powerful within their own realm but subordinate to the one true God, Yahweh. This understanding is consistent with monotheism as it developed GRADUALLY in ancient Israel, particularly in the Second Temple period when Jewish monotheism became more firmly established and clarified.
Finally, when considering how terms like "elohim" are used in the OT, it's important to remember that these uses were contextually tied to the specific cultural and religious understandings of the time. By the time of the NT, these terms had taken on more precise meanings that reflected a more developed monotheistic theology, which is the framework in which early Christians, including the writers of the New Testament, operated.
I know it may be difficult, but if someone asks not to be addressed here, let's please respect his or her wishes. I take this position whether one is a JW or not. Thank you.
@Philip Fletcher
The claim that the Watchtower Society stopped commenting on John 1:1c because of Jason BeDuhn's analysis is misleading. While BeDuhn, an independent scholar, has provided interpretations that align with some of the views held by Jehovah's Witnesses, that doesn't mean he has specific knowledge of why WTS no longer refers to the Coptic translation. By the way, I know that the Bohairic translation, which is still used in the Coptic Church, still has ⲞⲨⲚⲞⲨϮ, but it does not bother anyone, until WTS picked up on this, none of the Coptic Christians who have always been Trinitarian ever thought that ⲞⲨⲚⲞⲨϮ / ΥΝΟΥΤЄ it is to be understood that the Word was "a secondary, lesser god". In fact, the critics only started to deal with this when WTS bit on it, and of course since the reactions appeared, WTS is not forcing it, maybe because they also see that it is anything but conclusive. But I'm starting to be curious about the answer of a Coptic theologian or priest, maybe even in the end I'll write to one.
Regarding Archbishop Newcome, it's crucial to clarify that the translation "and the Word was a god" is not directly from Newcome's original work but from a 1808 Unitarian revision of his translation. Newcome himself, a respected Greek scholar, did not endorse this rendering. The revision was carried out by Thomas Belsham and a Unitarian Committee, and attributing this translation directly to Newcome misrepresents the facts.
Additionally, the mention of Catholics is a red herring. Archbishop Newcome was part of the (Anglican) Church of Ireland, not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. The reference to "two Catholics" seems to be an attempt to sow confusion rather than contribute meaningfully to the discussion on biblical translations.
Nincsnevem, I still do not concur with your depiction of Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrine of God or angels. What's funny is that everything you said about Ryrie, I could assent to it. We/I do not believe that angels are uncreated or that they're on par with YHWH. Neither were the ancient Israelite judges. We acknowledge and worship one true God, not numerous gods. I also never saw you address the fact that Origen referred to the angels as gods although he was a monotheist and lived after the Second Temple period.
Philip, Google Books has a free version of Newcome's translation and it explains how the Bible was "corrected." You would probably like it.
@Edgar Foster
That's fine, but that's why it's important to point out that the wording of Psalm 82 and 8:5 can be metaphorical at most (in my opinion, it's more of an imprint and a remnant of the Henetheism of the old Hebrews), even JWs don't consider Jesus "a god" only in this narrow sense, but rather in the Semi-Arian Homoiousian sense. When Origen refers to "gods," he does so within the context of Psalm 82 and other scriptural references.
https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/fathers/index.php/Psalm%2082,%20Psalm%208:5
Origen is drawing on biblical references, particularly from Psalms and the New Testament, to articulate a view where "gods" refer not to rival deities but to beings who are exalted or participate in divine qualities under the one true God. This includes angels and righteous humans who, through their virtuous lives, become "like God" or are considered part of God's divine assembly. Origen's use of "gods" is consistent with his interpretation of biblical texts such as Psalm 82, where God "judges among the gods," and 1 Corinthians 8:5-6, which acknowledges the existence of "many gods" and "many lords" but clarifies that for Christians, there is only one true God.
Let's compare the Coptic text of the Nicene Creed:
https://tasbeha.org/hymn_library/view/1852
The prefix ⲞⲨ- (ou-) is a Coptic article that means "a" or "one," and ⲚⲞⲨϮ (nouti) is the Coptic word for "God." In the sentence "Ⲧⲉⲛⲛⲁϩϯ ⲉ̀Ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩϯ ⲛ̀ⲟⲩⲱⲧ," it translates to "We believe in one God," with ⲞⲨⲚⲞⲨϮ referring to that one God, referring to God the Father.
