I used to have arguments with my father about this one, he supported the traditional reading whereas I favour "and the word was divine", that seemed to make the most sense to me.
@@CAMIAM05 "Divine" in that period of time was used for messianic or figures that were not God as well. Helenized judaism has also said the stars were divine, obviously that does not mean stars were God.
READ WALLACE'S FULL QUOTE. Wallace's expressions can be found on the Internet, on Bill Mounce's website. Both are professors of Greek who have published with Zondervan. Here is the quote and the link. "The nominative case is the case that the subject is in. When the subject takes an equative verb like “is” (i.e., a verb that equates the subject with something else), then another noun also appears in the nominative case-the predicate nominative. In the sentence, “John is a man,” “John” is the subject and “man” is the predicate nominative. In English the subject and predicate nominative are distinguished by word order (the subject comes first). Not so in Greek. Since word order in Greek is quite flexible and is used for emphasis rather than for strict grammatical function, other means are used to distinguish subject from predicate nominative. For example, if one of the two nouns has the definite article, it is the subject. As we have said, word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1 c. The English versions typically have, “and the Word was God.” But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος and God was the Word. We know that “the Word” is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: “and the Word was God.” Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was θεός thrown forward? and (2) why does it lack the article? In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John’s wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism. To state this another way, look at how the different Greek constructions would be rendered: καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεός “and the Word was the God” (i.e., the Father; Sabellianism) καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεός “and the Word was a god” (Arianism) καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος “and the Word was God” (Orthodoxy). Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has. But he is not the first person of the Trinity. All this is concisely affirmed in καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος." -Daniel B. Wallace www.billmounce.com/newtestamentgreek1/exegetical-insight#:~:text=The%20nominative%20case%20is%20the,the%20nominative%20case%C4%85the%20predicate%20nominative.
I think what he means by "deity" is divine. Divinity was more of a gradient category in the ancient Mediterranean world. As demonstrated by Philo, Hellenized Judaism allowed for people and even stars to be divine without disregarding monotheism.
He's overcomplicating it. Every day, people have conversations in which they talk about "God, the Father," "God, the Son," and "God, the Holy Spirit," acknowledging there personhoods of God, and then turn around and use the unspecified "God," with the expectation that people understand that in the absence of context clues to the contrary, the assumption is that unspecified references to "God" are references to "God, the Father." Therefore, when the author of John says that the _Logos_ is with God and is God, I fail to see how this is any different than how we continue to use this language. IOW, written out less poetically and more explicitly, the author might have said something such as, "the _Logos_ was with God, the Father, and the _Logos_ was, Himself, also God, even if that's not too say that He was the Father, Himself." If the point is that anyone is wrong who thinks this passage says that the _Logos_ is the Father, then I agree - that goes against the passage as well as the teachings of the Church. That in no way means this passage is "mistranslated," however.
@@MarcillaSmith It seems like you completely missed the entire point. Everything you are saying about "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" is a later theological development. When John wrote those words, there is no indication whatsoever he had any idea of what a "trinity" would even mean. To not retroject this later theological development into the text, it is more accurate to translate it as the word is written, which like he said is that "the word was deity". Like he said, you absolutely can then INTERPRET what that means to be that the Logos was also God but not the Father. But it could also be just as validly interpreted to mean that Christ was a separate divine being, of lesser stature than God himself but still a deity. Dan's point is that the translation should as accurately reflect the meaning of the actual words as they are written, which is just that the Logos was divine. Then AFTER the translation is made as true to the original language as possible, interpretation can be done by people reading the passages to decide that it means the Logos is part of a Godhead called the trinity, or that the Logos is a diving being above the angels but lower than God, or the Logos is a separate divine entity. Translation should be a guide for interpretation, not the other way around.
father son and spirit was a gnostic addition referencing the mind body and soul aspects of a human being. I think God is a meme. And I mean meme in terms of its original definition instead of the way we use it now as an internet image to convey a small idea or even a big one. And I think Richard Dawkins inadvertently stumbled upon something when is introduced his idea of memetics. Which brings me back to this... In the beginning was the word. I believe in this context it's spoken language. And it was devine or good, which if I remember correctly the word often used for "good" just meant functional. I could be wrong about that last part hell I could be wrong about all of it, my brain is just running at a million miles an hour rn
Dan, are you familiar with David Bentley Hart's NT translation? His footnote on this seems to address varying translations. Wondered what you thought about his interpretation.
Thank you Dan for this and all your other work. The terms 'son of god ' and 'son of man' really confound me at times. Any chance you have or will comment on them? TY.
Hey there! I’m not Dan, but in the event he isn’t able to create a response to this, this is the simple explanation. “Son of Man” is a title that’s used a few times in the Old Testament, but probably the reference the writers of the Gospels had in mind is the vision of Daniel (chapter 7) where the Ancient of days (God the Father) coronates this Son of Man after he ascends into Heaven. Jesus referring to himself using this title would have been a claim to being the Messiah. Son of God would have been in reference to being a Jewish King, if I’m not mistaken.
@@justindenlinger6304 Thanks. I have some familiarity with the terms for sure. I just really wonder if 1st and 2nd century Christians really understood the terms to be 'equal with the Father'. I really doubt it, however why do we get verses like John 5:18 where Jesus calling God his Father is seen as a threat of equality? When those first Christians said, eg "son of God" did they really think he was God? I don't think so...just divine. I realize John was a later Gospel. 🙂
@@kevincameron1567 I’m not sure they would have viewed Christ as exactly the same as the Father either. It’s clear Christ is volitionally subordinate to the Father. There is definitely hierarchical structure in that relationship. I tend to view John 5:18 as saying Christ is wholly united with the Father. There is no discongruity of will between them, and their love for one another is perfect. Whether his cosmic status is deity, or divine, he is certainly half-deity, and is the only offspring of YHWH, which sets him apart from all other spiritual and physical beings.
@@justindenlinger6304Angels, Israel itself, kings, and believers are also referred to as Sons of God. Here’s a verse from Romans that verifies this. Romans 8:14-17 14For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.” 16The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17and if children, then heirs-heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together. We are heirs with Christ!
@@justindenlinger6304Correct. Romans 8:14 clarifies what a Son of God entails. Christ submits to the will of the Father and never claims equality with Him. That’s man’s doctrine that claims He is equal, just as the Pharisees attempted to accuse Him of saying so when He never claimed to be.
I usually heard conservative Christians cite the Cromwell rule here but I have never heard of this rule outside of the context of John 1:3. Could you cover this?
Are there English translations that do not impose meaning on the text? I know its impossible to remove translator bias, but I am peeved by how many instances there are of translators doing additional interpretation of the text. Forgive my ignorance, I genuinely wish to learn.
@RobSeib It is called Exegesis, the interpretational principle destroying the silly argument in this video. If you actually consult real scholars on this issue, they will show you that the deceptive mistake made in this video is amateur and based on a misunderstanding of simple Koine Greek.
Bible scholars say a lot. Was the writings of the New Testament written in Aramaic. Was all the letters in Aramaic. Peter and Paul was writing letters to the congregations before the Gospels was even written. The Gospel of John has Jesus dying on a different day. They also say Matthew, Mark, Luke and John didn't right the Gospels. The Gospels came about at the time Peter and Paul and Jerusalem was destroyed by 70 AD. Jesus and the apostles spoke Aramaic. It's because the only commonly circulated manuscripts are in Greek. The strong consensus of modern scholars is that Revelation was not written by either the apostle John nor by the author of John’s Gospel. To distinguish the author, they now refer to him simply as ‘John of Patmos’. Patmos was a Greek island and naturally the book was written in Greek to be read by Greek-speaking Christians. But for the record, this is why when the boy Jesus taught at the Temple in Hebrew translating it into perfect Aramaic that the Rabbis were astounded. This was the first time a boy did what the priests could not do. The four gospels is associated with the four living creatures Matthew the man, Mark the lion, Luke the ox, and John the eagle. John has Jesus dying on a different day. It's the Day of Preparation not the Day of Preparation for Passover. It was the day they prepare the lambs for sacrifice. While at the same time Jesus is prepared for sacrifice. Jesus is the Lamb of YHVH Yehovah Jehovah The Apostle John who was the last Apostle. Who I believed received Revelation was the Q source for the gospels that scholars argue about. John would have been an eyewitness to all.
The answer to your question is yes. The New World Translation properly renders Johm 1:1. Also The Bible - An American Translation, from 1935. Also the Emphatic Diaglott from 1864, and others.
It is impossible to translate language without interpreting it. There is no one-to-one correspondence between the words of one language and the words of another. You can't translate the words. You have to translate the meaning. That requires you to give meaning to the words in the source language. That's true whether you are translating the Bible or anything else. The difference is approach comes from what meaning you try to give it. Dan's approach is to do his best to objectively determine the intended meaning of the author, given the context they were writing in. There are other translators that try to give it meaning that fits their existing dogma. That is what is happening here. When a monotheist translates the word "theos" they are inclined to give it the meaning they themselves would mean by that word - a singular and uniquely divine entity - even if that isn't how the original author intended it.
Can you speak to how the patristic writers of the 4th century understood the Greek? Did Arius make this argument about the grammar? Or did others make the counter argument?
They actually agree with orthodoxy. Go read the church fathers, the understood Greek better tan any scholar today and they reject the amateur mistake this deceptive video makes.
@@albabialdayaqi5885you forget that the newly converted roman empire which was now Catholic, decided what the official doctrine of the church would be in the nicea conference in the 4th century AD. The coptic translations predate this by a good margin. As Greek does not have indefinite articles. Meaning when we translate to English we have to take the context into account. People will now try to bring in grammar rules of group. However it can still be interpreted both ways, correctly as attested by multiple scholars. This is where doctrine plays a big part. The translation from the Greek into coptic, which does have indefinite articles and had a way better understanding of the time. Compared to the first English translation in 17th century AD. (This is where the argument and slander of heresie begins. And in my opinion with no real basis) But That means for most of the time, english people had to rely on spiritual leaders to translate the scriptures for them. And they did, with the trinity doctrine in mind. Teachings were made to portray a teaching that is not found in scripture. And without John 1:1 and it's ambiguity. There wouldn't be anything cementing the trinity in place. Today we often use the Greek as proof and the minute the sahidic coptic translation is brought up "we don't need to analyse linguistics to prove what we believe of our God" or it's " early Christian heresies" Now tell me... Why would early Christians be a bad thing.. They were closer to the time of Christ and had a better understanding of the context for the translation. Yet when this is mentioned... It is only met with slander And try to discredit. I'm one that believes that if you cut off a man's tongue you fear what he has to say. Beware of false teachings. Seek and ye shall find. Not doing much seeking if you're just told to belive the church fathers blindly without question
Do you believe that verses 1-18 in chapter 1 was added in much after the death of John? Because after you read verses 1-18. It begins make a big shift from this deifying Jesus to John suddenly being questioned by the pharisees
Could you point to some scholarly resources about the development of 2nd+ century trinitarian doctrine as categorically different than the first century understanding of Jesus' Lordship?
To explain the relationship between God and the Word of God. The Sahidic translation the Christians used in Egypt in the early 2nd Century does, unlike Hebrew and Greek, have the indefinite article, and it reads "and the Word was a god". Angels are also called "gods" in the Hebrew Bible, understood as 'divine ones' 'powerful ones' etc, but not of course as 'The God', which is exclusively used to describe Yahweh.
