That is a well researched piece. I'm sure you are correct that the Christ was understood as an emanation of God. As I'm sure you know, the Logos was understood in precisely that way by hellenized Jews like Philo. It would be difficult to believe the writer of John 1 was unaware of that and coincidentally used the identical expression.
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat 164 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
LV101
aqwsed12345 - great John 1:1 link.
-
Earnest
Reading through the article by aqwsed12345, it seems he supports the view that John 1:1c ("the Word was God/a god") should be understood qualitatively. In other words, that theos refers to "godness", what the Logos was, not who the Logos was. If that is the case, the question arises whether the translation "the Word was God" conveys that thought to most English readers, as in English it makes no distinction between the God with whom the Word was and the God that the Word was. In Greek the distinction is clear, in English it is not. The NWT is one of the few English translations which accurately reflects that distinction.
-
Wonderment
peacefulpete, in reference to acqsed12345 notes on Joh 1.1: "That is a well researched piece. I'm sure you are correct that the Christ was understood as an emanation of God."
There are a lot of good points mentioned by acqsed1234 on the subject. However, he seems to rely too much on scholar's opinions, which frequently are flawed from the start. Religion is like politics, a very sensitive subject to discuss.
Like politics, each side presents their side, while ignoring the other side which may have a valid opinion, no less. A case in point, I am amazed to see how some U-tubers present the Russians pummeling Ukraine to the point that one is forced to ask, why then it is not over yet. The truth is that the Ukrainians have done a lot of damage to Russia as well. The point is that both sides have zealous defenders vouching for their agenda.
In the case of bible scholars they frequently make hasty assumptions, pushing their religious agenda without telling their readers there is a counterpart to the story at hand. They rarely do this with malice, but humans as they are, they leave a lot of things off the table.
In acqsed's12345 link, https://justpaste.it/c7etj, he brings out that mainstream scholars use the so-called Colwell's Rule to express their belief which expresses that a predicate nominative without the article preceding a noun with the article does not need the article in order to be definite. Hence, 'the Word is God, not a god.' Although this is sweet music to Trinitarians everywhere, the fact is that Colwell's article does not prove the definiteness of such nouns. He started his study with the simple mission to undermine those who deviated from the traditional rendering @Joh 1.1. He assumed that those nouns were definite to begin with. He even excluded qualitative nouns. Really? This is a major blunder. Also, it should be noted that Colwell's Rule has lost steam among scholars over the years. I would not be surprised if it surpasses the 50% mark loss. The reason is simple: Other scholars have successfully refuted Colwell's article, and some ignore it altogether. They have concluded that Colwell's Rule is not a rule at all, just a flawed "theory" with a great appeal to those seeking to make Christ the God almighty. Btw, Colwell himself applied the word "theory" to his article. In all, Colwell's premise belongs in the heap of trash. That's how bad it is! If you don't like this dismissed as trash, at least treat it as "a theory," as Colwell himself did.
A second blunder made by some scholars is the tendency to group non-nominative nouns with other groups of nouns, genitive, accusative, monadic, etc.: "beginning" (1:2), "life" (1:4), "from God" (1:16), or "John" (1:16) -- For instance, acqsed notes that in John 1:6, 12, 13, and 18, "theos" appears without an article and is consistently translated as "God." This list appears among acqsed's notes. But take a closer look at their grammatical composition, and you will find that none matches the grammatical structure of Joh 1.1. Whether this list suggested by numerous individuals is caused by ignorance or by dishonest intention, I leave others to decide. The thing is that "mainstream scholars" who are cited as authoritative, they themselves explain that these notable differences could alter the interpretation analysis of many verses. The point is that the lists of verses frequently brought up by traditionalists as proof that the final part of the verse as it appears in KJV is correct, are inherently wrong to start with, if not dishonest.