The prefix Ⲟⲩ- (ou-) is an indefinite article in Coptic, typically translating to "a" or "one." In this context, Ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩϯ means "one God," referring to the monotheistic belief in a single deity.
Coptic: Ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩϯ ⲛ̀ⲧⲁⲫ̀ⲙⲏⲓ ⲉ̀ⲃⲟⲗ ϧⲉⲛ Ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩϯ ⲛ̀ⲧⲁⲫ̀ⲙⲏⲓ ("True God of true God.")
Explanation: In this phrase, Ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩϯ (ounouti) is used twice, meaning "God" each time. The phrase is emphasizing the divine nature of Jesus Christ, stating that He is "true God" begotten of "true God." The indefinite article Ⲟⲩ- (ou-) in both instances conveys the meaning "a true God" or "one true God," though in English, it's more idiomatic to translate this directly as "True God of True God."
So this is a self-goal, in the Coptic language, the sentence that "the Word was ⲞⲨⲚⲞⲨϮ / ΥΝΟΥΤЄ" does not mean that the Word was "a god", but that the Word "was (the) one (true) God".
Nincsnevem, fair enough that we're not here to judge motives llike who is trolling or not. I agree. Let's just say that I will approve posts which deal with the issues. I will not adjudicate personal disputes/disagreements though and I'm taking a break from moderating. Will check back later. Thank you.
Edgar,
Thanks I will look into it.
Ninc,
I stand corrected on Archbishop Newcome.
On the catholic faith there is nothing to be confused about. There is a schism that exist and has been long long running. I only speak from experience when I tell you that the EOCC members say that they do not except the teachings of the RCC, they don't like to talk about it but to them there are 2 Catholic groups and they do not accept the RCC. Speaking to several RCC members they think that EOC catholics are just fine. But the fact of the matter to the EOCC members I spoke to say there are 2 groups, so as a JW member I will tell you I have been going to people doors for more than 50 years, I have spoken to literally 1000's of people of all faiths. To me the RCC members seem to want to pretend that the EOCC members don't really separately exist. In conclusion, since what I said earlier and what I now say upsets you I won't speak about this anymore.
Sean,
As I look at Newcomes translation I see the footnote that says was God (Newcome) so the translator put was a god not Newcome correct?
I stand corrected. Thanks
Especially from a JW perspective, the theology of the RCC and the EOCC is like 99% the same (interestingly WTS literature still concentrates almost exclusively on bashing the RCC, in short because IMHO they continue the tradition of historical Anglo-Saxon anti-Catholicism doing so, about the "idolatrous popery" and the "leyenda negra" etc.), the Easterners do not even deny the content of most RCC dogmas, they just do not accept that it was dogmatized without them, and in many cases there are only differences in emphasis.
While it's true that there is a historical schism between the two, it's inaccurate to say that the RCC members "pretend" the EOCC doesn't exist. The schism, known as the Great Schism of 1054, did create distinct traditions, but both churches recognize each other's historical roots and many shared beliefs. The schism primarily revolves around issues of papal authority and certain theological differences, not a denial of each other's existence or validity.
The Eastern Orthodox Church does not consider itself a "separate" Catholic Church but rather sees itself as the continuation of the original undivided Church, just as the Roman Catholic Church does. Both churches often engage in dialogue and ecumenical efforts aimed at reconciliation, acknowledging their shared heritage despite the schism.
It’s also important to understand that individuals' views within any religious group can vary widely. Your experience as a Jehovah's Witness speaking with people of different faiths is valuable, but it may not fully capture the official teachings or the broader perspectives within the RCC or EOCC.
@Edgar,
About Ps. 82, as you probably know from our discussions on other forums, Mike Heiser makes a compelling case that the gods there are members of a heavenly divine council. For example, he says the following in an online paper:
"Psalm 89 rules out the notion that Yahweh’s council of אלהים sons of God refers to an assembly of humans because it explicitly places that council 'in the clouds.' There is no text in the entirety of the Hebrew Bible that says or suggests that there are a group of human judges in the heavens ruling with Yahweh over the nations. That position is offered only because of a perceived threat to monotheism, not because it has any textual merit."