It should be added that things like attacking idolatry and Greek polytheism is in no way incompatible with the view that Yahweh does not exhaust the category of θεός. Philo is a case in point - while emphasizing Yahweh's unique metaphysical status and rejecting deification of rulers, he still calls Moses θεός no less than ten times, says that Moses was "changed into the divine" and became "truly divine" (Questions on Exodus, 2.29)
Because it's false. It's been debunked already. John 1:18 doesn't use the definite article when referring to God the Father. The reason no definite article was used, was to distinguish the Logos (the Word) from the One the Logos was with (God the Father).
@@fodynot2244 Context is key. This video is correct when taken in context with the entire Bible and specifically John. John 20:17 17Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’ ” So God has a God huh? Are you willing to stand in rebellion against the words of Christ Himself to defend man’s doctrine?
@@richcrude2674 Did you read just 11 verses later where Thomas says THE GOD of me to Jesus? You made a complete strawman of the Trinitarian position. We believe the Son of God assumed human flesh as stated in John 1:14. And in fulfillment of Psalm 22:10, the Father became His God! So yes, that berse makes total sense in light of Trinitarian theology. AND Thomas' words to Jesus saying "The Lord of me, THE GOD of me" also is in line with our theology.
@@fodynot2244 Jesus came to present God Almighty through himself; and so Jesus having told his apostles that seeing him is seeing God makes total sense - which does not mean he is God Almighty himself in full glory, but one presenting him as - or hearing him is hearing the God of Israel, this too makes total sense.. Thomas' words would not be out of place to say my lord and my God, because Jesus in the flesh presents God - seeing or hearing Jesus is hearing and seeing YHWH - for he came to do not his will but the will of the one that sent him, his God, but he is also the Messiah\Jesus\lord. King David prophesied: . At no point does Jesus ever ever teach something called a trinity doctrine, nor his 1st century disciples - however Jesus tells the reader over and over and over that he has a God, just as his apostles John, Peter or Paul taught that *Jesus their lord and saviour has a God,* repeatedly referring to the God of Israel as "the God and Father or our lord Jesus Christ", this exact expression is all over the New Testament.. 2 Corinthians 1:3 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" 2 Corinthians 11:13 "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" Romans 15:6 "so that with one mind and one voice you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Peter 1:3 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!" Jesus himself says he has a God a number of times pre-ascension, post-ascension Jesus in glory continues to tell the reader that he has a God - ie YHWH the God of Israel, the very one praised by Name repeatedly in Chapter 19 - with Jesus repeatedly referring to Him in Chapter 3 as "my God" "my God" "my God" "my God".......... People can fight against the very words of Jesus as much as they want because they are twisted or deceived by a false doctrine, but this is futile, because this is scripture, and it puts the topic firmly in BROAD context.
Only to those who care if it matters weather one believes that the Christian god is triune or whether Jesus/Joshua is just some empowered angel like Satan or Michael or Gabriel or Metatron.
I immediately admit that I don't understand many of the big words you've used and I can't reject what you said because of that. Was this video about saying God is theos which means deity? Do you have a video about logos G3056? Because I understand it to mean... When of the mind it is the purpose and intention of the thought. And when it's actually verbally put out there it's still the intention and purpose of the thought made manifest in words proceeded from the mouth. So to me it would read... The intention and purpose of the thoughts was (of) deity.
The closest term in English is “divine” but in context you’d have to understand that the Greeks thought of Zeus=Theos and the name meaning shining=divine.
If you look into the scholar he appealed to you’ll realize that the word logos is just the subject. Predicate nominative = The term Theos is a predicate noun/descriptive telling us what the logos was or what he was so in other words this is a noun telling you what the word (logos) was, describing the qualities of god (theos) (the nature, characteristics etc) no matter how theos is spelt it’s still the same god behind spoken which is the father. Go search up scholar he appealed to and see for yourself dans in correct
@@sosaflex9152you still go back to Greek. Let's hear the earlier coptic translation. Before the trinity was pushed as a mandatory teaching of the church. It would do you some good. You need to read it with a clear mind. With no preconceived notion of proving or disproving the trinity. Just take it as it was meant to. Not with man made ideas.
No, even as a Mormon which he admits he is, even FREE-CHOICE Angels are dirties that don’t want and shouldn’t be worshipped. That is likely why he chose to use the word “deity” for Theos instead of what it meant in its original Greco-Roman context “divine/shining/Zeus.”
Would love some interaction from the NET Bible which seems to use different arguments for the traditional translation than the ones you have mentioned: “FOOTNOTE tn Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (theos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.sn And the Word was fully God. John’s theology consistently drives toward the conclusion that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is just as much God as God the Father. This can be seen, for example, in texts like John 10:30 (“The Father and I are one”), 17:11 (“so that they may be one just as we are one”), and 8:58 (“before Abraham came into existence, I am”). The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”); rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence.”
My problem with that rendering is that "theos" is coin greek isn't ever used as an "essence" its also either used as a name like The God( "ho theos" )or indefinitely as a category of being... "a god" (theos) The same goes with a few other completely identical grammatical passages in the John itself. John 4:19 - ("a prophet") John 8:48 - ("a Samaritan") John 18:37 (a) - ("a king") John 18:37 (b) - ("a king")
But there is no definite article in the English sentence either. Isn't this rather than a critique of the particular translation (where maybe the capital G in the word God might be something that can be argued against) a critique of particular reading of said phrase? Interesting point nevertheless.
It is an acceptable translation. This is just the nitpickyness of scholars. Translating θεὸς into 'deity' essentially nullifies the momentum and meaning of the text. For instance, John 20:28 would be translated 'My Lord and my deity!' Such a translation collapses the meaning of the text, essentially nullifying the obvious emotion of Thomas, even though it is, fundamentally, an accurate translation.
@@jasonkaufman6186 John 20:28 is different. True understanding of His Word must be done accurately. If multiple translations of the same verse are equally acceptable, those translations must be read together, and their differences must be thoroughly examined every time that verse is brought up. If one translation is less acceptable, even if it is consistent with the rest of the Bible, then that translation must be discarded. Do not risk contorting His Word, even if you are using it to glorify Him.
Wallace's expressions can be found on the Internet, on Bill Mounce's website. Both are professors of Greek who have published with Zondervan. Here is the full quote and the link. "The nominative case is the case that the subject is in. When the subject takes an equative verb like “is” (i.e., a verb that equates the subject with something else), then another noun also appears in the nominative case-the predicate nominative. In the sentence, “John is a man,” “John” is the subject and “man” is the predicate nominative. In English the subject and predicate nominative are distinguished by word order (the subject comes first). Not so in Greek. Since word order in Greek is quite flexible and is used for emphasis rather than for strict grammatical function, other means are used to distinguish subject from predicate nominative. For example, if one of the two nouns has the definite article, it is the subject. As we have said, word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1 c. The English versions typically have, “and the Word was God.” But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος and God was the Word. We know that “the Word” is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: “and the Word was God.” Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was θεός thrown forward? and (2) why does it lack the article? In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John’s wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism. To state this another way, look at how the different Greek constructions would be rendered: καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεός “and the Word was the God” (i.e., the Father; Sabellianism) καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεός “and the Word was a god” (Arianism) καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος “and the Word was God” (Orthodoxy). Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has. But he is not the first person of the Trinity. All this is concisely affirmed in καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος." -Daniel B. Wallace www.billmounce.com/newtestamentgreek1/exegetical-insight#:~:text=The%20nominative%20case%20is%20the,the%20nominative%20case%C4%85the%20predicate%20nominative.
All the semantic arguments about grammar can actually be set aside with this one very simple point. Throughout ALL of John's writings, and even within the verse of John 1:1, you see his form of writing is to use the definite article to denote specific verses general. Or to denote identity verses quality. Why would John, in the very last phrase of this one and only verse, suddenly change his writing style? He wouldn't have. So, all the creative ways that trinitarians come up with to explain away the missing definite article are nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
Thanks. We appreciate sharing your education with us. Please consider addressing John 8:54 where Jesus says his Father is the God of the Jews, but many claim Jesus is saying HE is the God of the Jews. And then consider addressing John 8:58 where they claim Jesus is saying he is the Exodus 3:14 “I AM” The Septuagint Exodus 3:14 does not give precedence for that claim.
He is not even discussing the evangelical consensus. HE IS TWISTING WALLACE QUOTE! Wallace's expressions can be found on the Internet, on Bill Mounce's website. Both are professors of Greek who have published with Zondervan. Here is the quote and the link. "The nominative case is the case that the subject is in. When the subject takes an equative verb like “is” (i.e., a verb that equates the subject with something else), then another noun also appears in the nominative case-the predicate nominative. In the sentence, “John is a man,” “John” is the subject and “man” is the predicate nominative. In English the subject and predicate nominative are distinguished by word order (the subject comes first). Not so in Greek. Since word order in Greek is quite flexible and is used for emphasis rather than for strict grammatical function, other means are used to distinguish subject from predicate nominative. For example, if one of the two nouns has the definite article, it is the subject. As we have said, word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1 c. The English versions typically have, “and the Word was God.” But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος and God was the Word. We know that “the Word” is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: “and the Word was God.” Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was θεός thrown forward? and (2) why does it lack the article? In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John’s wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism. To state this another way, look at how the different Greek constructions would be rendered: καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεός “and the Word was the God” (i.e., the Father; Sabellianism) καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεός “and the Word was a god” (Arianism) καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος “and the Word was God” (Orthodoxy). Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has. But he is not the first person of the Trinity. All this is concisely affirmed in καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος." -Daniel B. Wallace www.billmounce.com/newtestamentgreek1/exegetical-insight#:~:text=The%20nominative%20case%20is%20the,the%20nominative%20case%C4%85the%20predicate%20nominative.
@S Rich Yes it is. I suggest you read Professor Jason David BeDuhn PhD book " Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament"
@@thambone30 😁 and what makes this professor THE all knowing professor above the thousands of others in the world? OR better yet, answer the follow harder question- History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, not only did they not agree but their list of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time. So, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 5th century with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved it by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us, show us, who did? Then If this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself?
Or you can just see this as an example of colwell’s canon. There is usually no article if the noun comes before the verb, and it can be translated as definite
It weakens claims on Jesus/Joshua NOT being lower than the Father as his character described in the gospels but later Christians refuse to care/want to see it that way… because then they just wouldn’t believe, it would not be emotionally salient/manipulative enough for them.
You might like to refer to Moulton, Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol 3. 183. In short, the definite article attaches to the predicate if it follows the verb, but lacks it if it precedes the verb.
He twisted the data. READ WALLACE'S FULL QUOTE. Wallace's expressions can be found on the Internet, on Bill Mounce's website. Both are professors of Greek who have published with Zondervan. Here is the quote and the link. "The nominative case is the case that the subject is in. When the subject takes an equative verb like “is” (i.e., a verb that equates the subject with something else), then another noun also appears in the nominative case-the predicate nominative. In the sentence, “John is a man,” “John” is the subject and “man” is the predicate nominative. In English the subject and predicate nominative are distinguished by word order (the subject comes first). Not so in Greek. Since word order in Greek is quite flexible and is used for emphasis rather than for strict grammatical function, other means are used to distinguish subject from predicate nominative. For example, if one of the two nouns has the definite article, it is the subject. As we have said, word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1 c. The English versions typically have, “and the Word was God.” But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος and God was the Word. We know that “the Word” is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: “and the Word was God.” Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was θεός thrown forward? and (2) why does it lack the article? In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John’s wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism. To state this another way, look at how the different Greek constructions would be rendered: καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεός “and the Word was the God” (i.e., the Father; Sabellianism) καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεός “and the Word was a god” (Arianism) καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος “and the Word was God” (Orthodoxy). Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has. But he is not the first person of the Trinity. All this is concisely affirmed in καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος." -Daniel B. Wallace www.billmounce.com/newtestamentgreek1/exegetical-insight#:~:text=The%20nominative%20case%20is%20the,the%20nominative%20case%C4%85the%20predicate%20nominative.