One person responsible for this fraud is no other than Robert H. Countess. He spent a complete chapter and a long list of scriptures at the end of the book which provided purportedly "proof" that the NWT was evil. With all that drama, he himself conceded that nominatives nouns are different from genitives, accusatives, etc., which were the basis for his mischievous intention to destroy the reputation of the NWT. How dishonest is a "scholar" willing to go so far, and still have the audacity to keep calling himself a Presbyterian Christian? Yet, gullible victims keep falling for their antics. His popular book sold by the tens of thousands. Since the Trinity is nowhere explicit in the Bible, their supporters end up committing a lie in the name of "scholarship" in order to prop up their doctrine of choice.
A third major blunder committed by traditionalists on the subject of Joh 1.1 has to be the notion that a qualitative noun cannot be indefinite at all. No overlapping, so they claim. Wrong again!
English speakers are often unaware that their language, beautiful as it is, falls short in comparison to the Greek in precision of grammar. For instance, Joh 4.19 reports the encounter of a Samaritan woman with Jesus at the well. It just so happens that she determined that Jesus was no mere man, for he knew details of her life that only a prophet, or divine person could reveal. After all, the Bible account (in Acts) states that Jesus was endowed with God's spirit.
Incidentally, this verse has a similar grammatical structure with Joh 1.1, unlike most of those in Countess' list. Now the woman before Jesus, according to the Greek text, says, word for word: "I see that prophet are you." Greek has no article before the predicate noun "prophet." By not using the article before "prophet," it is clear that the woman was not pointing out Christ as the promised prophet of previous generations. She is simply expressing a quality she perceived about Jesus, that he had a special prophetic ability like no other human being she had encountered. Thus, she could call him out as "a prophet." The account shows that it was later when she realized Jesus was a man from God.
You see in Greek, you drop the article whenever you want to denote an attribute about someone. “The Greek equivalent of an indefinite article is the lack of an article," so states The Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek. Since the construction of this clause is the same as that of Joh 1.1, it bears that such predicates like the one in Joh 4.19 can either be translated as "prophet" or "a prophet." However, English demands the indefinite article here. It is not good English to have the Samaritan say, "I see that you are prophet." One must translate as the NIV does: “'Sir', the woman said, 'I can see that you are a prophet.'" Either way, the translated choice must reflect the fact that the predicate noun must not be understood as DEFINITE here. Most versions abide by this simple principle.
Greek simply denotes the qualitativeness of a noun by dropping the definite article, as the Grammar above noted. What about Joh 1.1? The same principle applies: One can translate, the 'Word was god,' or 'the Word was a god.' Please note that I used a small "g" to describe the Word. This was not done to disrespect Christ, my Savior. It is just that in English, when you add a big "G" to God, in essence you are making the predicate noun definite when the original does not say: καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεὸς (Sabellianism). Now most readers will understand that by describing Christ as "God" in English, the whatever version is equating him as one and the same with God. Notwithstanding, Joh 1.1c and verse 2 clearly makes a distinction between the Word, and the God he was with.
But in translation either one is grammatically plausible, so long as one understands that what is said of the Word is a description, and not an identification with the person he was with.
Latin-based languages are more akin to Greek than English is in this area of discussion. Take for innstance, Joh 4.19 in French: We can either read: “Je vois que tu es prophète." Or, “Je vois que tu es un prophète." The French word for prophet in one instance does not have an article, but in the second, it does.
So, to understand John 1.1c correctly we have to stop thinking that a literal translation is always best. This is a clear example. Greek has no indefinite article, but English does. Thus a good translator will point out the Greek construction somehow in the modern language. Qualitative and indefinite nouns often overlap, and if a grammarian does not concede this principle, it's time for the reader to get another grammar.
Daniel B. Wallace, a grammarian,btw, states that Joh 4.19 must be understood in the indefinite-qualitative sense. Although Wallace did not express the same thing about Joh 1.1, it does not mean that it cannot be described likewise. acqsed mentions Harner & Dixon as two scholars expressing that Joh 1.1c must be understood in a qualitative sense. He takes this as final. What holds them back from admitting so is no other reason than THEOLOGY. Yes, folks, there is nothing in the books anywhere that states that an indefinite noun cannot be also qualitative, or viceversa. John 4.19 is proof of that. Jesus was perceived as having prophetic powers (qualitative), if so, he was a prophet (indefinite) all the same.
