To get right to the point, Acts 12:22 and 28:6 both contain an anarthrous occurence of "Theos" or a derivative, depending on one's textual base. In both instances these verses are rightfully rendered "a god" and not "God." Why, then, the mainstream Christian problem with the same anarthrous construction in John 1:1 being translated in the NWT as "the Word was a god"? The problem seems to be a theological one, not a linguistic one. Not even a contextual problem, especially if the variant reading of John 1:18 "the only begotten God" is correct.
Also, "Paul" refers to the Adversary as "ho theos (THE God) of this aeon" in 2 Corinthians 4:4, yet no one seems to see this as indicative of any sort of problem with the traditional understanding of "ho theos" in John 1:1 or John 20:28. Not that it implies "ho theos" of John 1:1 is the same "ho theos" of 2 Cor 4:4, but rather a problem with the insistance on the part of trinitarians that "ho theos" is applied exclusively to God the Father. Obviously that is not so. Which to my mind makes the exact translation of John 1:1 less certain. Also, it blunts the edge of John 20:28 as "proof" of the "Deity of Christ" since both Satan and Christ are referred to as "ho theos."
However, my understanding of Koine is that of a beginner, so I am asking for input and insight from Leolaia and Narkissos if they would like to weigh in on this issue. Others are welcome too, as long as no one threatens to sic their god on me or anyone else for questioning holy tradition. I have no interest in creeds, since I have the Nicene, Apostles, and Athanasian creeds all memorized (Please don't ask why). I have no interest in "truth by consensus" i.e., appealing to the catholicity of trinitarianism as proof or evidence of its veracity. I'm interested in the facts of the matter linguistically, contextually, and textually, in the NT. I'm unable to find much in the way of solid support for the "Deity of Christ" in the Absolute manner that mainstream Christians use that term. "Theos" is obviously a relative term, one that is applied to God, the Logos, Satan, and even humans. Nor do I find much support for the creedal language of "one God subsisting in three Persons." The NT seems quite clearly and plainly "Arian" to me, with the caveat that the Logos is not "ex nihilo" but "ek theou." ("Theou" by implication in Romans 11:36) -Saint Martin the Inquirer
The NWT of John 1:1; Some Questions For Leolaia and Narkissos
by FireNBandits 40 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
FireNBandits
-
FireNBandits
I also have a thorough understanding of the Christology of Ephesus and Chalcedon, but do not find much help in their non-biblical language and concepts.
-
nvrgnbk
Dude FNB! You sellin' any of your used brain cells? Me thinks you a smart sombeech.
I wish the fu*%ing org hadn't burned me out on this type of stuff.
Keep it up bro!
Nvr
-
Leolaia
First, it would be handy to distinguish between what a text says in its original context and what it might mean to later theologians who are interested in using older scriptures to defend or dispute contemporary christological positions. The distinctive (if not always coherent) christologies that co-exist in the NT usually end up harmonized and integrated into new theologies (such as those underlying the controversies that produced the creeds you mention) that depart significantly from the conceptual framework(s) of the texts themselves. And often the texts are ambiguous and give only a glimpse into the belief system of their authors, and sometimes the texts themselves (particularly theologically-loaded ones) may change in the manuscript tradition (see Misquoting Jesus).