In Greek John 1:2 it reads “ and God was the word” not “ the word was God” I think it should be noted that John is referring to the Elohiym of Genesis 1:1-3. Which is an entirely different discussion.
Ive never heard anyone quote this verse before in defense of our lord jesus being the son of the only true God. When i came across it , it actually made a light shine in my mind. An illumination of sorts. Phillipians 2: 5,6. "Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in Gods form gave no consideration to a seizure, namely that he should be equal to God. "
Hi Dan, Do you think that "a god" is a legitimate translation? You might be interested in the following Brill article which argues for that translation: _Another God in the Gospel of John? A Linguistic Analysis of John 1:1 and __1:18_ (Smarius, Alexander - 2022) The author is himself a Jehovah's Witness, but I don't think that should require us to automatically reject the view.
Great video you do great work. In English I think the poem works better if it is translated "the word was God" because adding the extra syllable to say "a god" or two for "deity" would weaken the impact. in greek I think things are more odd then I remember them from koine class a coule decades back. The Subject and Object order is reversed, "καὶ θεὸς (GOD) ἦν ὁ λόγος (LOGOS)". Wait do they both have subject markers? is translating it as "Deity was the reason" or 'Deity was the logos' valid or is "The Logos was a god" the only reasonable way to read it?
In the Good News of Messiah (GNM) I translate "In the beginning had been the Word, and the Word had been next to the Almighty. And Almighty the Word has been." I saw the way Wallace weaseled out of a correct translation in GGBB. Only the qualities of divinity are equivocated to the Word. John 1;1 should not be made to teach "one substance", because it does not. The word Almighty works perfectly for this in English because it can be used as a noun and adjective.
Good exegesis, Dan. It's also important to remember that in Philo's view of Logos, the Logos was the creative intermediary between God and the material world. Logos was an intermediary divine being or demiurge which fit with Plato's idea of imperfect matter and perfect Form and was the 'first born' of God. This is further brought out by the verse in John 1:3 that says "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.". This idea of Jesus as the Word, an intermediary between God and the physical world, also fits the role of Jesus as an intermediary between humans and God "Jesus said to him, I am the Way and the Truth and the Life; no one comes to the Father except by (through) Me." I believe that Jesus was seen by the author(s) of John as the Word/Intermediary made flesh, since God himself couldn't be made flesh without polluting the divine, so Jesus was sent as God's intermediary ambassador. I also think John 1:1 is saying that the Logos was 'theos' or divine in nature like God but not quite the same. This would differentiate the Word from both the most high God and lowly humans, in keeping with Philo's idea of an intermediary between the two.
Your comment makes a lot of sense at first. But then falls apart when we bring it back to the reality that Philo did not write the Gospel of John, and John was a Jew who was not a Platonist.
@@regtaylor1163 They do share a lot of similarity. Philo was heavily influenced by Platonic Philosophy and used it to explain the scriptures. The Gnostics did the same. But it is hard to really pin down what a Gnostic really is. It was not an organized religion but rather a philosophical framework with shared ideas... mainly the rejection of all things in the materiel world. In my opinion he was more of Platonist rather than what we might consider a Gnostic. But in all turth I will anser your question with, "I really don't know." :)
There are other translations of logos. With context, the _obvious_ (but not necessarily true) interpretation is it is just explaining the origin of the Church ⛪️, especially John’s “divine” connection with God 💃🤖.
All predicates describe a quality, attribute or characteristic of the Subject Nominative. In the context the Logos seems to be described as an uncreated theos
The Greek language here indicates two things for this verse: The Greek does not have an indefinite article to directly translate. However, for proper translation into English the indefinite article must be included. A god is a quality. That is why some bibles say: 1808: “and the word was a god.” The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text. 1864: “and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson. 1928: “and the Word was a divine being.” La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel. 1935: “and the Word was divine.” The Bible-An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed. 1946: “and of a divine kind was the Word.” Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme. 1950: “and the Word was a god.” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. 1958: “and the Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek. 1975: “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz. 1978: “and godlike kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.
Thanks for this Randall. This is confirmed by The New Strong's Expanded Exhaustive Concordance Of The Bible Red Letter Edition which states(under the definition of θεὸς) that of the second part of John 1:1, " "To translate it literally, "a god was the Word"," but goes on to show its bias toward the trinity by stating that to do so, "is entirely misleading".
So, which "Diety" were they talking about? And did He not get quoted by the Gospel authors and declaring to the Sanhedrin that He was "I am." Or is this hiding behind an assumption that there is no evidence, yet, that this was the reading. And so that is our story we're sticking to it?
Excellent short presentation. The verse can be translated : "...the word was God" "....the Word was God" ".....The word was divine" "the word was a god" Understandably, the version that people prefer is the one that fits with their presuppositions. The least accurate/honest is the Word was God.
@@noself7889 : I could not agree more. Hundreds of times in the NT, Jesus is differentiated from God. The Jesus of the NT has a God. The resurrected Jesus still has a God. (Jophn 20 :17). According to Revelation, the glorified Jesus in heaven still has a God. (Rev 3 :12)
0:25 The third clause is NOT "καὶ θεόν ἦν ὁ λόγος" Rather it is "καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος". Notice θεὸς ends in ὸς rather than όν, and is thus not a predicate but also a subject.
Dan, thank you for keeping these preachers, apologists, laymen, and the like intellectual honest!! So many are misinterpreting the text every Sunday morning.
He needs to be intellectually honest. He's pushing his agenda and it won't work on those who refuse to blindly follow. John 1:18 doesn't use the definite article and it's referring to God the Father.
What are your thoughts on the New World Translation's version of John 1:1 that reads, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god"? Their reasoning for translating in this way is this: the Coptic language was spoken in Egypt in the centuries immediately following Jesus’ earthly ministry, and the Sahidic dialect was an early literary form of the language. Regarding the earliest Coptic translations of the Bible, The Anchor Bible Dictionary says: “Since the [Septuagint] and the [Christian Greek Scriptures] were being translated into Coptic during the 3d century C.E., the Coptic version is based on [Greek manuscripts] which are significantly older than the vast majority of extant witnesses.” [The Sahidic Text] reflects an understanding of Scripture dating from before the fourth century, which was when the Trinity became official doctrine. Second, Coptic grammar is relatively close to English grammar in one important aspect. The earliest translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures were into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic. Syriac and Latin, like the Greek of those days, do not have an indefinite article. Coptic, however, does. Moreover, scholar Thomas O. Lambdin, in his work Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, says: “The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, corresponds closely to the use of the articles in English.” Hence, the Coptic translation supplies interesting evidence as to how John 1:1 would have been understood back then. What do we find? The Sahidic Coptic translation uses an indefinite article with the word “god” in the final part of John 1:1. Thus, when rendered into modern English, the translation reads: “And the Word was a god.” Evidently, those ancient translators realized that John’s words recorded at John 1:1 did not mean that Jesus was to be identified as Almighty God. The Word was a god, not Almighty God. For the record, I think the NWT is far from flawless but on this score their logic seems pretty sound to me.
Copy paste from the watchtower website. You conveniently forgot to mention that the manuscript they use as evidence only dated to around 600 C.E.🤣🤣🤣It is written in the same language as the Nag Hammadi apocryphal gnostic writings. But, lets look at some church fathers, shall we? “Nothing, then, is hated by God, nor yet by the Word. For both are one-that is, God. For He has said, ‘In the beginning the Word was in God, and the Word was God.'” (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, Book 1, Chapter 8). “John, however, with more sublimity and propriety, says in the beginning of his Gospel, when defining God by a special definition to be the Word, ‘And the Word was God, and He was in the beginning with God,’” (Origen, On First Principles, Book 1, Chapter 2). “Is that Word of God, then, a void and empty thing, which is called the Son, who Himself is designated God? ‘The Word was with God, and the Word was God.’ It is written, ‘Thou shalt not take God’s name in vain,'” (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter 7).
An excellent video. Maybe I'm biased because I just like John's gospel. Also, it's funny that every time I think I might want to disagree with you at the start of the video, by the end I'm always like "No, very reasonable and well-measured conclusion. Nothing controversial there."
Do you not find it interesting that only one name seems to be given as a source while the others are "evangelical scholars?" That could include Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses. Also, not naming any scholarly sources that'll counter his claim makes it seem that Dan has an agenda when he's supposedly pushing this so-called "data over dogma" movement.
@@dustinrichburg8638 Do I find it interesting that a 3 minute video does not give a comprehensive overview including multiple disagreeing citations? No. No I don't.
@Sapphire Purcell When you called the video "excellent" and the conclusion "very reasonable and well-measured," I figured that 3 minutes was enough for you. Personally, I think taking 10 extra seconds to name a scholarly source disagreeing with his claim probably would have been nice. Do you believe that an evangelical scholar can be affiliated with the Jehovah Witnesses and/or Latter-day Saints?
@@dustinrichburg8638 Yes, I thought it was an excellent, reasonable and well measured three minute video. That's why I said those words about a three minute video. If you disagree with the video or don't like it, move on. Spend your time and energy on things you do like. Go enjoy life.
Dont disagree that it is qualitative, but disagree that the word of god isnt a qualitative statement, and since the greek uses theos in both the word was with theos, and the word was theos, being so close it is perfectly appropriate to use the same english word for theos, which is customarily god
@@maklelan Theos, in two senses: 1. Theos, the Father. The eternal, ungenerated generator of the Logos (Son) 2. Theos as deity/divine nature. A) In the beginning was the Logos The Logos is eternal. B) The Logos was with Theon Logos≠Theon. They are distinct with regard to relationality, ie Father/Son. C) And the Logos was Theos Logos=Theos. They are non-distinct with regard to nature, ie divinity. A statement of co-identity of the Logos with the deity. D) And the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us. John is telling the reader that Jesus is the eternal, divine Word of the Father, become flesh.
@Dan McClellan all Im saying is it seems perfectly within reason to use the same translation for theos in both places since it is part of the same statement. the word was with the theos and the word was theos,... whether you say the word was with the deity, and the word was deity, or the word was with the deity and the word was god, or the word was with the god, and the word was deity, while the last may be the clearest, saying that the translation "the word was with the god, and the word was god" is a mistranslation is imo not accurate, and better would be to say isnt the best way to translate it
So, here's an example where I agree with you but still will point out that this video is not very useful without Dr. McClellan's view on what the author was trying to say and how that position impacts his belief system.
seeing as he adopts a henotheism interpretation of the bible's monotheism, he would likely say the word is a different deity than the deity mentioned previously, the word was with God, one deity, and the word was deity, though a separate deity than that already mentioned. This interpretation also fits with his mormonism, though I do believe him when he says he does his biblical scholarship detached from his mormon beliefs
@@David-cw7pd This does not fit with Mormonism. Official Mormon doctrine is that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament. My scholarship flatly rejects that identification.
It is not related to and does not impact my belief system. I've described the conceptual framework I believe undergirded the different NT positions on Jesus' relationship to God in a 2018 Biblical Interpretation article (danielomcclellan.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/mcclellan-2017-cognitive-perspectives-on-early-christology.pdf) and in the appendix to my recent book (www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/pubs/9781628374407.pdf).
