Attn: JW's and Bible Students - Lets Discuss John 1:1

by lovelylil 22 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  lovelylil

  This verse came up on the thread about whether or not Jesus is Michael the Archangel. I wanted to discuss it in further detail on a new thread because I think raised on the other thread was an important point about HOW JW's and BS translate John 1:1

  1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

  As we know the NWT adds an "a" to say "and the Word was (a) god, when there is no support for this in the ancient Greek manuscripts. In Charles Russells' study of the scripture books, he also adds an (a) when translating John 1:1. Isn't this tampering with the scriptures?

  How can we add a word into the text to support our own theology? We know the JW's and BS do not believe in the divinity of Christ but believe Christ was a created being; Michael the Archangel. Thus they cannot concede to what John 1:1 is stating for it goes against their theology.

  But, doesn't it create a problem for these groups to say Jesus (the Word) is "a" god? The Bible supports monotheism, belief in One God. It is clear in scripture there is only one true God. So then, is Jesus a lesser false God?

  Maybe we can discuss in more detail here. I am going to work soon but please give your comments everyone. Will be back to check the thread tomarrow. Peace, Lilly
• 

  lovelylil

  Why do the JW's and BS add "a" into John 1:1;

  J ehovah's Witnesses and Bible Students Both deny the deity of Christ, and claim that John 1:1 merely calls him “a god,” but not full deity. They rest their case on three facts of Greek grammar:

  1. There is no such word as "a" or "an" in Greek, so we sometimes have to add "a" to translate into English, (Acts 28:6).
  2. The Greek word used here (theos) has two meanings: usually the supreme God revealed in Scripture, but sometimes lesser beings like the gods of Greek mythology.

  3. The Greek word "the" is often attached to the word "God" or theos, but it does not appear in John 1:1. Hiding behind the Witness rendering of the verse is an unspoken equation: God + "the" (ho theos) = Jehovah, the Almighty God, God - "the" (theos) = a created being with divine qualities. Witnesses claim that the apostle John deliberately omitted a "the" in the final phrase to show the difference between God and the Word. As the New World Translation (p. 775) explains:

     John's inspired writings and those of his fellow disciples show what the true idea is, namely, the Word or Logos is not God or the God, but is the Son of God, and hence is a god. That is why, at John 1:1,2, the apostle refers to God as the God and to the Word or Logos as a god, to show the difference between the Two.

     Is this the proper translation?

     No. The equation underlying the Witness rendering breaks down within a few verses. John 1:18 contains theos twice, without “the” either time. According to Watchtower assumptions, we would expect to translate both as “god” or “a god.” Instead, the New World Translation says "God" the first time and "god" the second time. The context overrules their rule.

     Why did John choose not to put “the” on the word “God”?
  4. To show which word was the subject of the sentence. In English, we can recognize the subject of a sentence by looking at word order. In Greek, we must look at the word endings. John 1:1 is trickier than most verses, because both “God” (theos) and “Word” (logos) have the same ending. The usual way to mark off the subject clearly was to add “the” to the subject and leave it off the direct object. That is precisely what John did here.
  5. To conform to standard Greek grammar. E.C. Colwell demonstrated in an article in the Journal of Biblical Literature in 1933 that it was normal practice to omit "the" in this type of sentence. John was simply using good grammar, and making it clear that he intended to say, “The Word was God” rather than “God was the Word,” a statement with some theological drawbacks. John constructed his sentence in the one way that would preserve proper grammar and sound doctrine, declaring that “the Word was God.”
• 

  Forscher

  I'll bite lovelylil, though I am not a Bible Student.

  As we know the NWT adds an "a" to say "and the Word was (a) god, when there is no support for this in the ancient Greek manuscripts. In Charles Russells' study of the scripture books, he also adds an (a) when translating John 1:1. Isn't this tampering with the scriptures?

  Fair enough LL. An anarthrous noun, what the theos is in John 1:1c, can be translated one of four ways.

  1. It can be translated as "God."
  2. As as "a god."
  3. As "the God."
  4. Or finally, in some qualitative way, such as "divine."

  Any of the three are possible and depend entirely on which of the three makes the most sense in the context. The problem with both "God," and "the God" is that they make the clause read just the opposite of what the Greek Grammar indicates. That is why grammarians had to invent Colwell's rule to justify using option number one.