This causes one to ponder the question: What does ELOHIM denote? Heiser's answer is as follows from the same paper:
"All the figures called אלהים in the Hebrew Bible have one thing in common: they all inhabit the non-human realm. That is, they are by nature not part of the world of humankind, a world of necessary embodiment. אלהים is what I call a 'place of residence' term. It identifies the proper domain of the entity described by it. It labels the entity in terms of its residence, if you will. Yahweh, the lesser gods, angels, demons, and the disembodied dead are all rightful inhabitants of the spiritual (i.e., non-human) world."
If Heiser is correct, then this opens up an interesting possibility with respect to John 1:1c. If the writer of GJohn, as a child of Judaism, used QEOS in a way comparable to how his people used ELOHIM, as one might expect he would, then calling Jesus "a god" actually signified the realm to which the Logos belonged. This would undermine both the Trinitarians and the Socinians at the same time.
While Heiser was a Trinitarian (no one is perfect), if one sets that aside and focuses on his understanding of ancient Jewish monotheism broadly speaking, I think one will find that it is thoughtfully developed. This has a striking impact on one consensus of critical scholarship, for which see the Intro in his doctoral thesis, "The Divine Council In Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature".
The use of indefinite articles in Coptic may not align perfectly with their English counterparts. This linguistic complexity suggests that interpreting Coptic texts requires careful consideration of both context and the language's unique features. The prefix "ⲞⲨ-" does not always imply an indefinite sense, like "a god," but can emphasize singularity or uniqueness, such as "the one true God." The use of indefinite articles in Coptic, such as in Ephesians 4:6, where it refers to the Father as "one God," challenges the argument that the indefinite article automatically implies a lesser deity in John 1:1. Why is then the Father called "ounoute" in Ephesians 4:6, to render "heis theos" (one God)?
So we can see, the Coptic article "ⲞⲨ-" (ou-) can indeed function as an indefinite article as well, translating to "a" or "an", but also as numeral the "one", distinct from the indefinite article in English. While it can indicate "a" or "one," but in theological texts it often emphasizes singularity or uniqueness, which can support a more nuanced understanding rather than simply "a god" in the sense that Jehovah's Witnesses might argue. It's important to recognize that some languages, including Coptic, use the same word for the numeral "one" and the indefinite article, which can lead to interpretive challenges.
In the context of the Nicene Creed, particularly in phrases like ""Ⲧⲉⲛⲛⲁϩϯ ⲉ̀Ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩϯ ⲛ̀ⲟⲩⲱⲧ" ("We believe in one God") or "Ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩϯ ⲛ̀ⲧⲁⲫ̀ⲙⲏⲓ ⲉ̀ⲃⲟⲗ" ("True God of true God"), it emphasizes the uniqueness and truth of the God being referred to, rather than implying any polytheistic or diminutive sense. Therefore, "Ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩϯ" in this context affirms the divinity of Christ as being of the same essence as the Father, not "a god" among others.
In John 1:1, where the Word is described as "ⲞⲨⲛⲟⲩϯ" (ounouti), it aligns with this understanding that the Word was "the one true God," consistent with Trinitarian theology. This counters any argument that Coptic uses "ⲞⲨⲛⲟⲩϯ" to imply a lesser divinity for the Word, instead reinforcing the Word's full divinity in line with the Nicene Creed.
In sum, in Coptic, the use of "ⲞⲨⲛⲟⲩϯ" in both the Creed and the Gospel of John is not to denote a lesser divinity but to affirm the singular divine nature of the Word, consistent with orthodox Christian belief.
As usual you fail to address the core of my argument…
My argument was not about who Goodspeed and Moffat thought Christ was..
And Goodspeeds endorsement of the Nwt has no relevance to my claim at all.
It was about how honest they are when compared to you.
“ Greek syntax and semantics must be considered holistically, and isolating specific cases can lead to misinterpretation.” - Dana and mantey would disagree
So would any scholar competent in Greek - see Jason beduhn for example or DanielWallace
You are as dishonest as the come Ninc. I have studied biblical Greek
For well over 3 years now..
Read any Greek handbook..
how do you justify the rendering in John 10:33 as “God” but in acts 28:6 as “a god” yet they are the same construction..