@@maklelan Thank you, I'm new to word press, and the link sends me to the most current entry. Can you give me the date of the article in question please?
I've read a decent amount of NT Greek and, as a religious Jew, I don't have a lot invested in the translation of John 1:1. But I haven't yet seen Θεος used in the NT in the abstract sense of "deity." Are there other places which show this usage? Besides, what would it mean to an early Christian writer like "John" to say "The Word was deity"? And why didn't he use words like Θεοτης or Θειοτης which literally mean "deity" or "divinity"? There's also the adjective θειος, "divine" that could have been used. Θεος without the definite article meaning God appears all the time in the NT, as it does in some of the subsequent verses in John 1. I also really don't follow your argument that in 1st century Judaism or Christianity the category "deity" is NOT exhausted by the God of Israel. Are you saying Jews and Christians of that period entertained other possible deities? Why does it require a "philosophical framework" separate from basic Judaic belief of the time? Are you saying John was working within pagan or polytheistic categories?...At the very least, this needs a great deal more fleshing out (no pun intended, cf. v. 14).
READ WALLACE'S FULL QUOTE. THIS VIDEO IS MISLEADING😢 The author of this video not only twists Wallace's expressions, but demonstrates ignorance of the basic rules of Greek, since he is talking about a subject that is discussed during the first semester of the study of the language. Fortunately, Wallace's expressions can be found on the Internet, on Bill Mounce's website. Both are professors of Greek who have published with Zondervan. Here is the quote and the link. "The nominative case is the case that the subject is in. When the subject takes an equative verb like “is” (i.e., a verb that equates the subject with something else), then another noun also appears in the nominative case-the predicate nominative. In the sentence, “John is a man,” “John” is the subject and “man” is the predicate nominative. In English the subject and predicate nominative are distinguished by word order (the subject comes first). Not so in Greek. Since word order in Greek is quite flexible and is used for emphasis rather than for strict grammatical function, other means are used to distinguish subject from predicate nominative. For example, if one of the two nouns has the definite article, it is the subject. As we have said, word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1 c. The English versions typically have, “and the Word was God.” But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος and God was the Word. We know that “the Word” is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: “and the Word was God.” Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was θεός thrown forward? and (2) why does it lack the article? In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John’s wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism. To state this another way, look at how the different Greek constructions would be rendered: καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεός “and the Word was the God” (i.e., the Father; Sabellianism) καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεός “and the Word was a god” (Arianism) καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος “and the Word was God” (Orthodoxy). Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has. But he is not the first person of the Trinity. All this is concisely affirmed in καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος." -Daniel B. Wallace www.billmounce.com/newtestamentgreek1/exegetical-insight#:~:text=The%20nominative%20case%20is%20the,the%20nominative%20case%C4%85the%20predicate%20nominative.
"Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has. But he is not the first person of the Trinity." Therefore: Jesus Christ = God. God = Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ has all the attributes that God has. God has all the attributes that Jesus Christ has. But Jesus Christ is not the first person of the Trinity. So Jesus Christ ≠ God. God ≠ Jesus Christ. This is how you can tell this is all just fan-fiction.
@@christasimon9716 At no time does it say that Jesus is God and is not God. It states that Jesus is God but not the Father. Read it slowly. I quoted Wallace because he is the writer to whom the author of the video refers, misrepresenting his writing. But it is the only way to contradict the doctrine, attacking a straw man that they create by twisting what has been said.
The Vulgate reads: Et Deus erat Verbum - And God was the Word. It's surprising Jerome didn't take advantage of the ambiguity to prop up his Jesus figure by translating the Greek into Latin as: Et Verbum erat Deus - And the Word was God, as later translations do.
So we can still refer to it as "deity". So what does that mean? That means the word has some greater than human aspect, some higher aspect that should be revered. So even if the trinitarian form is being projected, or the absolutism of the God as an unequaled pantheon of One was at a later date as history suggests is the case. This still suygests that scripture is still telling us a pretty equivalent thing in the framework of a pantheon of Gods. Whether you hold to a pantheon view or not, I dont see how this doesnt eventually reduce to the same thing. These words were written in conrext to Jesus Christ, the spirit, and Father, so either you have to pick Modalism, Jesus Christ as a divine man and prophet, or trinitarianism. So on a preliminary analysis of just hearing this, as deity suggests as deity in context to the God of the Israelites, and either the spirit and or Jesus Christ. What other deities would John suggest were in the beginning? Thats the problem for me, especially in the context people see YHWH by this point as something as all powerful in the pantheon.
I personally think that this verse is talking about the creation of Adam. The term "god with small g" or "diety" has also been used for Moses and even for Satan in the Bible but when exactly similar word of greek is used for Moses and satan they put it with small g but when exactly similar word of greek is used for Moses they put it with capital G. I think the word "Tontheos" stands for a Godly person.
In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. At the beginning of time the Word already was; and God had the Word abiding with him, and the Word was God.
What is "the data"? Here it seems to merely be grammatical, but no real historical, social, political analysis. As for Wallace, he would argue within a later historical framework and then retrofit it as stated by McClellan, this is true. I have never met an Evangelical who really understands how to do historical research, but then again, neither does McClellan. He is as bad historically as the Evangelicals. What "data" should mean here is an analysis of 1st century socio-political, economic, and religious settings of the groups in question and an attempt to place the utterance within that context. The problem is the "data" is sparse and the groups various meaning very early Christianity is a black hole historically which is why scholars try and retrofit from later data. This shouldn't surprise anyone as we are talking about small groups very early and even in the text there is acknowledgment of differences (see Paul vs Jerusalem Council; Paul vs James; Greco-Roman vs Jewish; etc.). By the way, if you have a definitive reading of John 1:1c which is obviously clear to you, you have no historical motor for the councils to argue about it (often violently) later. Add to all this those enjoyable later Gnostic works and you get a fun cauldron of beliefs in the first few centuries about whoever authored John. Also, people should be interpreting books, not isolated texts. To give McClellan his due, if you're careful, truthful, discerning, you will be quickly dismissed and ignored. Such is the state of our world. If you want something interesting, make sure it's published pre-1945.
I've heard it argued that simply saying "the word was a god" is still a bit too "lowly" when it reaches English ears compared to what was intended, and that something like "divine", "deity", "what God is" etc. is more apt
John uses two Greek forms for God in John 1:1. It was to show that he was talking about two separate gods. Logically Jesus could not be WITH God and also be God. Unless there are 2 Gods. 'and the Word was a god' is rhe proper sense and translation. It just means that Jesus was a mighty being who was WITH God at some point in the distant past. Jesus would be, he being an angel.
In part at least as angel literally means messenger so the Word would be the very first and primary messenger from God. Yahushua indicated that he saw Abraham so was he the "angel of YHWH" that came to see Abraham?
IF theos referred to YHWH, it should have had the definite article. Theos did not have the definite article. Therefore, theos doesn't refer to YHWH. I don't see the problem here. It's only a problem for those who impose the presupposition that theos refers to YHWH.
If you read the entire gospel, (1) the notion that the “Word was God” or, better translated, “ what God was, the Word was” (aka, the essence of the Word was the same essence as that of God), (2) the point made obvious that “the Word” is referring to Jesus Christ (as is made obvious later in the first chapter), and (3) Jesus’ statements about himself (i.e., before Abraham was, I AM”) clearly indicate that the author is implying that Jesus is in fact not only “deity” as if it were unspecified, but the God revealed to Moses-I AM (or, in the third person, Yahweh (“He Is”).
The reason why so many people are confused about the Bible and often remarked that it has so many contradictions is because that same people (along with their followers) is making the verses more complicated than what they really are, simple. They announced to the world that the Bible is full of mysteries and hidden meanings or teachings, that is why most often have to consult experts (e.g. bible scholars, theologians, professors, etc.) to interpret it for them instead of reading it by heart by themselves with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. If you believe that the Bible has many hidden meanings or teachings then you've already FAILED, even before you open the Bible. The Bible has no secrets or hidden message that you have to create your own interpretation thus, makings things more complicated than what they are. Now, going back to the topic. John's message in John 1:1 has always been simple and straightforward, no hidden meanings whatsoever; "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". What is so hard to understand about the "Word" in this verse? Well, it will only be complicated if you try to infuse your own interpretation in order to fit your own argument or agenda (whatever that is). Remember, John is uneducated and illiterate then why would he play with words in his book just to confuse his readers? They (the apostles) were chosen by Jesus to be His witnesses, NOT cryptographers (that makes coded messages). Remember, it is the Holy Spirit Himself that makes John and the rest of the apostles able to write and speak different languages. It is through the Holy Spirit of Truth that these verses were made possible. Now, if you have a problem with John's message in John 1:1 then go argue with the Holy Spirit since He is the one who actually wrote those verses. Now, if you're trying so hard to disprove that Jesus is the "Word" in John 1:1 because you are afraid that your "unitarian" argument will fail then please allow me to go back in the beginning from the Old Testament: Isiah 48:12-16 - In here, Jesus (God) is the one talking with reference to the "I am the first and the last" quote of Jesus in the New Testament (Revelation 1:8 and Revelation 1:17-18). Also, God the Father and the Holy Spirit is in here as well. Unitarians brace yourselves! :) - you now have another verse(s) in the Old Testament to disprove. NOTE: Use the "WORD-FOR-WORD" Bible (e.g. NASB, NKJV/KJV, etc.) this time and onwards because they are more accurate than the "THOUGHT-FOR-THOUGHT" and "PARAPHRASE" type of Bible. That is why most people are confused because they are not using the right translation of the Bible that is closest to the Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek version. Peace and Blessings!
3 points of refutation: 1. We should interpret θεός as being Yahweh because the context demands it. Because θεός is used qualitatively in John 1:1, we should look at the context to understand what quality John is giving to the Word. While we could give θεός a really broad meaning like it is sometimes given in 2nd Temple Judaism, it makes far more sense to simply interpret it in with the immediate context. The immediate context is “The Word was with God” and this is very clearly referring to Yahweh. Therefore, John would have to be a very bad writer to make a predicate nominative, give the Word the quality of θεός, and not expect readers to connect it with θεον in the clause right before. TLDR: The verse could be praphrased: “The Word was with The Divine, and the Word was Divine”. We should use the first part to interpret the second. Divine is clearly referring to the same being aka Yahweh. 2. John could have just used a different word, θείος as an adjective, but instead he uses the noun. If John didn’t want us to think “the Word was with God” and “the Word was God” were referring to the same being, he did a piss poor job of writing 3. In John 20:28 Thomas refers to Jesus as God, very clearly referring to the Most High, monotheistic capitol G God, and Jesus confirms Thomas claim. TLDR: Jesus is God
2) McClellan's central claim (that, according to the consensus view of Evangelicals, "The Word was God" is a mistranslation) is easily disproven by a cursory reading of evangelical translations (ESV, NIV, NASB, CSB) or any evangelical commentaries on John. Every single one translates "καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος" as "and the word was God." In fact, expand your search to consider other non-evangelical translations (NRSV, NAB) and commentaries, and you will find "the word was God" is the standard translation.
