Ah yes, I was thinking of the dynamic process of interpretation and rationalizing that leads up to the creeds, not the static creeds themselves which are, well, texts ... authoritative texts like the biblical texts at the beginning (albeit with probably more fixity).
The NWT of John 1:1; Some Questions For Leolaia and Narkissos
by FireNBandits 40 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
FireNBandits
Good point. The creeds are themselves source texts just as the NT texts. In all fairness to the creeds, theologians of the Eastern Orthodox Churches have no problem in mining the creeds for fresh insights and applications. Most of them anything but dead and dry. Thanks Leo.
Martin -
anakolouthos
Good questions & observations, FireNBandits. Just bookmarking this for later reading & digesting. :-) Rock on, smart people.
-
anakolouthos
Good questions & observations, FireNBandits. Just bookmarking this for later reading & digesting. :-)
Rock on, smart people. -
FireNBandits
Hello Anakolouthos! I'll have to keep my eyes out for your inconsistencies in logic.
Thanks for dropping in, and blessings divine to you. -Martin -
Doug Mason
FireNBandits,
Thank you for noting my "low-level" comment in among that heady stuff. I believe that showing a JW how the WTS misquotes and misrepresents authoritative statements should carry some weight.
You will find a copy of Julius Mantey's letter of complaint in Michael van Buskirk's "The Scholastic Dishonesty of The WATCHTOWER" (CARIS) along with other supporting material from Mantey (pages 11 to 14). Buskirk says the booklet is a Chapter taken from his book "The Sandcastle of Jehovah's WItnesses (1975); I have not seen that book.
In my searching I came across a page that is relevant: http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/bible-for-dummies/BD0805W3.htm
Many years ago (probably about 30 years or so), I was given the following page, but I have not been able to find it on the www.
Doug
------------------------------
ADULTERATING THE BIBLE
Julius Robert ManteyJohn 1:1, which reads , “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” is shockingly mistranslated: “Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god," in the "New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures," published under the auspices of Jehovah’ s Witnesses. Since my name is used and our "Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament" is quoted on page 744 to seek to justify their translation, I am making this statement.
The translation suggested in our Grammar for the disputed passage is, “the Word was deity." Moffatt’s rendering is "the Word was divine." Williams’ translation is, "the Word was God himself." Each translation reflects the-dominant idea in the Greek For, whenever an article does not precede a noun in Greek, that noun can either be considered as emphasizing the character, nature, essence, or quality of a person or thing 2 as theos (God) does in John 1:1, or it can be translated in certain contexts as indefinite, as they have done. But or all the scholars in the world, as far as we know, not one has translated this verse as have Jehovah’s Witnesses.
If the Greek article occurred with both Word and God in John 1:1 the implication would be that they are one and the same person, absolutely identical. But John affirmed that "the Word was with (the) God" (the definite article preceding each noun), and in so writing he indicated his belief that they are distinct and separate personalities. Then John next stated that the Word was God, that is, of the same family or essence that characterizes the Creator. Or, in other words, that both are of the same nature, and that nature is the highest in existence; namely, divine.
Examples where the noun in the-predicate does not have an article, as in the above verse, are: John 4:24, "God is spirit” (not a spirit); 1 John 4:16, "God is love" (not a love); and Matthew 13:39, the reapers are angels," that is, they are the type of beings known as angels". In each instance, the noun in the predicate was used to describe some quality or characteristic of the subject, whether as to nature or type.
The Apostle John, in the context of the introduction to his gospel, is pulling all the stops out of language to portray not only the deity of Christ, but also his equality with the Father. He states that the Word was in the beginning, that he was with God, that he was God, that all creation came into existence through him, and that not even one thing exists which was not created by Christ. What else could be-said that John did not say? In John 1:18, he explained that Christ had been so intimate with the Father that he was in his bosom and that he came to earth to exhibit or portray God. But if we had no other statement from John except that which is found in John 14:9, "He that has seen me has seen the Father,” that would be enough to satisfy the seeking; soul that Christ and God are the same in essence and that both are divine and equal in nature.
(The Watchman-Examiner, November 20, 1952. Reprinted in The Ministry, May 1953, pages 41-42)
-
Narkissos
Leolaia,
About the punctuation or sentence distribution in 1:3-4, ho gegonen en autô zoè èn (which is followed by most modern versions)is actually attested by all unambiguous quotations/allusions, "orthodox" and "heretical" alike, down to the 4th century (cf. the list in the critical apparatus of Nestle-Aland 27, and Metzger's Textual Commentaryad loc., although Metzger himself stands for the "traditional" but later attested reading against the Committee). It seems that the alternative reading arose from the needs of anti-Arian polemics (especially, to distinguish the Holy Spirit from ho gegonen). The earlier reading suits metrics and syntax (the anarthrous zoè, before the verb èn, is better understood as a predicate than a subject) much better, regardless of interpretation. But it does make full sense in a (proto-)Gnostic perspective, which is concerned in the becoming of true zoè withinthe kosmos. (I'd also resist the translation of ginomai by "to be made," of course).
Interesting conjecture about the "missing catchword" in the "staircase parallelism"... although such structures are rarely "perfect" nor even necessarily a conscious device of the writer.
I do agree with your arguments that divine unity suits the absolute "beginning" as it does the "end" (which is regularly expressed by the neutral to hen) -- the question, perhaps, being: how absolute is the arkhè of 1:1 where there is, already, a (potentially adversative, pros + acc.) duality of ho logos and ho theos? Anyway, as I said, it's only a hesitation on my part.