In John 1.1 the Word was god, or divine (in a qualitative sense), or, you could say that he also was a god (indefinite). Does not Scripture say repeatedly that Jesus was the Son of God? Ask any non-Christian what does Son of God mean? Do not be surprised if the receptor of the question understands that the statement implies he was divine, a son of God. Trinitarians say this conclusion is impossible, since theology is the culprit that holds them back from publicly acknowledging this principle.
Take a look at Acts 28.4, the islanders of Malta came to the conclusion that the recent arrival, a man named Paul, by surviving a viper bite, concluded:
Literal: Certainly murderer is the man this > Translation: No doubt this man is a murderer. (ESV)
This construction is a grammatical parallel to John 1.1. This refutes without a doubt that one can translate John 1.1 with an indefinite article. Those unwilling to admit that this passage is grammatically similar to John 1.1 must first remove the veil from their face.
Colwell's rule would demand the translation No doubt this man is Murderer, and the understanding that Paul was The Murderer of world fame. Preposterous!
And finally, I keep reading that the Word was the eternal God because he was from the beginning @ Joh 1.1. Nonsense! I can say rightly say that my Son was in the garden @3pm. The statement "was" in this case represents a relatively short period, not forever. The Devil was a murderer from the beginning. (Joh 8.44) Yes, the Devil is ancient in time speak, but not eternal. The Greek word for verb "was "appears hundreds of times in the NT, and by far, most instances indicate an unspecified action of duration from the past, either recent or far back. It does NOT indicate eternity at all by grammar considerations. One must interpret if Jesus was eternal based on statements like this: "I live because of the Father." > Christ: "the beginning of the creation of the God."
Review of Wallace's Greek Grammar:
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5072584379465728/review-wallaces-grammar
-
aqwsed12345
@Earnest
Your argument suggests that you agree that John 1:1c should be understood qualitatively, conveying the divine nature of the Logos. However, the rendering "the Word was a god" in the New World Translation (NWT) fails to reflect the qualitative essence of the Greek text. The qualitative sense does not imply that the Word is a lesser god but that the Word shares fully in the divine nature.
In Greek, "theos" without the article emphasizes this divine quality, not multiplicity within the divine realm. The traditional rendering, "the Word was God," reflects this qualitative distinction properly without introducing monalatristic henotheism or creating ambiguity. It emphasizes that the Logos is fully divine without confusing the Logos with the Father. The traditional rendering is not definite, it would be "the Word was *the God", but as far as I know, no one has ever translated it that way.
The NWT’s translation, however, risks misunderstanding by implying that the Word is a separate, lesser deity, which is inconsistent with the monotheistic theology of John’s Gospel and the broader context of Scripture. The Coptic translation similarly supports the qualitative sense, emphasizing the fully divine nature of the Logos, not monalatristic henotheism or a separate inferior/secondary/lesser deity. Thus, the rendering "the Word was God" remains theologically and grammatically superior.
@Wonderment
You suggest that scholars are inherently biased and push religious agendas. However, the scholarly process is generally rooted in critical analysis, peer review, and rigorous linguistic and historical study. This does not mean that scholars are infallible, but it does suggest that conclusions are drawn from a substantial body of evidence, not just personal agendas. It is also important to note that while differing perspectives exist, relying on solid linguistic evidence, as seen in works by scholars like Harner and Colwell, remains crucial.
You dismiss Colwell’s rule as flawed, calling it "a theory" that should be discarded. This is a gross oversimplification. Colwell’s rule is not universally dismissed by scholars but has, rather, been carefully analyzed and applied, with its principles still holding validity in many grammatical discussions. The key to understanding Colwell’s rule is recognizing its relevance to the construction of Greek sentences like John 1:1. While it is true that Colwell did not emphasize qualitative nouns in his initial work, subsequent scholars like Harner have explored this dimension, suggesting that the word "theos" in John 1:1c emphasizes the nature of divinity, not an indefinite entity. Colwell’s rule highlights how the word "theos" should be interpreted in its specific context as definite or qualitative rather than indefinite.