Hey, really appreciate your breakdown on this but as far as how it would have been seen in a 1st century Jewish context (being strictly monotheists, so that if there was someone identified with diety it would be the one God), especially when taken with the rest of the gospel of John (one example being all of the I am statements, ego emi) I think it's clear that John is making the claim that the Word, which he clarifies is Christ, is the same God of Israel. The second century writers like Polycarp, ignatius (desciple s of John) Irenaeus (desciple of Polycarp) clement of Rome (desciple of peter, also technically a 1st century writer as he was martyred in 99) were simply expounding on what was in the scriptures and the teachings that they received from the Apostles, specifically in the context of defending the orthodox faith from fales teachers (thus the title of Irenaeus' seminal works, against heresies). It doesn't seem likely that John, a jew who Literally records Jesus claiming the Divine name (Jn 8:58), would refer someone as a deity and not be referring to the One God. Furthermore, it seems even more spurious that if John taught this, his descipes would have taught the opposite. So in conclusion the Interpretive framework is not only present in John's own culture and spiritual texts (see the entire old testament canon) but within the book itself
I did not see the video not to be in any way influenced by your premises. I love the gospel of john, and have translated it several time. Now: those three magnificent sentences are the simplest and the hardest to translate at the same time. If one aimes to a "Koine" translation to keep the tone of the original, I'd say that KJ is absolutely correct in the way it presents it, beautifully and simply translated. However, that may not really make evident John's philosophy for two obvious reasons, being the main one the concept of God a Jew had. Thr word en (was) in Jewish has a much deeper meaning, being happened / ocurred a common synonim, and that is the case here. The Jewish vision of God is not static, it is a one always in-act. So a much better translation to give back the meaning of both John's logos and his God should be: In the beginning the Word was living already - and the Word stood in front of God - and the word was divine. Divine is the most appropriate attribute in the third scene noth grammatically and logically. The greek original lacks the article in the third sentence.
it all adds up Dan... the word was with God, and the word was God , and the word became flesh and dwelt among us... Jesus Christ , Dan, he is the word...Christ has a throne at the right of God, they both have, Christ was born by God, Christ is God... Amen!
Right the word was the word God so on the beginning was the word isn’t wasn’t good himself but the 3 letter word God so when Jesus he was the word he meant he was literally God which isn’t true he was not the word God at all I believe it is THE WPED WAS GOD what is the word mentioned was GOd God is 100% not the word we don’t know this word could be anything or it could mean his the word but if he meant like his voice I’m the bible like the word of God as he said he would said words because it’s more than one word no one has ever explained what the word was doesn’t say unless it says the word is God which ik would believe more than God being the word another thing is he could be literally the wprd God but thts we call him he is God then not a word it makes more sense the wprd was with God so a word was with him so what’s the word it then says the word was God I’ll say it again I think about it like I do in the beginning was the word ‘God’ the word was with God So a word was with him the word was God what was the word with him God think what you want but it makes sense.
The translation "the Word was God" is correct. Why isn't there an article before "Theos"? It's actually simple, because "ho Theos" is the Father in the preceding clause "The Word was with God (ho Theos)", if the article article was included then, the text would be saying Jesus was the Father, but Jesus isn't the Father, He is God with the Father, that's the point of John 1:1.
No. And Jesus has a God. John 1 1 makes a distinction between God and the word. And Jesus is not mentioned in John 1 1. The word is God's spoken command, not a being. So when God created Jesus by his word, the word became human.
The Word was God = God was the Word (kai theos en ho logos). "deity" - while grammatically correct, obscures the importance of the word that John used. Whatever "God" was in the second line's "The Word was with God" is deliberately partnered with the third line's "The Word was God." Thus, Dan is correct that it is a qualitative description - whatever "God" is in the second line, the Word is in the third line. IOW, the Word was whatever "God" was in the second line. It does not mean they are the same entity, it simply means if the God of the second line is "God" then the Word of the third line is also "God." Not "a god," not a deity, not divine: "God." There is no need to complicate or obscure the issue. But the Word is the God of Israel - we see at least eighty OT-NT parallels showing that the words and descriptions of the OT YHWH are solely applied to the NT's Jesus Christ. Ergo, they are the same entity. Jesus Christ was the mortal YHWH. This same entity was known as "YHWH" to the OT Hebrews, and "Jesus Christ" to the NT Jews and Gentiles.
That’s odd, why not say that “the Logos of the NeoPlatonists IS Zeus/Theos” rather than “was,” then? If “was” is such an important/accurate part of the translation, then it seems that John is trying to say that the angels of Yahweh or Yahweh himself like the Hindus say for their dirties and like what Jacob/Israel/“James” wrestled with.
As he often does, Dan just concentrated on one area/point and did not draw your attention to the other relevant data. I'm not arguing with Dan's translation, of John 1:1. However it is also the case, that the "word" in John 1:1 is not only identified as a living being but is further identified as Jesus. This being, called the Word, made everything: "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." (John 1:3) This being, called the Word, was made flesh and came to earth and dwelt with humans - Jesus; "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, ... full of grace and truth. (John 1:14) This same being, the Word, Jesus, who came to the world also made the world; "He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not." (John 1:10)
A lot of people are confused about this, but the definite article before Logos makes it nominative. Theos is accusative. The reason the word order seems backwards is just to show emphasis that Jesus is GOD.
This verse is simply saying "The promise [word] of God was divine" .. that is the promised word made by God was a divine promise. Its origin was of God, and not of man.. thats the word that was in the beginning (beginning being when it word/promise was made to Abraham) with God . . there is no Logos becoming God in these texts. Its simply a divine promise being fulfilled in the flesh (ie, in time, space, and history)
You keep indicating the doctrine of the Trinity was developed in the 2nd to 5th century. I see it is largely a 4th to 7th century development. There was really no concept of the Trinity in any substantial sense (as it is understood today) until the 4th century. We might see a precursor in the 3rd century, but that was an extreme minority view. Where in the second century is anything articulated that is even close to the trinity? The closest things are forged letters of Ignatius. But those are bogus. My understanding is that 2nd century Proto-orthodox "fathers" abstained from using the term Homoousion in reference to the Son.
“As done in the previous sections, we will transliterate this clause into English letters: kai theos ēn ho logos Since we already recognize these words, let’s quickly translate them: “and God was the word” Is this a good translation of the Greek? No, it is not. First, it should be observed that “logos,” not “theos,” is the subject. Why? Because theos does not have an article in front of it like logos does. The clause is not, “kai ho theos ēn logos.” John recorded this differently. He, under divine inspiration, writes, “kai theos ēn ho logos.” “Ho logos,” then, is the subject since it contains the definite article. This is why, in our translation, we would place “logos” before “theos.” Furthermore, if John had written, “ho theos ēn ho logos,” then he would be advocating Sabellianism, which basically states that God the Father and God the Son are one and the same, thus denying the Trinity. If he would have constructed his sentence that way, we could have roughly translated it as, “The God was the Word.” But this is not what John records. John actually leaves out the article from theos. Even more so, if John had stated, “The God was the Word,” he would have contradicted the second clause, which states that the Word was with God. This would have denied the eternal distinction between the Father and the Son. After all, if the Son was the Father, then how could he have been distinct from himself? But since there is no article before theos, does that mean Jesus was “a god” and not “God.” After all, John leaves out the article before theos. Should we then translate this as “the Word was divine” or “the Word was a god?” In short, are the Jehovah’s Witnesses right in doing this? After all, Jehovah’s Witnesses say that, “John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word-that he was ‘divine,’ ‘godlike,’ ‘a god,’ but not Almighty God.” This is hardly the case. Under divine guidance, John actually constructs this clause to refute such an idea. As MacArthur rightly notes, if John had wanted “to say that the Word was merely in some sense divine [“a god”], he could have used the adjective theios (cf. 2 Peter 1:4). ” But, as we can see, he does not use theios at all. John is saying something more than “Jesus was ‘a god.’” The only resulting conclusion is that Christ, being eternally distinct from the Father (refer to our discussion on clause two), was nonetheless God.”- Matt Slick (carm.org)
If the intended meaning is referring to quality then St John would used theotes which is an adjective instead of theos anarthrous which is a noun. This is why only Jehovah Witnesses translate this as a deity instead of God. St Gregory of Nazianzus explained that ho theos can only apply to the Father alone that's why in Nicene creed we profess one God the Father. Not one God the essence or one God Trinity. St Basil of Caesarea when defending monotheism didn't argue with common essence but rather argue there's only one God because there's only one Father. This is why Scripture must be exegete through the lenses of Church history. How it was interpreted in the 2nd 3rd 4th 5th century to present time. If there's a deviation it would be detected. Social Trinitarianism is polytheism. Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades are three persons with consubstantial nature.
The Father in John 1 and John 17 is also called God without the definite article. So is the father also not the God of Israel according to John? If John had placed the definite article before ‘God’ when applied to the ‘Word’ then this would mean the God of Israel is the Word. However, John doesn’t think that the Father is the ‘Word’. In addition, it would also imply that the Father and Jesus were the same, which John does not.
For anyone who wants to listen to this nonsense, here is the original Greek for you, I include the previous verse to help for contrast: Kai ho Logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en ho Logos. and the WORD was with THE GOD (accusative masculine singular), and GOD (nominative masculine singular) was the Word Let me simplify: "and the word was with (or part of) the ONLY GOD , and GOD (the person named God) was the Word." Don't listen to false teachers, God's word is clear.
The name is never said for it is not of this world. Only words made for this world are said here. The One came to call, will you answer when the One called Jesus, Christ, Emmanual comes. Wisdom was here, the gate is narrow and harrowing is the path to redemption.Fear nottt.
But yet YHWY 😂😂😂 so back to square one lol The logos is deity and is still pointing to the fact …. That the logos (utterance of YHWY) is still deity as in Godhead!!
I used to have arguments with my father about this one, he supported the traditional reading whereas I favour "and the word was divine", that seemed to make the most sense to me.
Yes, and divine means God so either way it’s describing Jesus as divine and divine means God and there’s only one God so
@@CAMIAM05
"Divine" in that period of time was used for messianic or figures that were not God as well. Helenized judaism has also said the stars were divine, obviously that does not mean stars were God.
READ WALLACE'S FULL QUOTE. Wallace's expressions can be found on the Internet, on Bill Mounce's website. Both are professors of Greek who have published with Zondervan. Here is the quote and the link.
"The nominative case is the case that the subject is in. When the subject takes an equative verb like “is” (i.e., a verb that equates the subject with something else), then another noun also appears in the nominative case-the predicate nominative. In the sentence, “John is a man,” “John” is the subject and “man” is the predicate nominative. In English the subject and predicate nominative are distinguished by word order (the subject comes first). Not so in Greek. Since word order in Greek is quite flexible and is used for emphasis rather than for strict grammatical function, other means are used to distinguish subject from predicate nominative. For example, if one of the two nouns has the definite article, it is the subject.
As we have said, word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1 c. The English versions typically have, “and the Word was God.” But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads,
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
and God was the Word.
We know that “the Word” is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: “and the Word was God.” Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was θεός thrown forward? and (2) why does it lack the article?
In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John’s wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism.
To state this another way, look at how the different Greek constructions would be rendered:
καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεός
“and the Word was the God”
(i.e., the Father; Sabellianism)
καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεός
“and the Word was a god” (Arianism)
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
“and the Word was God” (Orthodoxy).
Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has. But he is not the first person of the Trinity. All this is concisely affirmed in καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος."
-Daniel B. Wallace
www.billmounce.com/newtestamentgreek1/exegetical-insight#:~:text=The%20nominative%20case%20is%20the,the%20nominative%20case%C4%85the%20predicate%20nominative.
@@CAMIAM05not at all. Divine does not mean God, at least it didn't. I would argue it still doesn't
@@CAMIAM05 Thats not what divine means smh. Angels are considered divine as well. Divine just means "god like". Which i like that render the best.