Psalm 82 is a poetic and prophetic passage where God judges the unjust human rulers, referred to metaphorically as "gods" (Elohim). These rulers are "gods" not because they are actually divine beings, but because they have been given authority by God to rule, as seen in Exodus 22:28, where judges are also referred to as "gods". The psalm emphasizes their failure in upholding justice, which leads to their condemnation. This is supported by many traditional commentaries, including those that see Psalm 82:1 as a rebuke of earthly judges who are called "gods" due to their delegated authority.
In the New Testament, Jesus references Psalm 82:6 to defend His own claim to divinity. He argues that if human judges can be called "gods" due to their office, how much more appropriate is it for the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world to be called the Son of God? Jesus’ use of this passage underscores the symbolic nature of "gods" in the Psalm, reinforcing that it does not refer to divine beings but to human judges with a God-given role.
Michael Heiser suggests that Psalm 82 refers to a council of divine beings. However, this interpretation lacks strong textual support, especially when considering the broader biblical narrative that consistently portrays Yahweh as the one true God, with human leaders sometimes metaphorically called "gods" in the First Temple era OT books due to their representative role. This understanding aligns with monotheistic Judaism, where the existence of other gods is consistently denied.
Based on Jewish commentaries on Psalm 82, the interpretation consistently points to the understanding that the "gods" referred to in this Psalm are human judges or rulers who hold authority granted by God. Here is a summary of how this psalm is interpreted in Jewish hermeneutics:
Rashi: Interprets "God stands in the congregation of God" as God observing human judges to ensure they judge fairly. The term "gods" is used metaphorically for these judges who are responsible for upholding justice.
Ibn Ezra: Offers two perspectives. He first suggests that "God" here refers to the divine presence among the judges of Israel. He also mentions an interpretation where "gods" could refer to angels, but this is more speculative and not the dominant interpretation.
Malbim: Interprets "God stands in the congregation of God" as God being present among the judges in court, emphasizing that God is directly involved in the judicial process.
Metzudat David: Echoes the sentiment that God is present among the judges, ensuring that they administer justice.
Torah Temimah: Cites various rabbinic interpretations that confirm God's presence with the judges, underscoring the divine oversight in their judgments.
Radak: Aligns with the interpretation that the psalm is addressing the judges of Israel, with God overseeing their actions.
None of these traditional Jewish commentaries support the idea of a "heavenly divine council" of supernatural beings ruling with God. Instead, they focus on the accountability of human judges, who are metaphorically referred to as "gods" because of their God-given authority to administer justice. This interpretation aligns with a broader monotheistic understanding in Judaism, where the concept of other divine beings is not entertained within the context of this Psalm.
Archbishop Newcome's New Testament
https://t.ly/rioT6
1796 Edition, prior to "Improvements" by Thomas Belsham and an unnamed Unitarian Committee
Edgar: would you mind weighing in on the the case argument
Correct me if I’m wrong but the reason Dixon or Harner only cited pre verbal nominatives is because the syntactical parallel for the argument must be exact
Accusatives don’t nessacarily need the article to be definite, I.e when followed by a preposition
Genitives and datives according to Dana and mantey are normally well defined within the context
So why would someone like Ninc be so insistent on adding these to the John 1:1c argument, when no reputable source adds these to the mix?
Ninc,
WT has nothing to do with the member of EOCC that I spoke with not wanting to have anything to do with the RCC member that is when it comes to their religious beliefs.
You try to justify the differences with your words, but the reality is they are not on the same page and have been unable to come to agreement in nearly a thousand years. Here is something else to ponder if the RCC and the EOCC went with what the 1st century christians taught you would not have a division.
As I mentioned the apostasy started after the apostles died as the second century started. It was so obvious that Iraneaus writings speak about as many as 18 different schools of thought spreading around and continued to get worse. The weeds of Jesus parable of weeds and wheat spread like wild fire until the time of the end. That's why the Schism exist. That's why protestant faith came along in the 15/16th century. Whereas the Apostle Paul said one faith one Lord. That immediately came to an end at the start of the 2nd century.
Unknown, I'm answering briefly since it's late here and I'm closing this thread soon, but you're correct. It's important that case examples for John 1:1c be preverbal anarthous PNs.
Post a Comment