You try to make an argument by comparing the use of the article in John 4:19 and other verses, asserting that Greek drops the article to denote qualitativeness. However, Greek grammatical constructions are nuanced and context-dependent. John 1:1’s construction, with an anarthrous "theos" in the predicate nominative position, does not automatically lead to the indefinite reading “a god.” Rather, it points to a qualitative understanding that describes the nature of the Word as sharing in divinity.
Comparisons with passages like John 4:19 are misleading. In the example of the Samaritan woman recognizing Jesus as "a prophet," she is making a situational observation, whereas John 1:1c is a theological statement about the eternal nature of the Word. The parallel does not hold because the contexts and implications of the two passages are fundamentally different.
You suggest that qualitative and indefinite nouns often overlap and that the Greek construction of John 1:1 could plausibly be translated as "a god." This is a misunderstanding of the linguistic principles at work. Qualitative nouns describe the essence or nature of something, while indefinite nouns introduce one among a category. Harner and other scholars argue that "theos" in John 1:1c is qualitative, describing the Word’s nature as fully divine. This is distinct from an indefinite reading, which would suggest a lesser or different kind of separate divine being, contrary to John’s intention.
The necessity of indefinite article depends on the context and linguistic features. For example, in a Greek mythological work, "Zeus en theos" should be translated as "Zeus was a god", since the context of the work implies that Zeus is one of the several Olympian gods. However, the Gospel of John is a work with a monotheistic framework, there are no more deities here, only one. So Logos can only be "theos" if He is the same God with "the God". Linguistic peculiarities are also important, for example, if you want to say that you are a black person in English, you don't say "I am *a Black", but simply "I am Black". However, in Spanish "soy negro" would mean that you are a person named "Negro", so you say "soy un negro". Or in English we say "I am a lawyer" with an indefinite article, but in German we say the same thing without an indefinite article: "Ich bin Rechtsanwalt."
You have not addressed the point regarding nomina sacra, where sacred names, including "God," were consistently abbreviated in early manuscripts out of reverence. This practice applies equally to references to the Father and to the Son, supporting the understanding that the early Christians saw the Son as sharing fully in divine status. This diminishes the argument that early Christians viewed Jesus as merely "a god."
You attempt to dismiss the eternal nature of the Word by claiming that the verb "was" (ἦν) in John 1:1 does not necessarily indicate eternal preexistence. However, in the context of the prologue of John, the use of ἦν, especially in conjunction with "in the beginning" (Ἐν ἀρχῇ), strongly suggests an eternal existence. The contrast between the imperfect tense "ἦν" (was) and the aorist "ἐγένετο" (came into being) used in reference to creation further emphasizes the Word's eternal nature. Thus, the Word is not merely present at the beginning but has existed eternally.
FYI: A Study of John 1:1a, b: A Defense of the Deity of Christ Apart from the Argument of 1:1c.
... and: John 1:1a
Your review mentions Wallace's “individualism” and his “tendency to redefine subjects and terminology.” However, this should be seen as Wallace striving to break down old and often rigid definitions. His approach adds precision to understanding, although some readers may find it complex. Wallace’s individualism can sometimes be beneficial, as it pushes scholarly discourse to advance rather than stay stagnant. While there are disagreements, Wallace’s contributions cannot be dismissed as "odd conclusions."A significant issue addressed is Wallace's interpretation of the article, particularly in passages like John 1:1. Wallace argues for a qualitative interpretation of the Greek term "theos" in John 1:1c, contending that it describes the Word as having the nature of God, rather than merely being “a god.” This qualitative approach emphasizes the divine nature of the Logos without introducing monalatristic henotheism or diminishing the Word's divinity. Critics of Wallace, such as JWs, may object to this, preferring an indefinite article ("a god"), but Wallace’s interpretation aligns with mainstream Christian theology and addresses the nuances of Koine Greek more faithfully.