I think what he means by "deity" is divine. Divinity was more of a gradient category in the ancient Mediterranean world. As demonstrated by Philo, Hellenized Judaism allowed for people and even stars to be divine without disregarding monotheism.
He's overcomplicating it. Every day, people have conversations in which they talk about "God, the Father," "God, the Son," and "God, the Holy Spirit," acknowledging there personhoods of God, and then turn around and use the unspecified "God," with the expectation that people understand that in the absence of context clues to the contrary, the assumption is that unspecified references to "God" are references to "God, the Father."
Therefore, when the author of John says that the _Logos_ is with God and is God, I fail to see how this is any different than how we continue to use this language.
IOW, written out less poetically and more explicitly, the author might have said something such as, "the _Logos_ was with God, the Father, and the _Logos_ was, Himself, also God, even if that's not too say that He was the Father, Himself."
If the point is that anyone is wrong who thinks this passage says that the _Logos_ is the Father, then I agree - that goes against the passage as well as the teachings of the Church. That in no way means this passage is "mistranslated," however.
@@MarcillaSmith It seems like you completely missed the entire point. Everything you are saying about "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" is a later theological development. When John wrote those words, there is no indication whatsoever he had any idea of what a "trinity" would even mean. To not retroject this later theological development into the text, it is more accurate to translate it as the word is written, which like he said is that "the word was deity".
Like he said, you absolutely can then INTERPRET what that means to be that the Logos was also God but not the Father. But it could also be just as validly interpreted to mean that Christ was a separate divine being, of lesser stature than God himself but still a deity. Dan's point is that the translation should as accurately reflect the meaning of the actual words as they are written, which is just that the Logos was divine. Then AFTER the translation is made as true to the original language as possible, interpretation can be done by people reading the passages to decide that it means the Logos is part of a Godhead called the trinity, or that the Logos is a diving being above the angels but lower than God, or the Logos is a separate divine entity. Translation should be a guide for interpretation, not the other way around.
father son and spirit was a gnostic addition referencing the mind body and soul aspects of a human being.
I think God is a meme. And I mean meme in terms of its original definition instead of the way we use it now as an internet image to convey a small idea or even a big one.
And I think Richard Dawkins inadvertently stumbled upon something when is introduced his idea of memetics.
Which brings me back to this...
In the beginning was the word.
I believe in this context it's spoken language. And it was devine or good, which if I remember correctly the word often used for "good" just meant functional. I could be wrong about that last part hell I could be wrong about all of it, my brain is just running at a million miles an hour rn
All predicates describe a quality, attribute,characteristic of the Subject Nominative. The immediate context defines the Logos as an uncreated theos
@noelhausler8006 Arius was a poet and singer:" There was a time when the son was NOT,WHEN THE SON WAS NOT BUT THE FATHER, ALWAYS"!
“Word was divine”… I always felt that was the best translation
Dan, are you familiar with David Bentley Hart's NT translation? His footnote on this seems to address varying translations. Wondered what you thought about his interpretation.
Divine is also a good word to use. Given it meaning typically used.
Thank you Dan for this and all your other work. The terms 'son of god ' and 'son of man' really confound me at times. Any chance you have or will comment on them? TY.
Hey there! I’m not Dan, but in the event he isn’t able to create a response to this, this is the simple explanation.
“Son of Man” is a title that’s used a few times in the Old Testament, but probably the reference the writers of the Gospels had in mind is the vision of Daniel (chapter 7) where the Ancient of days (God the Father) coronates this Son of Man after he ascends into Heaven. Jesus referring to himself using this title would have been a claim to being the Messiah.
Son of God would have been in reference to being a Jewish King, if I’m not mistaken.
@@justindenlinger6304 Thanks. I have some familiarity with the terms for sure. I just really wonder if 1st and 2nd century Christians really understood the terms to be 'equal with the Father'. I really doubt it, however why do we get verses like John 5:18 where Jesus calling God his Father is seen as a threat of equality? When those first Christians said, eg "son of God" did they really think he was God? I don't think so...just divine. I realize John was a later Gospel. 🙂
@@kevincameron1567 I’m not sure they would have viewed Christ as exactly the same as the Father either. It’s clear Christ is volitionally subordinate to the Father. There is definitely hierarchical structure in that relationship. I tend to view John 5:18 as saying Christ is wholly united with the Father. There is no discongruity of will between them, and their love for one another is perfect.
Whether his cosmic status is deity, or divine, he is certainly half-deity, and is the only offspring of YHWH, which sets him apart from all other spiritual and physical beings.
@@justindenlinger6304Angels, Israel itself, kings, and believers are also referred to as Sons of God.
Here’s a verse from Romans that verifies this.
Romans 8:14-17
14For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.” 16The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17and if children, then heirs-heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together.
We are heirs with Christ!
@@justindenlinger6304Correct. Romans 8:14 clarifies what a Son of God entails. Christ submits to the will of the Father and never claims equality with Him. That’s man’s doctrine that claims He is equal, just as the Pharisees attempted to accuse Him of saying so when He never claimed to be.
I usually heard conservative Christians cite the Cromwell rule here but I have never heard of this rule outside of the context of John 1:3. Could you cover this?
Are there English translations that do not impose meaning on the text? I know its impossible to remove translator bias, but I am peeved by how many instances there are of translators doing additional interpretation of the text. Forgive my ignorance, I genuinely wish to learn.
@RobSeib It is called Exegesis, the interpretational principle destroying the silly argument in this video. If you actually consult real scholars on this issue, they will show you that the deceptive mistake made in this video is amateur and based on a misunderstanding of simple Koine Greek.
Bible scholars say a lot.
Was the writings of the New Testament written in Aramaic. Was all the letters in Aramaic. Peter and Paul was writing letters to the congregations before the Gospels was even written. The Gospel of John has Jesus dying on a different day. They also say Matthew, Mark, Luke and John didn't right the Gospels. The Gospels came about at the time Peter and Paul and Jerusalem was destroyed by 70 AD. Jesus and the apostles spoke Aramaic.
It's because the only commonly circulated manuscripts are in Greek. The strong consensus of modern scholars is that Revelation was not written by either the apostle John nor by the author of John’s Gospel. To distinguish the author, they now refer to him simply as ‘John of Patmos’. Patmos was a Greek island and naturally the book was written in Greek to be read by Greek-speaking Christians.
But for the record, this is why when the boy Jesus taught at the Temple in Hebrew translating it into perfect Aramaic that the Rabbis were astounded. This was the first time a boy did what the priests could not do.
The four gospels is associated with the four living creatures Matthew the man, Mark the lion, Luke the ox, and John the eagle.
John has Jesus dying on a different day. It's the Day of Preparation not the Day of Preparation for Passover.
It was the day they prepare the lambs for sacrifice. While at the same time Jesus is prepared for sacrifice. Jesus is the Lamb of YHVH Yehovah Jehovah
The Apostle John who was the last Apostle. Who I believed received Revelation was the Q source for the gospels that scholars argue about. John would have been an eyewitness to all.
The answer to your question is yes. The New World Translation properly renders Johm 1:1. Also The Bible - An American Translation, from 1935. Also the Emphatic Diaglott from 1864, and others.
It is impossible to translate language without interpreting it. There is no one-to-one correspondence between the words of one language and the words of another. You can't translate the words. You have to translate the meaning. That requires you to give meaning to the words in the source language. That's true whether you are translating the Bible or anything else.
The difference is approach comes from what meaning you try to give it. Dan's approach is to do his best to objectively determine the intended meaning of the author, given the context they were writing in. There are other translators that try to give it meaning that fits their existing dogma.
That is what is happening here. When a monotheist translates the word "theos" they are inclined to give it the meaning they themselves would mean by that word - a singular and uniquely divine entity - even if that isn't how the original author intended it.
Can you speak to how the patristic writers of the 4th century understood the Greek? Did Arius make this argument about the grammar? Or did others make the counter argument?
They actually agree with orthodoxy. Go read the church fathers, the understood Greek better tan any scholar today and they reject the amateur mistake this deceptive video makes.
@@albabialdayaqi5885you forget that the newly converted roman empire which was now Catholic, decided what the official doctrine of the church would be in the nicea conference in the 4th century AD. The coptic translations predate this by a good margin.
As Greek does not have indefinite articles. Meaning when we translate to English we have to take the context into account. People will now try to bring in grammar rules of group. However it can still be interpreted both ways, correctly as attested by multiple scholars.
This is where doctrine plays a big part. The translation from the Greek into coptic, which does have indefinite articles and had a way better understanding of the time. Compared to the first English translation in 17th century AD. (This is where the argument and slander of heresie begins. And in my opinion with no real basis)
But That means for most of the time, english people had to rely on spiritual leaders to translate the scriptures for them. And they did, with the trinity doctrine in mind. Teachings were made to portray a teaching that is not found in scripture. And without John 1:1 and it's ambiguity. There wouldn't be anything cementing the trinity in place.
Today we often use the Greek as proof and the minute the sahidic coptic translation is brought up "we don't need to analyse linguistics to prove what we believe of our God" or it's " early Christian heresies"
Now tell me... Why would early Christians be a bad thing.. They were closer to the time of Christ and had a better understanding of the context for the translation. Yet when this is mentioned... It is only met with slander And try to discredit.
I'm one that believes that if you cut off a man's tongue you fear what he has to say.
Beware of false teachings. Seek and ye shall find.
Not doing much seeking if you're just told to belive the church fathers blindly without question
Do you believe that verses 1-18 in chapter 1 was added in much after the death of John? Because after you read verses 1-18. It begins make a big shift from this deifying Jesus to John suddenly being questioned by the pharisees
Could you point to some scholarly resources about the development of 2nd+ century trinitarian doctrine as categorically different than the first century understanding of Jesus' Lordship?
How Jesus Became God by Ehrman is a good introductory breakdown of that subject.
So, what might have the author of the Gospel of John intended?
To explain the relationship between God and the Word of God. The Sahidic translation the Christians used in Egypt in the early 2nd Century does, unlike Hebrew and Greek, have the indefinite article, and it reads "and the Word was a god". Angels are also called "gods" in the Hebrew Bible, understood as 'divine ones' 'powerful ones' etc, but not of course as 'The God', which is exclusively used to describe Yahweh.
It should be added that things like attacking idolatry and Greek polytheism is in no way incompatible with the view that Yahweh does not exhaust the category of θεός. Philo is a case in point - while emphasizing Yahweh's unique metaphysical status and rejecting deification of rulers, he still calls Moses θεός no less than ten times, says that Moses was "changed into the divine" and became "truly divine" (Questions on Exodus, 2.29)
Well idols aren’t for Yahweh either....
I can’t believe I’ve never heard this before. Thank you. Fascinating
Because it's false. It's been debunked already. John 1:18 doesn't use the definite article when referring to God the Father. The reason no definite article was used, was to distinguish the Logos (the Word) from the One the Logos was with (God the Father).
@@fodynot2244 Context is key. This video is correct when taken in context with the entire Bible and specifically John.
John 20:17
17Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’ ”
So God has a God huh? Are you willing to stand in rebellion against the words of Christ Himself to defend man’s doctrine?
@@richcrude2674 Did you read just 11 verses later where Thomas says THE GOD of me to Jesus?
You made a complete strawman of the Trinitarian position. We believe the Son of God assumed human flesh as stated in John 1:14. And in fulfillment of Psalm 22:10, the Father became His God! So yes, that berse makes total sense in light of Trinitarian theology. AND Thomas' words to Jesus saying "The Lord of me, THE GOD of me" also is in line with our theology.
@@richcrude2674 well put...