Second, the sense of the text depends partly on the grammatical construction (as usage often is tied to specific constructions giving different nuances) and partly on the wider context. Theos is anarthrous and a predicate noun elsewhere in the NT in contexts where it is clear that the reference is to "God" (cf. Philippians 2:13, Hebrews 11:16); it is clear from context that the noun is definite, not indefinite (see "God the Father" in the previous verse in the case of Philippians 2:13). Whereas in Acts 28:6 there is no reason to treat the noun as definite (as there is no discourse antecedent for referring to a specific god and the Maltans were unlikely to be monotheists). Then we have the grammatical evidence. Semantic nuance such as definiteness/indefiniteness and quality varies according to grammatical construction. Definite predicate nouns tend to take the article unless they precede the verb, where they often don't need to have the article to be definite. In Philippians 2:13, theos precedes the verb whereas in Acts 28:6, it follows the verb; thus we wouldn't normally expect the noun to be definite in this postverbal position as it lacks the article. Then there is the matter of case....preverbal nominatives behave differently from other cases. The predicate noun is nominative in Philippians 2:13, whereas it is accusative in Acts 28:6. The theos in John 1:1c is BOTH preverbal and a nominative, so it differs from Acts 28:6 on both counts. And since we know that definite nouns before the verb don't need the article, one must consider the possibility that theos is definite in John 1:1c (i.e. "God"). That does not mean that it MUST be definite, but that it is a legitimate possibility and that a noun cannot automatically be considered indefinite because it lacks an article.
Aside from the question of definiteness, there is also fact that the predicate noun in John 1:1c is in a copular construction (i.e. the verb is a "TO BE" verb). Such constructions can be used to indicate identity, location, relationship, or quality. A qualitative noun (which may be found in other predicates as well) emphasizes the attributes or quality of the noun, whether in an adjectival sense, or in relational terms, or in highlighting the nature of the noun. In other words, when you say "Hezekiah is the king" you identify Hezekiah as the king of a particular realm, whereas when you say "Hezekiah is king" you emphasize Hezekiah's nature or status as king...his defining attribute is his status as king. In a manner similar to these English examples, a qualitative sense may occur in some anarthrous contexts (that is, "Hezekiah is king" lacks a definite article, but note that both qualitative and non-qualitative nouns occur in the same position unlike Greek). Now if you look for other constructions in the NT that come the closest grammatically to the one in John 1:1c (i.e. ones that have preverbal predicate nouns with nominative case and the verb is a form of "TO BE" or other copular verb), you will find a group of texts found only in Johannine corpus that are qualitative in highlighting the nature of the noun (see John 1:5, 1:14, 2:9, 3:6, 4:8, 6:63, 12:50, 17:17, 1 John 1:5, 4:8). If the theos in John 1:1c patterns similarly, then theos én ho logos would mean that theos is the nature of the Word; it is the quintessential attribute of the Word. It also does not imply that the Word is theos in a lesser or weaker sense. The most impressive parallel imho is 1 John 4:8 which says that ho theos apage estin, "God is love". Here we have a qualitative predicate noun that is preverbal and nominative, which clearly highlights love as the defining nature of God. The sense is, "Everything love is, God is". One could use an adjective to render it (e.g. "God is lovelike") as long as it is understood that God is not defined by love in a partial or lesser sense. The sense in John 1:1c seems to be similar, "Everything God is, the Word is," which accords well with the parity implicit in ch. 5 (cf. "he was making himself equal to God" in v. 18, "Whatever the Father does, the Son does too" in v. 19, "As the Father gives life to anyone he chooses, so the Son gives life to anyone he chooses" in v. 20-21, "All may honor the Son as they honor the Father" in v. 22-23), the claim that people see the Father if they see the Son (14:7-9), etc. -- in spite of the claim that the Son at the same time is subject to the Father (cf. 5:19). The theological picture in general seems to be one in which the Son is subject to the Father but through the Father (cf. also 8:54, 10:29) has the status and nature of the Father, such that the Father and the Son are together "one" (10:30), and yet at the same time this divine oneness is not limited to the Father and Son but also includes Jesus' followers (17:11, 21), such that "they may be one as we are one". In other words, what the Father is, the Son is as well, and what the Son is, those who are in the Son are too, for the Son is in the followers just as the Father is in the Son. As Narkissos has once put it, this is an inclusive sense of God that was deliberately abandoned in later orthodox christologies but which was elaborated in later gnosticism, which regarded the Father, the Revealer of the Father, and all true sons of the Father as divine beings who will eventually return to oneness in the Pleroma (the "fullness" of deity), who all comprise God. On this, and other grounds, the more mystical Fourth Gospel is often regarded as proto-gnostic, as anticipating ideas found in later middle gnosticism.
