For the love of all things…PLEASE LET THIS THREAD DIE!!!
I don’t think it has been that bad.
It has been a controversial text and it made for an interesting (and mostly civil) discussion.
If this thread dies, fine. If not, that is okay with me too.
The thing that kills me is that a good majority of the posts have been sent in by new members of textkit, who have ONLY posted on this thread, and haven’t really added much to the discussion, other than cutting and pasting from their favorite theological web-sites…if we’re gonna talk Greek…fine…if we’re gonna talk Theology, take it to the Open forum, or the Academy…there hasn’t been a cogent point made about the Greek Syntax and Grammar since the first several posts.
Hence my frustration
Got ye.
I agree that cutting and pasting without making clear that the sender is quoting rather than composing is bad taste , probably worse.
Now I understand your empaphatic…PLEASE LET THIS THREAD DIE!!!
Has anyone bothered checking with the Syriac or Coptic versions? From what I understand, Coptic has both definite and indefinite articles, plus they might have translated it as divine or God.
Here I am, a new member, about to copy and paste some stuff. But I feel it’s relevant. Hope you guys don’t mind. (btw, I intend to participate in this forum)
The NET Bible translation has this:
“and the Word was fully God.”
And in the footnotes:
[square brackets are my additions]
tn [translator note] Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of qeov" (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous qeov" in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69) [Wallace’s GGBTB]. Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.
sn [study note] And the Word was fully God. John’s theology consistently drives toward the conclusion that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is just as much God as God the Father. This can be seen, for example, in texts like John 10:30 (“The Father and I are one”), 17:11 (“so that they may be one just as we are one”), and 8:58 (“before Abraham came into existence, I am”). The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”); rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence.
By the way, not that anyone cares or anything but the Word actually was the Torah, not Jesus. Jesus was described as the Living Word, i.e. he fulfilled the Torah, but who the hell cares about anything. I mean, it’s all what your pastor says, right?
No comment
I don’t have any answers to share, but this interesting discussion sparked some questions.
Is there any agreement about John’s knowledge of the Old Testament? Does the Gospel’s text suggest a knowledge of Hebrew? (The Hebrew employs several different terms for God, one of them plural–elohim.) Did he depend exclusively on the LXX? How is elohim treated in the LXX? What is the LXX usage of theos? John–especially in the opening of the Gospel–shows strong traces of Gnosticism; is there anything to learn from the Gnostic tradition, or Gnostic texts about the term theos, or the concept of God?
An interesting note: the ambiguity of the Greek here reminds me of the ambiguity of the Trinity: is it singular or plural? or both? Could this have been intentional? as a matter or philosophy or mystery?
It seems to me that this would really depend on what you are trying to do with your translation. Are you trying to keep the translation as closely “word for word” to the Greek as possible; or are you going to sacrifice this to bring out a more “reader friendly conceptual” translation?
Personally, I would always lean toward the former. Whatever the method, I feel it’s good to acknowledge that something is going to be lost in translation. This is why I do not really like “divine” or “godly” because these are adjectives, and theos is a noun; so I would like to keep this understanding intact when I translate.
I tend to see this construct to be conveying the idea of a form of semantic qualitativeness. As in the saying, “I am light”. This is neither definite, nor indefinite; but carries a sense of archetypical quality. “Any and all qualities of phos are summed up in/by me.” There is no light, either definite or indefinite, that I do not sum up in quality.
So, I would, personally, translate the verse as it is usually translated, “the word was God”. To my mind, this is stating that “any and all qualities of theos are summed up by/in the word.” Whatever ho theos is in quality, the word must also be. The two may not be individually the same, but whatever their difference in individuality, their status, their quality of being theos, is the same.
There are some translations that say something like, “what God was, the word was” which does a good job of conveying the idea, even if it isn’t exactly keeping the integrity of the words themselves intact.
At any rate, I do think it depends on what you are trying to do with your translation. Something will be lost in translation whatever road is taken.
Above are some good questions:
“Is there any agreement about John’s knowledge of the Old Testament? Does the Gospel’s text suggest a knowledge of Hebrew?”
Personally, I feel that the case for Aramaic primacy is very much more compelling than the case for Greek primacy. The text does suggest a knowledge of Semitic language; as the bulk of the New Testament. Much like the LXX, it shows signs of being more “Hebraic” in syntax and such, than Greek. To me, this guides toward understanding that the Greek is actually a form of “translational” Greek, like the LXX.