@@fodynot2244 Jesus came to present God Almighty through himself; and so Jesus having told his apostles that seeing him is seeing God makes total sense - which does not mean he is God Almighty himself in full glory, but one presenting him as - or hearing him is hearing the God of Israel, this too makes total sense.. Thomas' words would not be out of place to say my lord and my God, because Jesus in the flesh presents God - seeing or hearing Jesus is hearing and seeing YHWH - for he came to do not his will but the will of the one that sent him, his God, but he is also the Messiah\Jesus\lord. King David prophesied: . At no point does Jesus ever ever teach something called a trinity doctrine, nor his 1st century disciples - however Jesus tells the reader over and over and over that he has a God, just as his apostles John, Peter or Paul taught that *Jesus their lord and saviour has a God,* repeatedly referring to the God of Israel as "the God and Father or our lord Jesus Christ", this exact expression is all over the New Testament..
2 Corinthians 1:3 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"
2 Corinthians 11:13 "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"
Romans 15:6 "so that with one mind and one voice you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."
1 Peter 1:3 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!"
Jesus himself says he has a God a number of times pre-ascension, post-ascension Jesus in glory continues to tell the reader that he has a God - ie YHWH the God of Israel, the very one praised by Name repeatedly in Chapter 19 - with Jesus repeatedly referring to Him in Chapter 3 as "my God" "my God" "my God" "my God".......... People can fight against the very words of Jesus as much as they want because they are twisted or deceived by a false doctrine, but this is futile, because this is scripture, and it puts the topic firmly in BROAD context.
Does it actually make a difference?
Only to those who care if it matters weather one believes that the Christian god is triune or whether Jesus/Joshua is just some empowered angel like Satan or Michael or Gabriel or Metatron.
Wasn't the Targum were already replacing the Lord with the Memra?
Thanks you for explaning in this short video. I have had many apologist that tries to argue otherwise.
You believe this guy? John 1:18 doesn't use the definite article when referring to God the Father. People are still arguing about this?
@@fodynot2244 i believe the same church that brought us the scriptures. This guy just happens to fall in line with her.
@srich7503 So your a member of The Catholic Church ?
@@fodynot2244 indeed i am! Very nice deduction.
@srich7503 So "this guy" must be referring to me. Because the guy in the video , Dan, is not catholic, he is speaking lies
I immediately admit that I don't understand many of the big words you've used and I can't reject what you said because of that. Was this video about saying God is theos which means deity? Do you have a video about logos G3056? Because I understand it to mean... When of the mind it is the purpose and intention of the thought. And when it's actually verbally put out there it's still the intention and purpose of the thought made manifest in words proceeded from the mouth.
So to me it would read... The intention and purpose of the thoughts was (of) deity.
The closest term in English is “divine” but in context you’d have to understand that the Greeks thought of Zeus=Theos and the name meaning shining=divine.
If you look into the scholar he appealed to you’ll realize that the word logos is just the subject. Predicate nominative = The term Theos is a predicate noun/descriptive telling us what the logos was or what he was so in other words this is a noun telling you what the word (logos) was, describing the qualities of god (theos) (the nature, characteristics etc) no matter how theos is spelt it’s still the same god behind spoken which is the father. Go search up scholar he appealed to and see for yourself dans in correct
@@sosaflex9152you still go back to Greek. Let's hear the earlier coptic translation. Before the trinity was pushed as a mandatory teaching of the church. It would do you some good. You need to read it with a clear mind. With no preconceived notion of proving or disproving the trinity. Just take it as it was meant to. Not with man made ideas.
Dan, are you saying the most likely implication of this data is that the author had a polytheistic world view?
No, even as a Mormon which he admits he is, even FREE-CHOICE Angels are dirties that don’t want and shouldn’t be worshipped. That is likely why he chose to use the word “deity” for Theos instead of what it meant in its original Greco-Roman context “divine/shining/Zeus.”
Would love some interaction from the NET Bible which seems to use different arguments for the traditional translation than the ones you have mentioned:
“FOOTNOTE
tn Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (theos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.sn And the Word was fully God. John’s theology consistently drives toward the conclusion that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is just as much God as God the Father. This can be seen, for example, in texts like John 10:30 (“The Father and I are one”), 17:11 (“so that they may be one just as we are one”), and 8:58 (“before Abraham came into existence, I am”). The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”); rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence.”
My problem with that rendering is that "theos" is coin greek isn't ever used as an "essence" its also either used as a name like The God( "ho theos" )or indefinitely as a category of being... "a god" (theos)
The same goes with a few other completely identical grammatical passages in the John itself.
John 4:19 - ("a prophet")
John 8:48 - ("a Samaritan")
John 18:37 (a) - ("a king")
John 18:37 (b) - ("a king")
But there is no definite article in the English sentence either. Isn't this rather than a critique of the particular translation (where maybe the capital G in the word God might be something that can be argued against) a critique of particular reading of said phrase? Interesting point nevertheless.
That’s because *names* are not articleised in English.
But what does "deity" mean in this context if it doesn't mean God?
Holy, sacred, of great[est] hierarchical order, primary, elementary, etc …
It is an acceptable translation. This is just the nitpickyness of scholars. Translating θεὸς into 'deity' essentially nullifies the momentum and meaning of the text. For instance, John 20:28 would be translated 'My Lord and my deity!' Such a translation collapses the meaning of the text, essentially nullifying the obvious emotion of Thomas, even though it is, fundamentally, an accurate translation.
@@jasonkaufman6186 John 20:28 is different. True understanding of His Word must be done accurately. If multiple translations of the same verse are equally acceptable, those translations must be read together, and their differences must be thoroughly examined every time that verse is brought up. If one translation is less acceptable, even if it is consistent with the rest of the Bible, then that translation must be discarded. Do not risk contorting His Word, even if you are using it to glorify Him.
Dan, in what source is Wallace making this argument?
Wallace's expressions can be found on the Internet, on Bill Mounce's website. Both are professors of Greek who have published with Zondervan. Here is the full quote and the link.
"The nominative case is the case that the subject is in. When the subject takes an equative verb like “is” (i.e., a verb that equates the subject with something else), then another noun also appears in the nominative case-the predicate nominative. In the sentence, “John is a man,” “John” is the subject and “man” is the predicate nominative. In English the subject and predicate nominative are distinguished by word order (the subject comes first). Not so in Greek. Since word order in Greek is quite flexible and is used for emphasis rather than for strict grammatical function, other means are used to distinguish subject from predicate nominative. For example, if one of the two nouns has the definite article, it is the subject.
As we have said, word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1 c. The English versions typically have, “and the Word was God.” But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads,
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
and God was the Word.
We know that “the Word” is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: “and the Word was God.” Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was θεός thrown forward? and (2) why does it lack the article?
In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John’s wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism.
To state this another way, look at how the different Greek constructions would be rendered:
καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεός
“and the Word was the God”
(i.e., the Father; Sabellianism)
καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεός
“and the Word was a god” (Arianism)
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
“and the Word was God” (Orthodoxy).
Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has. But he is not the first person of the Trinity. All this is concisely affirmed in καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος."
-Daniel B. Wallace
www.billmounce.com/newtestamentgreek1/exegetical-insight#:~:text=The%20nominative%20case%20is%20the,the%20nominative%20case%C4%85the%20predicate%20nominative.
All the semantic arguments about grammar can actually be set aside with this one very simple point. Throughout ALL of John's writings, and even within the verse of John 1:1, you see his form of writing is to use the definite article to denote specific verses general. Or to denote identity verses quality. Why would John, in the very last phrase of this one and only verse, suddenly change his writing style? He wouldn't have. So, all the creative ways that trinitarians come up with to explain away the missing definite article are nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
Thanks. We appreciate sharing your education with us. Please consider addressing John 8:54 where Jesus says his Father is the God of the Jews, but many claim Jesus is saying HE is the God of the Jews.
And then consider addressing John 8:58 where they claim Jesus is saying he is the Exodus 3:14 “I AM” The Septuagint Exodus 3:14 does not give precedence for that claim.
I wish I could articulate this as you have, I've been trying to argue the trinity with christians, feels like a blessing to find this.
How does this dispute? The trinity at all? Diety means God so even if it’s using the word deity, the meaning doesn’t change all that much.
Any particular reason you are only discussing the evangelical scholarly consensus? No engagement with Catholic or Orthodox scholarship?
He is not even discussing the evangelical consensus. HE IS TWISTING WALLACE QUOTE!
Wallace's expressions can be found on the Internet, on Bill Mounce's website. Both are professors of Greek who have published with Zondervan. Here is the quote and the link.
"The nominative case is the case that the subject is in. When the subject takes an equative verb like “is” (i.e., a verb that equates the subject with something else), then another noun also appears in the nominative case-the predicate nominative. In the sentence, “John is a man,” “John” is the subject and “man” is the predicate nominative. In English the subject and predicate nominative are distinguished by word order (the subject comes first). Not so in Greek. Since word order in Greek is quite flexible and is used for emphasis rather than for strict grammatical function, other means are used to distinguish subject from predicate nominative. For example, if one of the two nouns has the definite article, it is the subject.
As we have said, word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1 c. The English versions typically have, “and the Word was God.” But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads,
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
and God was the Word.
We know that “the Word” is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: “and the Word was God.” Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was θεός thrown forward? and (2) why does it lack the article?
In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John’s wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism.
To state this another way, look at how the different Greek constructions would be rendered:
καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεός
“and the Word was the God”
(i.e., the Father; Sabellianism)
καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεός
“and the Word was a god” (Arianism)
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
“and the Word was God” (Orthodoxy).
Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has. But he is not the first person of the Trinity. All this is concisely affirmed in καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος."
-Daniel B. Wallace
www.billmounce.com/newtestamentgreek1/exegetical-insight#:~:text=The%20nominative%20case%20is%20the,the%20nominative%20case%C4%85the%20predicate%20nominative.
Is the Jehovah's Witnesses' NWT translation legitimate? ("The word was *A* God?")
Yes it is
@@thambone30 no its not! Not at all!
@S Rich Yes it is. I suggest you read Professor Jason David BeDuhn PhD book " Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament"
@@thambone30 😁 and what makes this professor THE all knowing professor above the thousands of others in the world? OR better yet, answer the follow harder question-
History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, not only did they not agree but their list of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time. So, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 5th century with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved it by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us, show us, who did? Then If this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself?
Pretty legitimate by Bible ✝️ translation standards. Otherwise, eh.
What about John 20:28 where’s Thomas says « my Lord and my God »
Or you can just see this as an example of colwell’s canon. There is usually no article if the noun comes before the verb, and it can be translated as definite
And... what difference does it really make? 🤔
It weakens claims on Jesus/Joshua NOT being lower than the Father as his character described in the gospels but later Christians refuse to care/want to see it that way… because then they just wouldn’t believe, it would not be emotionally salient/manipulative enough for them.
You might like to refer to Moulton, Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol 3. 183. In short, the definite article attaches to the predicate if it follows the verb, but lacks it if it precedes the verb.
So. What then could be defined as "diety" but also NOT GOD. ? Can I be diety?
Do you have super power?
The point about the definite article is incorrect. Usage was very fluid. See Wenham.
"Always follow the data!"
Always!!!
He twisted the data. READ WALLACE'S FULL QUOTE. Wallace's expressions can be found on the Internet, on Bill Mounce's website. Both are professors of Greek who have published with Zondervan. Here is the quote and the link.