Your review accuses Wallace of dishonesty, particularly in his treatment of Colwell’s Rule and his evangelical leanings. It claims that Wallace inconsistently applies the rule and accuses him of theological bias. However, it’s important to note that Wallace’s positions are well-supported by his analysis of Greek syntax and the broader context of Scripture. While he acknowledges the misuse of Colwell’s Rule by others, his conclusions about John 1:1 are not based on theological bias alone but on a careful linguistic analysis that remains consistent with mainstream Trinitarian scholarship.
The criticism that Wallace inconsistently renders John 1:1c as "God" rather than "a god" is grounded in the theological implication of the term. Wallace maintains that "theos" in John 1:1c is qualitative, indicating the Logos shares in the full divine essence. JWs argue for an indefinite rendering, but Wallace correctly notes that such a translation introduces a henotheistic nuance foreign to John’s intent and the early Christian understanding of Jesus as fully divine.
To sum up, the interpretation of John 1:1c as "the Word was God" is supported by the qualitative understanding of "theos" in Greek, affirmed by numerous scholars, and aligns with the broader theological context of John's Gospel. Attempts to translate this passage as "a god" introduce unnecessary theological confusion, are inconsistent with early Christian practices, and are not supported by the grammatical evidence.
-
slimboyfat
The Jew, Philo described the Logos as an archangel and a secondary god around the time that the gospel of John was written. Origen, the greatest scholar of the early church explained that Jesus is a “second god” in John 1.1. In modern times, the scholar Jason BeDuhn argues that the NWT’s “a god” is the most accurate translation. Another scholar, David Bentley Hart, who is an Orthodox Christian, and a Trinitarian, argues that “god” is the best translation. Adela Yarbro Collins, a senior biblical scholar who is a past president of the Society of Biblical Literature, argues that the Word is “a god” in John 1. Those scholars who argue that the NWT’s “a god” is not accurate are invariably trinitarians who are motivated to protect church dogma. -
Earnest
aqwsed12345 : The traditional rendering, "the Word was God," reflects this qualitative distinction properly without introducing monalatristic henotheism or creating ambiguity. It emphasizes that the Logos is fully divine without confusing the Logos with the Father. The traditional rendering is not definite, it would be "the Word was *the God", but as far as I know, no one has ever translated it that way.
Au contraire. The English translation "The Word was with God and the Word was God" confuses the Logos with the Father, as English readers infer the definite article in both references to 'God'. In saying "the Word was God" there is no distinction between who the Word was and what the Word was. If it was written as the Greek is, namely "THE WORD WAS WITH THE GOD AND THE WORD WAS GOD" that would be a bit less confusing, but in our monotheistic culture that is still subject to ambiguity. The NEB translates this verse as "what God was the Word was" which certainly makes the distinction clearer, but I fail to see the difference between that and saying "the Word was a god" apart from the fact that the second rendering follows the Greek more closely. -
blondie
I was curious about how the WTS depended on quotes of people outside of the WTS, to confirm the WTS teachings. Can they not use the scriptures to do that? Did Jesus quote Jewish bible scholars of his time or before? And there were "bible" experts, Sadducees, priests, Pharisees, and many bible readers know how Jesus felt about them. These groups developed an alternate book to the Old Testament to teach the "common" people what those scriptures really meant, and it has become known as the Talmud (not the Torah), approximately 600 statements and the Jews were required to follow that, that is the religious leaders opinions. Many times the scholars the WTS quotes from, on further examination, actually believed in things totally contrary to what their "bible" says. I wondered that for many years. I have been in the WT library at Bethel and read many WTS books not available to jws outside Bethel. That was eye-opening to me. I would be wary of using outside sources (that the WTS has not held in high esteem) to support. (Once again reporting, not supporting the WTS ideas) Love, Blondie
-
aqwsed12345
@slimboyfat
As usual, you are doing nothing but quoting from impious, modernist, Christian-basher authors and liberal theologians, doing a quote mining, instead of relying on the original sources themself, and reading even once a single early Christian source from cover to cover. And then maybe you wouldn't come with what your favorite liberal theologian thinks the particular church father thought, but you would finally let him speak personally.