There is a great article by Philip Harner that explores only the grammatical issue (i.e. not the theological issues just mentioned), and compares all the different possible ways that the author could have worded John 1:1c, and determined the different likely nuances of each way of wording the passage. He showed that if the author wanted to say that the Word was "a god" (as a member of a class of gods), he would have phrased it as ho logos én theos. This would have been more clearly indefinite (as the noun follows the verb), and such a sentence is a closer parallel to Acts 28:6. If the author wanted to say that the Word and God (ho theos of v. 1b) are one and the same, he would have wrote ho logos én ho theos. If the author wanted to say that the Word was divine without specifying the extent (i.e. allowing for a lesser kind of divinity), he would have better phrased it as ho logos én theios. If the author wanted to say something stronger than that the Word was "a god" or theios without implying that the Word was interchangeable with the Father, then theos én ho logos would have been the best way to put it. I have it in PDF if you want to read it.
-
FireNBandits
Dear Leolaia:
Thank you for such a content-intensive and downright fascinating reply! This is grand, and I will ruminate on it and absorb it. I would very much like to read the article by Philip Harner. You may email it to Eric who can then forward it to me. I will PM you and give you my private email in case you wish to send it directly.
I've been poring over various editions of the Greek New Testament, as well as photographic facsimiles of the codices Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus, and have found that the variant readings do indeed often have much bearing on important doctrinal issues, such as this one. Yet conservative scholars generally deny this reality and sweep the matter under the rug, claiming that most variants are inconsequential. True, a great many variants are inconsequential, but many are consequential. (This is not news to you, I know, but it is to me. Until I began to learn Koine Greek I naively trusted the pronouncements I had read on this matter for the most part.)
You've made some powerful points here, and I plan to share them with a good friend named James Coram who is the editor of the small Arian/Universalist journal Unsearchable Riches. If he does reply, I'll post it. He's written a short booklet laying forth the rather refined and elegant understanding of Arianism espoused by Unsearchable Riches. He even manages to include Modalism and Theosis in the discussion. His understanding of Arianism and approach to Arianism is quite above that of the various Bible Student organizations.You may wish to read it and comment here, or in private, If so, that would be quite marvelous for me to read. Here is the link: http://www.concordant.org/expopdf/index.html The title of the PDF is One God and One Lord.
You wrote: "As Narkissos has once put it, this is an inclusive sense of God that was deliberately abandoned in later orthodox Christologies but which was elaborated in later gnosticism, which regarded the Father, the Revealer of the Father, and all true sons of the Father as divine beings who will eventually return to oneness in the Pleroma (the "fullness" of deity), who all comprise God. On this, and other grounds, the more mystical Fourth Gospel is often regarded as proto-gnostic, as anticipating ideas found in later middle gnosticism."
The Eastern Orthodox have a clear and compelling understanding of Apotheosis, which grows out of their very strong emphasis on the Trinity, on God the Father as the Fountainhead of Divinity. Many times Apotheosis/Theosis is timidly stated in their official publications for fear of alienating non-Orthodox who are unable to understand. Their position is obviously an echo of the Gnostic position, except of course in the matter of deified human nature, deified flesh. (You already know that I'm Gnostic.)
Thank you again Leolaia!
Martin -
FireNBandits
Thank you nvr, but as you can see, Leolaia is in a different league entirely.
-
Narkissos
Wow I'm late...
A couple of side remarks though.
The case of 2 Corinthians 4:4 is not really comparable because the article is requiredby the genitive complement which determines theos, the god of this aiôn.
