John 1:1 for nonbelievers.....

by logansrun 33 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  logansrun

  I've often felt that the most objective person in a situation is the one who has no stake in the outcome. This holds true to religious issues as well.

  We all know Freddie Franz translated John 1:1 as "the Word was [a] God" and the rest of the Christian world flew through the roof. Was it Bruce Metzger that called the NWT a "monstrosity"? (But, as a lifelong Christian can we really say he is objective?) Well, anyway, most Bibles read "the Word was God." But, I've read that many scholars are not comfortable with that translation either. "And the Word was what God was" seems to be about as close as you can come to whatever the Johanine author intended.

  So my question is to all you who don't have a stake in the matter -- the nonbelievers or agnostics who still can hold their own when it comes to Bible translation and exegesis(attn. AlanF and Gamaliel). What is the "best" -- if there can be a best -- translation of John 1:1? Do you believe that "John" was subtly hinting that Jesus "was God" in some way? How radical a departure was this from the synoptic Gospels where Jesus is definitely not on the same level as God?

  Bradley
• 

  ignored_one

  John was saying Jesus was God in as much the same way I say Dave Grohl is God after an excellent Foo Fighters gig.
• 

  rocketman

  John 1:1 could well be the most controversial scripture in the entire Bible. I'll be checking this thread, and hopefully AlanF and Gamaliel will weigh in.
• 

  SpannerintheWorks

  Good post, Bradley, but,

  We all know Freddie Franz translated John 1:1 as "the Word was [a] God"

  Is wrong, Franz "translated" that verse as " the Word was a god."

  Spanner
• 

  SYN

  I think that John, as a writer, experienced that terrible affliction which plagues many writers: You always stuff up the first couple of lines.

  This happens to me often. The first few lines of something I write will suck, then I'll write some more, and the words will start to "flow" better. It's almost like a cold car that won't start, figuratively speaking.

  Usually what I do when this happens is to go back and rewrite the line during editing. Evidently John wasn't much of an editor, considering the fact that he left that confusing first line covering such an important topic behind as his lasting legacy!
• 

  Frannie Banannie

  John 1:1..."In the beginning.......the word was god..." Here's something to think about in relation to Jesus being quoted as saying "There is none good but one, that is God..." Also, along with these two scriptures, you can research the fact that Jesus is quoted as saying that he HAD to do this...(come as a sacrifice, etc...don't recall the exact words or scripture) ....IMHO, Jesus, being the word of God, God's offspring, in the beginning (Genesis means "beginning") inspired the scriptures to be written presenting his own activities as God's...ie: the word posed as God doing the creating, and his presence here on earth in person as Jesus to be sacrificed was a penalty for having usurped God's place in the scriptures.....

  Frannie B (of the "Don't everyone jump on me at once" Class)
• 

  logansrun

  BTTT
• 

  eyeslice

  One of the best commentaries on the Gospel of John I have come across is by William Barclay. He was an eminent Bible scholar and expert in Greek. He says this about John 1:1:
  
  
  “This is a difficult saying for us to understand, and it is difficult because Greek, in which John wrote, had a different way of saying things from the way in which English expresses them. Where Greek uses a noun, it almost always uses the definite article with it. The Greek for God is theos and the definite article is ho. When Greek speaks about God, it does not simply say theos, it says ho theos. Now when the Greek does not use the definite article with a noun, that noun becomes much more like an adjective. John did not say that the Word was ho theos; that would have been to say that the Word was identical with God. He said that the Word was those – without the definite article – which means that the Word was, we might say, of the very same character and quality and essence and being as God. When John said the Word was God, he was not saying that Jesus was identical with God; he was saying that Jesus was so perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart and in being that in him we see what God is like.”
  
  
  My personal view therefore is that the NWT is incorrect in translating the word was “a god”. The Bible describes Satan as a god (“the god of this system”)! Other translations have used expressions such as “the Word was God like” or “the Word was divine”. It would have been better to have to have translated exactly as the Greek rendered it, was God, and then given a clear explanation as to what John meant.
  