“(The Hebrew employs several different terms for God, one of them plural–elohim.) Did he depend exclusively on the LXX?”
I feel that John was written in Aramaic, and has no real reliance on the LXX. Many feel that the NT quotes are taken from the LXX, but I think this is an incorrect assumption, and that the NT quotes are actually being derived from the Peshitta OT.
“How is elohim treated in the LXX? What is the LXX usage of theos?”
I’m not really sure what that question is asking. Elohim is translated as theos (both articular and anarthrous) like it is in the NT. It isn’t plural, if that is what is being asked.
“John–especially in the opening of the Gospel–shows strong traces of Gnosticism; is there anything to learn from the Gnostic tradition, or Gnostic texts about the term theos, or the concept of God?”
The word “Gnosticism” can be a little misleading as a dogmatic label. There were (and are) as many variations of Gnosticism as there are any other form of Christianity. Some taught Demi-urgic doctrine in application to o theos of the OT; some did not. But, as far as I can discern, there is not really much to learn from Gnostic doctrine concerning “God” that is not also able to be theologically derived from any other ideology.
That John’s prologue shows “strong traces of Gnostic tradition” is a somewhat general statement, also.
“An interesting note: the ambiguity of the Greek here reminds me of the ambiguity of the Trinity: is it singular or plural? or both? Could this have been intentional? as a matter or philosophy or mystery?”
The Hebrew is generally a little more useful in this question. The word elohim is plural; but it doesn’t act like a plural word when used of the God of Abraham. Like many languages, plural in Hebrew want plural verb/adjective use. But elohim, when used of the God of Abraham, doesn’t want to do that. It is a plural word that wants singular verb/adjectiv use. So, it is uniquely odd in that respect. Any other elohim, aside from the elohim of Abraham, wants to act the way it should, with plural verb/adjective use.
So, when the trinity is applied, it looks at the odd plural/singular relation and applies it in the way that it can have one God, that is also more than one “person”.
But, that is debatable, I suppose.
cweb255
wrote
Has anyone bothered checking with the Syriac or Coptic versions? From what I understand, Coptic has both definite and indefinite articles, plus they might have translated it as divine or God.
Here it is
ok…I’m confused…are you cwebb or are you Erich?? oh and yes…
For the love of all things…PLEASE LET THIS THREAD DIE!!!
I have two things to say. First pick up a good history book, Anyone from Durant to Keneth Scott Lahourette will answer you question. Secondly this debate has less to do with greek than it does with a person’s world view. Let it rest. If you really care about the nature of the trinity go to seminary. Go home and rea d a history book.
To Turendil
Sorry, I do not agree with you. I am a philologist not a philosopher, so I am interested in languages, in a real and correct translation in accordance with the grammar rules , comparing with another languages and translations, and not with religious and philosophical ideas.
I am a teacher not a clergyman.
To Kopio
Sorry for my mistake
I am Erich I meant that the cweb
To Turendil
Sorry, I do not agree with you. I am a philologist not a philosopher, so I am interested in languages, in a real and correct translation in accordance with the grammar rules , comparing with another languages and translations, and not with religious and philosophical ideas.
I am a teacher not a clergyman.
To Kopio
Sorry for my mistake
I am Erich I meant the cweb255 opinion about a comparison with Syriac or Coptic versions , contribute to the explanation, if god or a god.
In Coptic
Auw pshaje nefshoop nnahrm pnoute
and the Word was wih the God (pnoute)
Auw neunoute pe pshaje
and a god (neunoute) was the Word
http://st-takla.org/Learn_Languages/01_Learn_Coptic-ta3leem-2ebty/Learn-Coptic_00-index_El-Fehres.htm
http://www.stshenouda.com/coptlang/copthist.htm
http://www.stshenouda.com/coptlang/cptlsn1w.htm
Definite Article: Coptic uses three distinct characters to define gender and number of a noun. They are ‘p’ for the singular masculine, ‘t’ for the singular feminine, and ‘n’ for the plural. This arrangement occurs in many nominal prefixes. The first one that we will deal with is the “Definite Article”.
Form: The Bohairic dialect has two distinct types of articles in the singular. The longer form is referred to as ‘Strong’ and the shorter one is labeled ‘Weak’. The definite article is always prefixed to the noun it modifies. In English the definite article is equivalent to ‘the’.