It is a typical WTS apologetic method that instead of addressing doctrinal or translation criticisms at face value, they collect quotes from supposed authorities saying "see? even he said that!". Sorry, but that's just a "but he farted too!" type of argument.
Philo did describe the Logos as a "secondary god," but his use of the term does not align with Christian theology. Philo's Logos is an abstract intermediary, not a person, and certainly not equated with the Christian understanding of Jesus as fully divine.
Origen's reference to the Son as a "second god" must be understood in context. Origen did not mean that the Logos was a different or inferior god in the way henotheism would imply. Rather, he emphasized the eternal generation of the Son, indicating a relational distinction within the Trinity without diminishing the Son's divinity. Origen was careful to affirm the Son’s full divinity, yet distinct personhood from the Father, which aligns with Nicene orthodoxy.
FYI: Origen’s Anti-Subordinationism and its Heritage in the Nicene and Cappadocian Line
BeDuhn's and Hart's arguments about the translation "a god" are complex but ultimately not conclusive. While BeDuhn suggests that "a god" is grammatically possible, it is not theologically appropriate in the context of John's prologue. Bentley Hart's arguments also focus on the nuanced understanding of "god" as qualitative, not promoting monolatristic henothism. His suggestion to translate "god" reflects his focus on avoiding misunderstandings of definite and indefinite articles, but it does not endorse the idea of Jesus as a lesser deity.
Collins' discussion on the Word as "a god" focuses on the ancient conceptualizations of divinity and does not imply the diminishment of Jesus' divinity. Her scholarly argument revolves around historical linguistics rather than asserting that the early Christians considered Christ a mere “god” among many.
It is incorrect to assume that those who oppose the "a god" translation are purely motivated by church dogma. Many of these scholars are focused on preserving the proper theological context of John’s Gospel, which presents the Logos as fully divine and equal with the Father, not as a secondary god.
I can easily turn your argument around and say that all these authors do nothing but wish for some "fantastic" "discovery" and "reveal" with such a "gotcha!" style, simply spitting on mainstream Christianity. In my eyes, this use of sources is no different than claiming that the Trinity was "invented" by the "evil" Constantine, referring to Dan Brown as an actual "authority" on Church history.
@Earnest
In John 1:1c, "theos" (God) without the article is used qualitatively to describe the nature or essence of the Logos. The phrase doesn't say "the Word was the God," which would confuse the Logos with the Father. Rather, it affirms that the Word possesses the full nature of divinity. In fact, John 1:1b has a definite article ("kai ho Logos ēn pros ton Theon"), since "ton" is actually an accusative masculine singular definite article, so John 1:1b should actually be translated as "and the Word was with the God". The structure in Greek maintains the personal distinction between the Word and the Father, and the absence of the definite article with "theos" in John 1:1c emphasizes the Word's divine nature rather than identifying the Word as a separate or lesser god. John is describing what the Logos is, not introducing a separate, lesser deity.
Translating it as "the Word was a god" suggests that Jesus is one of many gods, which the context of John's Gospel, rooted in strict Jewish monotheism, does not support. Instead, the qualitative reading "the Word was God" (or "the Word was [fully] divine") properly communicates that the Word is fully divine in essence without confusing Him with the Father.
The NEB translation, "What God was, the Word was," also emphasizes the qualitative nature of the Logos, but both translations ("the Word was God" and "What God was, the Word was") intend to show that the Logos shares fully in the divine essence. However, the NEB's rendering is not necessarily superior to "the Word was God" as both convey the same theological truth, just with different phrasings.
Thus, the traditional rendering, while concise, does not confuse the Logos with the Father but affirms the Word’s full divinity.
@blondie
You will find this article interesting:
Why the Watchtower Needs Christendom -
slimboyfat
How does it come about that when experts examine the biblical texts without any prior faith commitment they tend to draw conclusions similar to JWs about the meaning of key passages such as John 1 and Phil 2? Whereas scholars who claim to find the Trinity in the Bible are invariably those with a prior commitment to the dogma. Doesn’t this tend to indicate that an objective reading of the texts contradicts the Trinity?