I found the Ignatian parallelism very illuminating, especially with the shift of subject and predicate (as compared to Johannine use). More generally (re: FNB's remarks), the combination of early Catholic ecclesiology with Johannine theology in Ignatius is fascinating indeed. I guess such combination, which got widespread in both the Eastern and Western church through Polycarp and Irenaeus for instance, was instrumental in the admission of the Johannine writings into the canon, and the reflections of Gnostic light still perceptible in the Nicene and Chalcedonian creeds.
-
Augustin
Leolaia,
Thanks for the Harland article (PDF)!
:)
-
FireNBandits
Hi Doug. I found The Scholastic Dishonesty of the Watchtower, on Amazon, since they often carry out-of-print books. It's available for $39.00 which is a bit pricey. I read the article on the Ankerberg site, and I'm fairly familiar with the arguments in favor of rendering "kai theos en ho logos" as "and the Word was God." I'm exploring whether or not there is any actual linguistic substance in objecting to "and the Word was a god." If one looks past the New Testament into Platonic philosophy, from which the writer of the Evangel of John borrowed the concept of the Logos, the Logos is indeed Divine, of the very substance of God, and is God's "Reason" which is evident in nature as well as placed within each human being. "The Light gives light to very man." (John 1:4)
I've concluded that "kai theos en ho logos" is best translated as "the Word was God" but that other renderings are also within the realm of legitimacy. However, that does not magically harmonize the various strands of very different Christologies found in the NT, as Leolaia has pointed out. Each biblical author needs to be understood in their own right, not simply used as a brick in a theoglogical construct. I find Paul to be "Arian" for the most part. The Unveiling of Jesus Christ (The "book of Revelation"), was not written by whomever wrote the Gospel of John. The Greek of the Unveiling is poor in comparison to the Gospel and Epsitles of John. Even a beginner in Koine such as myself can see that. I bring this up because whomever wrote the Unveiling makes statements clearly indicating the Deity of Jesus Christ, as well as the blatantly Arian statement that Christ is "the beginning of the creation of God." (Rev 3:14) This can also be legitimately translated "the origin of the creation of God" which removes Christ from the realm of creaturehood, but nonetheless draws a distinction between Christ and God.
The matter of "the Deity of Christ" and the "the Holy Trinity" is not as clear-cut or cut-and-dried as mainstream Christians loudly (and often violently and muderously) maintain. There is room for legitimate disagreement without becoming disagreeable. (Not that you've been in the least disagreeable, you haven't, nor has anyone else here)
For a few of the Arian statements in the NT, here is an abbreviated list (in no particular order) that should be given thought, and explored within the context of the Biblical author making the statement, not automatically "harmonized" with other Biblical authors:
"...the Christ, the SON of the Living God." Matthew 16:16 What did MATTHEW mean by this? Not "What did John or Mark mean by this?")
"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Matthew 27:46 (Ditto)
Christ "the only begotten SON of God" (John 3:16), (Ditto)"the beginning of the creation of God" Rev 3:20
I'm well aware in the manner in which these verses were harmonized in the historic creeds of Ephesus and Chalcedon, but I dislike evangelical and fundamentalist ignorance of the fact that the doctrine of Christ being "One Person in two natures, God and human" originates with the Catholic church and not the NT. For that matter, the current canon of the NT was decided upon by the Catholic Church, both Roman and Byzantine. Anyway, I am not at all attracted to mainstream Christianity anymore, but am a Gnostic. Mainstream Christians are far too warlike and bloodthirsty for me, as well as being "friends of the world." Their dispensationalism has allowed them to relegate the Sermon on the Mount of a future period, and their eternal security allows them to ignore ethics. So, my studies will most likelt take a sharp turn back to the Nag Hammadi Library.
"Christ is the Ikon (image) of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation" Col 1:15
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." 1 Cor 11:13"The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." 2 Cor 11:31 (The Father is Christ's God)
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Ephesians 1:3 (The father is Christ's God)
"That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him." Ephesians 1:17 (the Father is Christ's God)
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Peter 1:3 (The Father is Christ's God)
"Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace.' 2 Thess 2:16 (The NT makes a distinction between God and the Lord Jesus Christ many times)
"For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." 1 Cor 8:5-6
"And this is life eternal, that they should know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." John 17:3 (Jesus called the Father "the ONLY true God")
"Jesus saith to her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended unto the Father: but go unto my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." John 20:17 (Jesus was about to ascend to HIS GOD)
"And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? None is good save one, even God.' Mark 10:18 This is repeated verbatim in Luke 18:19: "And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? None is good, save one, even God." It's also restated in Matthew 19:17: "And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God."
"For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus." 1 Timothy 2:5
Divine blessings to you Doug.
Martin. -
NotaNess
Excuse my lack of the exact scriptures here.
Scripture stated by God, I believe he states there are NO gods before me and NO gods after me. So doesn't this conflict with all the mention of apostles calling Jesus and Satan Gods? (also as taught by the WTS) If scripture is God breathed and/or inspired, why would he go against what he said in the OT?
And as for honoring, scripture says to honor Christ the same as honoring God.
and John 1:1...it's illogical that God would make his words here, with such controversy, and with such difficulty to understand the context Would his goal be that he didn't want followers to be clear of the Deity of his representaion of Christ as a symbol of his sacrifice to man for sin? ie, he wanted it to be confusing? I can't believe it myself. I think it was meant to be as clear as Christianity has portrayed it, and the way it is most commonly translated.