Type
Singular
Plural
Masculine
Feminine
Strong
pi-
]-
ni- nen-
Weak
p- v-
t- y
Uses:
Singular: Weak articles are used to specify the word in a less exact way, so they are used for generic nouns, abstract nouns, and nouns that are one of a kind. Strong articles on the other hand specify the word in a more exact way by referring to specific person or thing, as follows:
Weak
Strong
v.nou]
God
pi.nou]
the god
t.ve
Heaven
].ve m.beri
the new heaven
2.2.2.2 Plural: For plural articles (both genders) nen- is used only with prefixed nouns, while ni- is used everywhere else, example:
nen.s/ri m.p.icra/l The sons of Israel
Indefinite Article:
form: Coptic has two distinct indefinite articles, one for the singular ou- and one for the plural han-. Like the definite article, they are prefixed directly to the nouns they modify, examples:
Singular
Plural
ou.joi
a ship
han.ej/ou
ships, some ships
ou.rwmi
a man
han.rwmi
men, some men
uses:
Singular: The indefinite article for singular is used for both masculine and feminine. In English it is translated as ‘a’ or ‘an’ before vowel-sounding letters. It is sometimes deleted in Coptic but should always be written out when translating into English.
Plural: The indefinite article for the plural is always written out in Coptic. In English it is translated as ‘some’ or in most cases not translated. Care should be taken in translating the noun that follows it in the plural.
I’ll have to agree with the last post - in fact if you consult Mounce’s “Basics of Biblical Greek” he has an excellent Exegetical Insight based on this exact discussion which really clears it up - This is a Predicatate Nominative - to translate it means that the “subject” (nominative) is being described (predicated) BUT not by an adjective but by another noun - for example (if you don’t have Mounce) John IS a man (or if you put it in mathematical terms John=a Man) in Greek you identify the SUBJECT (the nominative) by using the definite article (“the” or ho in Gk.) The predicate CAN NOT take the article otherwise the whole predicate nominative flies out the window - and in fact as Mounce points out Jesus would BE God the Father if it read “and the Word was the God”). So that is why it is “necessarily without the article” - you would never know what the subject was - So logically kai Theos ev ho logos - we see that the logos is the subject because it has the “ho” and the predicate is Theos (because it doesn’t have a ho). Therefore we translate with subject first “The word was God” - not “a god” because that brings in a whole host of theological problems for people claiming to be monotheists.
-
Or to god back to our mathematical illustration the Word=God what the Word is God is and what God is the Word is. If they wanted to say “godlike or divine” then I think John would have used the term “theotes” “godhead or divinity” from Col. 2:9.
-
In John 17:3 Jesus affirms that there is only 1 true God - so if Jesus is “a god” (and most J.W.'s will not say he is the only True God of Jn. 17:3 - because that in their opinion is speaking about JHVH/YHWH) then he could not be the only True God and therefore a false god.
-
On “divine or God” I would err on the side of literalism and go with God - it si the most logical and natural way to translate it.
-
what is interesting is that Johannes Greber “a medium to god’s spirit world” (obviously a spiritist) agrees with the J.W. translation of “a god” because he recieved it from spirits when he was in a trance! (for what that is worth…)
The best (literally) translation is “god is speech”, and in the metaphorical sense, “Reason is divine”. Logos has many meanings, aside from “word”. I think from a theological aspect, Logos means reason, the ability for logical assumptions and conclusions.
Assuming that “literal” is best.
Well, I’ll be…
That would certainly require a total disregard of context.
To translate it Reason is Divine is really not tenable. Would one say that “human” reason is divine? That is nonsense - the whole point of the the passage is that “the Word was God” - clarity - this passage is crystal clear and to translate it any other way really muddies the water.
Admittedly there are many ways to translate the word word BUT we always must look at the context and determine the authors intended meaning. The word board in english is used many different ways - we walked on board, we cut a board, we sat in the board meeting, I talked with the board… and only the context helps us figure out which meaning is the correct one.
John is constantly trying to bring out Christ’s divinity - that he is God, from the front of the Gospel to the back end (Thomas said my lord and my God). So if he begins his Gospel with a statment to that effect that the “Word was God” and that the Word dwelt among us it seems to be the most logical choice of words. Let a Word be a Word and Let God be God!