  When I first studied Ancient Greek, I used a programmed primer written by an episcopalian scholar, Dr. John H. Werner, hardly an anti-trinitarian. Dr. Werner included John 1:1 among the pieces in his translation exercises to illustrate some of the nuances of the use of the definite article in ancient Greek. He made it quite clear to the student that Greek Grammar did not in any way imply in that passage that the "word" and God were in any way the same personage, the meaning implied when one translates the last clause as "and the word was God." So options numbers one and three are eliminated out of hand. That leaves options numbers two and four are what we are left with. Unfortunately there is nothing in the text of the verse to definitively guide us as to which option to use. So of necessity one ends up falling back on one's theology as a guide.

  Ironically, after going to great pains to point out that the grammar didn't support the the use of the English "and the word was God" to his students, Dr. Werner made it clear that that particular translation was the accepted form for rendering the verse in the scholarly community. He just simply cautioned to student to be aware of what the Greek really meant. That was my introduction to the fact that the scholarly community, despite all of its publicly trashing the NWT rendering of that verse, knew for a fact that the NWT rendering had a better basis than the standard. Some translators, because the first option is actually misleading, use the fourth option.

  There is another positive proof for the second or third options, the Sahidic Coptic translation, which goes back to the earliest times of the Christian era. Coptic does have the indefinite article and both the Sahidic and Boharic Coptic Translations use it in John 1:1. You will find a discussion of it at http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/145795/1.ashx. Even Leolaia participated in that one. In short, the consensus seems to be that the Coptic equally supports options two or four. just as the grammatical use or non use of the definite article in Greek does.

  Forsher
• 

  Syntaxo

  I agree with Forscher's comments. Even modern Trinitarian grammarians like Daniel Wallace {Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics) are less than satisfied with the "Word was God" translation, preferring a "qualitative" one, although their theological definition of "qualitative" goes beyond the standard dictionary meaning.

  Both professor Jason BeDuhn and apologist Patrick Navas, neither of whom is one of Jehovah's Witnesses, have defended the "a god" or "divine" options in their books, Truth in Translation (BeDuhn, 2003) and Divine Truth or Human Tradition? (Navas, 2007)

  A subject like this can be (and has been) argued to infinity. But you really can't base the "Word was God" reading on just the Greek grammar of John 1:1. Grammatically, there are other options. Even theologically, there are other options.
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  That leaves options numbers two and four are what we are left with. Unfortunately there is nothing in the text of the verse to definitively guide us as to which option to use. So of necessity one ends up falling back on one's theology as a guide.

  I agree that one can't get get anything definite from just that one verse. But reading the entire Gospel of John can give us a better understanding of its theology rather than our own. Now the opening of the gospel may not have been written by the same author as the rest of it, but I think its safe to assume that if that non original opening was incorporated then it must have been in line with the author's views.

  Many mystics love the gospel of John. Especially since it also alludes to humans (the believers) being able to commune, live within the Divine and have the Divine live within them. If one reads the whole gospel from that angle and then consider how the author may have understood that prologue...your option 4 seems a very good fit. Jesus is divine. But from one possible perspective derived the gospel of John, the godhead would be more than just 3 persons.
• 

  B_Deserter

  The only way this can finally be put to rest is to ask the author what he meant. To me, the arguments are just as strong on either side.
• 

  onacruse

  I agree with what everyone above has said (not that my agreement means diddly-squat LOL).

  One fundamental question that comes to mind is: How do you get into the mind of someone who has been dead for 2000 years? Only in that way, I submit, can you truly know what they meant to say (using whatever language they used to say it). Otherwise, it's just speculation?
• 

  JCanon

  Good point! I agree with "a god" being wrong at John 1:1. But there are too many other issues to contradict that is more simply done than to simply give my own take and explanation on what you present (that is, without a 40-page commentary as I usually do).

  As we know the NWT adds an "a" to say "and the Word was (a) god, when there is no support for this in the ancient Greek manuscripts. In Charles Russells' study of the scripture books, he also adds an (a) when translating John 1:1. Isn't this tampering with the scriptures?

  Agreed. I believe John was indicating Jesus "position" rather than his "condition."

  How can we add a word into the text to support our own theology? We know the JW's and BS do not believe in the divinity of Christ but believe Christ was a created being; Michael the Archangel. Thus they cannot concede to what John 1:1 is stating for it goes against their theology.

  Here is where this comparison gets into trouble. Christ is made the ultimate "god", especially when he returns to heaven, at which time all bow to him, including the other angels in heaven. So "divinity" is a very fluid term. Christ could have been "devine" even as an angel. He becomes more "devine" in another sense when worship to Jesus becomes a requirement of one and all. So being "created" does not exclude Jesus from being "devine". You'd have to be more specific in defining that term. Further, in defense of JWs, they only consider Christ not to be "devine" when he was on the earth as a man. They don't believe he was half angel-half man like others in Christendom. But they do not deny the divinity of Christ when he is in the form of Michael, the archangel. So this comparison likewise, needs to be more specific. JWs do not deny the "divinity" of Christ when he's in heaven. Christ's divinity is thus a "straw man" argument here. It is not relevant.