  
  Another example of the NWT taking things too far in trying to put a “spin” on what the Greek actual says, is the translation of Jesus words “this means my body”, “this means my blood”, when the Greek clearly says “this is”. But that’s another story.
  
  
  Eyeslice
• 

  Panda

  Bradley, You write interesting posts. Coming from my secular mind and from Elaine Pagels recent book "Beyond Belief," I agree that Jesus was not considered God by early writers. Many scenarios suggest themselves here, and I will only say what I think because we all know this is a matter of previous interpretation and translation. I think a good question is first why was John included in the Bible canon? By a mis-identification of the author. As for John 1 and "the beginning" see Pagel's explanation in chapter 4 The Canon of Truth and the Triumph of John (Beyond Belief):

  How did those Christians whom Ireneaus calls "evil interpreters" read John and the other scriptures - and why did he oppose what he found there? Iraneaus warns that these people "have cast truth aside"; they introduce lies that entice and delude naive believers, but to many people their obvious fictions actually seem true. Iraneaus says that the christian poet and teacher Valentinus, his disciple Ptolemy, and others like them have invented all kinds of myths about what happened "in the beginning," and even before the beginning of the world, and how the unknown Source of all being, which these Christians sometimes call the primal Father and other times call Silence -- since there are no words to describe this source-- first poured forth streams of divine energies, both masculine and feminine, whose dynamic interaction brought forth the universe. Some followers of Ptolemy go on to say that divine Wisdom came forth "in the beginning" and participated with God to bring forth the universe, as described in Genesis 1 through 3. (pg 115)

  So while Ireneaus accepted John into the Bible canon he did not accept the above interpretation of John 1. If we consider as Ptolemy did that "Wisdom ...participated with God," that is the primal Father or Silence needed the divine energies of Wisdom to create. But then again even Ireneaus admits that "before the world ...the unknown Source " was un-nameable, and un-named "since there are no words to describe this source."

  Why John was accepted despite as Origen says:

  John does not always tell the truth literally, he always tells the truth spiritually (pg118);

  is a good question. The probable answer is that many believed the John who authored this gospel was John the son of Zebedee(sp?), rather than John the elder who was a separate person.

  So then early Christians found that even though John contradicted Matthew, Mark, and Luke, his work was meant to deepen a search for God's will . Valentinus dreamed that the :

  logos --- [ was] the divine word revealed in human form. (119)

  Ok so John 1:1 according to this information is Wisdom created by the union of the feminine and masculine forces of the universe.

  Ahhhh sort've (I found this on another web site) "My Goddess gave birth to your God"

  PS did you know that early Christians used to do a circle dance, surprized me.
• 

  herk

  My problem with this verse is that almost everybody assumes that "the word" is Jesus. True, "the word" became flesh. (Verse 14) But just as "the word" was not flesh before Jesus was conceived in Mary's womb, I see the possibility that "the word" was not even a person before that event.

  According to various scholarly works, "the word" could have just as simply been rendered as "the utterance," "the plan," "the purpose," "the message," "the answer," "the question," "the reason," "the teaching," "the thought," "the remark," etc.

  So I see no problem in understanding that "the word" or "the thought" existed at the very beginning. "The word" was "with" God because it was in God's mind. And it "was" God in the same sense that God "is" love. Just as love reflects the mind and heart of God, so this unique word or idea reflects what God is all about. It conveys the special desire of his mind and heart to have a righteous and holy universe under the control of one special Son.

  The Bible is often called "the word of God," but the Bible is not God. Before there was a Bible, there was a "word" or "thought" in the mind of God. That "word" became a book, just as that "word" became flesh in the man Jesus of Nazareth.

  The Bible speaks for God as a product of inspiration by God. Jesus speaks for God too, not because he is God, but because he represents God.