I don't think the difference of case between John 1:1 and Acts 28:6 matters too much, since the accusative is required by the infinitive clause, depending on the verb of speech (elegon): they saidhim (accusative) to be (a) godis, as far as function and meaning is concerned, the same as he is (a) god, autos estin theos (nominative), in direct discourse. An interesting parallel in the nominative is 2 Thessalonians 2:4, "He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god (panta legomenon theon) or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God (tou theou), declaring himself to be a god ? God ? (hoti estin theos)." (I'm curious how Harner deals with this one, I'd gladly read the PDF too.)
-
Leolaia
Martin....Thanks for the PM. Variation in manuscripts is not at issue in John 1:1, but it does impact v. 18 as you may well know, and it also is at issue in such christologically relevant passages as Acts 20:28, 1 Timothy 3:16, etc. As for echoes of the earlier gnostic position in the Eastern Orthodox position, I would not be surprised at the greater conservatism in the east and regarding the Arian response to the orthodox exegesis of John, I know Narkissos has written some interesting stuff on this, so hopefully he will give his comments as well (and hopefully add to what I wrote and correct anything amiss; bear in mind too that my terminology is partly from general linguistics instead of philology)...I think he said that the orthodox position demoted the divinity of those in Christ (such that the Son and Father are equally one, but Christians are only in a lesser sense, usually via the Holy Spirit), and then the Arian response accepted this development but added to it by questioning the parity and oneness of the Father and Son, thereby imposing yet another interpretation of John that departs from the conceptual framework of the book itself.
It looks like your friend is putting together a harmonized systematic theology that integrates data from Scripture by privileging some assumptions and texts over others, and which is not too interested in taking each text on its own terms. This is not a criticism per se if the object is not to study Scripture but to (creatively) construct one's theology from biblical traditions, a time-honored endeavor in Christianity. In that case, the question is not so much "What does this text really say?" and more one of "Which theology best harmonizes with the overall corpus of texts, or rather, proof texts?" It is one thing to posit a particular theology as a solution to harmonizing disparate statements in Scripture, but I would say that any theology (whether it be modalism, Arianism, trinitarianism in its various forms, etc.) would fail to be representative of the conceptual framework of at least some texts of the NT.
I would quibble with this statement btw:
" 'The Word' of God in John 1:1 may well have in view not only God’s personified Word, Christ, but His written word as well. In any case, 'THE WORD was toward God.' Any sense, then, in which it is correct to say that 'the Word was God,' must be compatible with the Word’s being, first of all 'toward God.' This fact precludes the Word’s being literally and identificationally God, and entails Its being God only figuratively, in a representative sense. Hence it is simply incorrect to reason that if in John 1:1 Christ is the Word, it follows that He is therein affirmed to be God, in either a literal or absolute sense" (p. 2).
The author is correct that the Word is not being identified with the God of 1:1b, in that the Word and the God he was with (= the Father) are interchangeable, and I don't think any exegete would hold that position, but what is NOT precluded is the possibility of the Word being qualitatively God...that both he and the Father are theos in nature. This is not a figurative sense; the Word would indeed literally have the nature of God, but the text would not imply that only the Word is God. The wording and context suggest that the nature of theos is not exclusive to either the Father or Son but which is shared through their unity. This understanding also follows from the statement that one can experience the Father by experiencing the Son, and that anything the Father does, the Son does as well. The Arian position emphasizes the subjection of the Son to the Father (as the Son's status is entirely dependent on the Father), but this emphasis also minimizes the status as well.
-
jgnat
to (creatively) construct one's theology from biblical traditions, a time-honored endeavor in Christianity
That's funny, leolaia! And through your efforts, I'm coming to agree with you.
-
Doug Mason
There is a side-issue here.
Julius Mantey complained in writing to the WTS that they had misused his "Grammar" and he asked them to apologize.
So it is not only a question of "grammar" or "theology" but also of dishonesty.
The WTS ignored him, knowing that he was already an old man.
I also have a personal letter from William Barclay, telling me the Jehovah's Witnesses had misrepresented what he had written (but he did not want to get involved in any discussion with them).
Doug