  But, doesn't it create a problem for these groups to say Jesus (the Word) is "a" god? The Bible supports monotheism, belief in One God. It is clear in scripture there is only one true God. So then, is Jesus a lesser false God?

  Another straw man's argument here. For in the Bible we read that "there is just one god and one lord" and in another "there are many gods and many lords." So it depends on the context. Satan is called the "god of this system of things" and we know the Bible mentions many other pagan "gods." For some reason some think the use of the term "monotheism" means BELIEF in the existence of only one god, rather than WORSHIP of only one god. You are thus confusing the two. "Monotheism" thus refers to WORSHIP of just one god, not thinking only one god exists. But on that count, once Jesus returns to heaven and God gives him a position higher than the one he has before and requires "every knee shall bend", then, indeed, there are TWO GODS for both angels and men to worship. Jehovah and Christ. So while the Jews could have been considered "monotheistic" by general definition of their formal religion, only worshipping YHWH, with Christ only a very special angel, after Christ returns and he is made an official required god to be worshipped, then everyone worshipping YHWH have to become polytheistic, or I should say, DUOTHEISTIC, worshipping two gods, YHWH and Christ. So "polytheism" is okay now, technically speaking, since Christ is clearly a god worshipped along with YHWH.

  Maybe we can discuss in more detail here. I am going to work soon but please give your comments everyone. Will be back to check the thread tomarrow. Peace, Lilly

  Nice topic, but it plays on too many words out of context. John 1:1 clearly indicates the "rank" of Jesus in the universe as god, not just "a god" and the only way to express how godly he is, is to use the term "god" along with the mention of the Father. When Christ becomes the ultimate "god" with no one higher than he is, that term can be used to its fullest meaning and extent, with only one exception, that of the Father. So Christ is described as "with the Father" which acknowledges there is a second god besides him.

  Think in terms of the title KING. In ancient times the co-ruler son had the same title of "king" as the father-king did. So you had two individuals with the same title and essentially the same absolute power, except the father-king was considered superior. So same with the concept of "god". YHWH and the Word are limited to being described by this one term. It is only modified by the recognition of someone else who also is "god." Thus by saying that the "Word was god" doesn't mean he was also YHWH, the Father. It might have been insinuated that was the case if John just said, "In the beginning was the Word, the Word was god", meaning the Word and God were one in the same. But when he clearly adds "and the Word was with God" it lets us know they are not the same person and that there is another "god" besides the Word.

  In other words, the POSITION of god, was held by two people only. YHWH and The Word. That's what John was trying to say. John was focussed on the greatness and grandeur and glory in which Christ was created. But later he calls Jesus in verse 18 "the only-begotten GOD in the bosom position of the father." Jesus was completely unique in his divinity and "godship" with only one comparable higher, who was the father. JWs, so afraid of the trinity doctrine, inserts "a god" and, unfortunately misses the point John was trying to make. Fact is, two share the unique title in this context of "god" with no others. Christ is unique in this regard, being the only being directly created by the Father.

  And yes, absolutely, Jesus and Michael, the Archangel are the same person.

  JCanon
• 

  WTWizard

  Notably, the King James version states it "and the Word was God". No, I don't know Greek and cannot verify that the King James version is perfect here. However, knowing that the writers of the New World Translation had no more knowledge of Greek than I do, and that their Bible translation was written with an agenda of furthering their own nefarious purposes, I am inclined to believe the King James version. Notably, the King James was the first translation that was written to bring the Bible to the masses.
• 

  lovelylil

  Thanks everyone for your comments.

  Forscher,

  You provided much insight into John 1:1, thanks.

  JCanon,

  Thanks for explaining the monotheism better than I could have. I am in total agreement with you. I believe Jesus "Was" God not in the sense that he is the same person as the father but that he is the divine Son, equal in position to the father. Thus he is "divine" or "God". Hope this makes sense.

  John 1:1 is best understood when taking other Bible passages into consideration. Because like some of you brought out you can make good arguements for and against the "a" in John 1:1 and point sides give views just as strong as the other.

  I think the ancient Jews understood that if Jesus said he was "God's Son" he would be making himself equal to God (The Father) and thus they wanted to stone him for blashemy. (John 5:18). This is another scripture that I believe supports Christ's divinity and equalness in nature to the father.

  Anymore comments on this?

  Peace, Lilly