"The nominative case is the case that the subject is in. When the subject takes an equative verb like “is” (i.e., a verb that equates the subject with something else), then another noun also appears in the nominative case-the predicate nominative. In the sentence, “John is a man,” “John” is the subject and “man” is the predicate nominative. In English the subject and predicate nominative are distinguished by word order (the subject comes first). Not so in Greek. Since word order in Greek is quite flexible and is used for emphasis rather than for strict grammatical function, other means are used to distinguish subject from predicate nominative. For example, if one of the two nouns has the definite article, it is the subject.
As we have said, word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1 c. The English versions typically have, “and the Word was God.” But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads,
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
and God was the Word.
We know that “the Word” is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: “and the Word was God.” Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was θεός thrown forward? and (2) why does it lack the article?
In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John’s wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism.
To state this another way, look at how the different Greek constructions would be rendered:
καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεός
“and the Word was the God”
(i.e., the Father; Sabellianism)
καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεός
“and the Word was a god” (Arianism)
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
“and the Word was God” (Orthodoxy).
Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has. But he is not the first person of the Trinity. All this is concisely affirmed in καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος."
-Daniel B. Wallace
www.billmounce.com/newtestamentgreek1/exegetical-insight#:~:text=The%20nominative%20case%20is%20the,the%20nominative%20case%C4%85the%20predicate%20nominative.
In Greek John 1:2 it reads “
and God was the word”
not “ the word was God”
I think it should be noted that John is referring to the Elohiym of Genesis 1:1-3. Which is an entirely different discussion.
Ive never heard anyone quote this verse before in defense of our lord jesus being the son of the only true God. When i came across it , it actually made a light shine in my mind. An illumination of sorts. Phillipians 2: 5,6. "Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in Gods form gave no consideration to a seizure, namely that he should be equal to God. "
Hi Dan,
Do you think that "a god" is a legitimate translation? You might be interested in the following Brill article which argues for that translation:
_Another God in the Gospel of John? A Linguistic Analysis of John 1:1 and __1:18_ (Smarius, Alexander - 2022)
The author is himself a Jehovah's Witness, but I don't think that should require us to automatically reject the view.
Sounds interesting.
Thank you for this clarification.
Is there any real difference though between god and deity, its already a monotheistic religion I dont see how this changes anything
I did not know this. Very interesting!
Great video you do great work.
In English I think the poem works better if it is translated "the word was God" because adding the extra syllable to say "a god" or two for "deity" would weaken the impact.
in greek I think things are more odd then I remember them from koine class a coule decades back.
The Subject and Object order is reversed,
"καὶ θεὸς (GOD) ἦν ὁ λόγος (LOGOS)".
Wait do they both have subject markers?
is translating it as "Deity was the reason" or 'Deity was the logos' valid or is "The Logos was a god" the only reasonable way to read it?
In the Good News of Messiah (GNM) I translate "In the beginning had been the Word, and the Word had been next to the Almighty. And Almighty the Word has been." I saw the way Wallace weaseled out of a correct translation in GGBB. Only the qualities of divinity are equivocated to the Word. John 1;1 should not be made to teach "one substance", because it does not. The word Almighty works perfectly for this in English because it can be used as a noun and adjective.
So if it’s qualitative, wouldn’t a better translation that makes sense grammatically be “godlike”?
Nah, the best translation for Theos/Zeus is “divine/shining.”
Good exegesis, Dan. It's also important to remember that in Philo's view of Logos, the Logos was the creative intermediary between God and the material world. Logos was an intermediary divine being or demiurge which fit with Plato's idea of imperfect matter and perfect Form and was the 'first born' of God. This is further brought out by the verse in John 1:3 that says "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.".
This idea of Jesus as the Word, an intermediary between God and the physical world, also fits the role of Jesus as an intermediary between humans and God "Jesus said to him, I am the Way and the Truth and the Life; no one comes to the Father except by (through) Me." I believe that Jesus was seen by the author(s) of John as the Word/Intermediary made flesh, since God himself couldn't be made flesh without polluting the divine, so Jesus was sent as God's intermediary ambassador.
I also think John 1:1 is saying that the Logos was 'theos' or divine in nature like God but not quite the same. This would differentiate the Word from both the most high God and lowly humans, in keeping with Philo's idea of an intermediary between the two.
Your comment makes a lot of sense at first. But then falls apart when we bring it back to the reality that Philo did not write the Gospel of John, and John was a Jew who was not a Platonist.
Sounds more Gnostic to me, was Philo Gnostic?
@@regtaylor1163
They do share a lot of similarity. Philo was heavily influenced by Platonic Philosophy and used it to explain the scriptures. The Gnostics did the same. But it is hard to really pin down what a Gnostic really is. It was not an organized religion but rather a philosophical framework with shared ideas... mainly the rejection of all things in the materiel world. In my opinion he was more of Platonist rather than what we might consider a Gnostic. But in all turth I will anser your question with, "I really don't know." :)
There are other translations of logos.
With context, the _obvious_ (but not necessarily true) interpretation is it is just explaining the origin of the Church ⛪️, especially John’s “divine” connection with God 💃🤖.
Also presupposing that the line is not dictated by God,
Not intending direct equivalence, the Son being the Father
All predicates describe a quality, attribute or characteristic of the Subject Nominative. In the context the Logos seems to be described as an uncreated theos
The Greek language here indicates two things for this verse:
The Greek does not have an indefinite article to directly translate. However, for proper translation into English the indefinite article must be included.
A god is a quality. That is why some bibles say:
1808: “and the word was a god.” The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text.
1864: “and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.
1928: “and the Word was a divine being.” La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.
1935: “and the Word was divine.” The Bible-An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.
1946: “and of a divine kind was the Word.” Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.
1950: “and the Word was a god.” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.
1958: “and the Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.
1975: “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.
1978: “and godlike kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.
Thanks for this Randall. This is confirmed by The New Strong's Expanded Exhaustive Concordance Of The Bible Red Letter Edition which states(under the definition of θεὸς) that of the second part of John 1:1, " "To translate it literally, "a god was the Word"," but goes on to show its bias toward the trinity by stating that to do so, "is entirely misleading".
So, which "Diety" were they talking about? And did He not get quoted by the Gospel authors and declaring to the Sanhedrin that He was "I am." Or is this hiding behind an assumption that there is no evidence, yet, that this was the reading. And so that is our story we're sticking to it?
Excellent short presentation.
The verse can be translated :
"...the word was God"
"....the Word was God"
".....The word was divine"
"the word was a god"
Understandably, the version that people prefer is the one that fits with their presuppositions.
The least accurate/honest is the Word was God.
@@noself7889 : I could not agree more. Hundreds of times in the NT, Jesus is differentiated from God. The Jesus of the NT has a God. The resurrected Jesus still has a God. (Jophn 20 :17). According to Revelation, the glorified Jesus in heaven still has a God. (Rev 3 :12)
@@gerryquinn5578 : I agree with you, Gerry.
Interesting so do you believe Jesus is God or is that reserved for his Father only?
0:25 The third clause is NOT "καὶ θεόν ἦν ὁ λόγος" Rather it is "καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος". Notice θεὸς ends in ὸς rather than όν, and is thus not a predicate but also a subject.
Dan, thank you for keeping these preachers, apologists, laymen, and the like intellectual honest!!
So many are misinterpreting the text every Sunday morning.
He needs to be intellectually honest. He's pushing his agenda and it won't work on those who refuse to blindly follow. John 1:18 doesn't use the definite article and it's referring to God the Father.
@@fodynot2244 What agenda does he have? I’m curious….
@@Teejaye1100 Remove what the Scriptures and the Apostolic Faith actually teaches.
@@fodynot2244 And he’s doing this according to whom? You?
What denomination are you apart of? Or what flavor of Christianity do you adhere to?
@Teejaye1100 Anyone who is LDS is part of a false church. Not the original. Historically, there is ONLY ONE Church, and that is the Catholic church.
Do you worship more than one deity?
God says that there is no God beside him
John would have thought the God of Israel doesn't exhaust "deity"?
What are your thoughts on the New World Translation's version of John 1:1 that reads, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god"? Their reasoning for translating in this way is this: the Coptic language was spoken in Egypt in the centuries immediately following Jesus’ earthly ministry, and the Sahidic dialect was an early literary form of the language. Regarding the earliest Coptic translations of the Bible, The Anchor Bible Dictionary says: “Since the [Septuagint] and the [Christian Greek Scriptures] were being translated into Coptic during the 3d century C.E., the Coptic version is based on [Greek manuscripts] which are significantly older than the vast majority of extant witnesses.” [The Sahidic Text] reflects an understanding of Scripture dating from before the fourth century, which was when the Trinity became official doctrine. Second, Coptic grammar is relatively close to English grammar in one important aspect. The earliest translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures were into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic. Syriac and Latin, like the Greek of those days, do not have an indefinite article. Coptic, however, does. Moreover, scholar Thomas O. Lambdin, in his work Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, says: “The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, corresponds closely to the use of the articles in English.”
Hence, the Coptic translation supplies interesting evidence as to how John 1:1 would have been understood back then. What do we find? The Sahidic Coptic translation uses an indefinite article with the word “god” in the final part of John 1:1. Thus, when rendered into modern English, the translation reads: “And the Word was a god.” Evidently, those ancient translators realized that John’s words recorded at John 1:1 did not mean that Jesus was to be identified as Almighty God. The Word was a god, not Almighty God.
For the record, I think the NWT is far from flawless but on this score their logic seems pretty sound to me.
It indeed does!
You obviously haven’t read Bruce Metzger.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 No, I obviously haven’t. Care to expound?
@@redtaperecorder1 they deliberately mistranslated 1:1.
Copy paste from the watchtower website. You conveniently forgot to mention that the manuscript they use as evidence only dated to around 600 C.E.🤣🤣🤣It is written in the same language as the Nag Hammadi apocryphal gnostic writings. But, lets look at some church fathers, shall we?
“Nothing, then, is hated by God, nor yet by the Word. For both are one-that is, God. For He has said, ‘In the beginning the Word was in God, and the Word was God.'” (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, Book 1, Chapter 8).
“John, however, with more sublimity and propriety, says in the beginning of his Gospel, when defining God by a special definition to be the Word, ‘And the Word was God, and He was in the beginning with God,’” (Origen, On First Principles, Book 1, Chapter 2).
“Is that Word of God, then, a void and empty thing, which is called the Son, who Himself is designated God? ‘The Word was with God, and the Word was God.’ It is written, ‘Thou shalt not take God’s name in vain,'” (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter 7).
May Allah bless and guide you brother
An excellent video. Maybe I'm biased because I just like John's gospel. Also, it's funny that every time I think I might want to disagree with you at the start of the video, by the end I'm always like "No, very reasonable and well-measured conclusion. Nothing controversial there."
Do you not find it interesting that only one name seems to be given as a source while the others are "evangelical scholars?" That could include Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses. Also, not naming any scholarly sources that'll counter his claim makes it seem that Dan has an agenda when he's supposedly pushing this so-called "data over dogma" movement.
@@dustinrichburg8638 Do I find it interesting that a 3 minute video does not give a comprehensive overview including multiple disagreeing citations? No. No I don't.
@Sapphire Purcell When you called the video "excellent" and the conclusion "very reasonable and well-measured," I figured that 3 minutes was enough for you. Personally, I think taking 10 extra seconds to name a scholarly source disagreeing with his claim probably would have been nice. Do you believe that an evangelical scholar can be affiliated with the Jehovah Witnesses and/or Latter-day Saints?
@@dustinrichburg8638 Yes, I thought it was an excellent, reasonable and well measured three minute video. That's why I said those words about a three minute video.
If you disagree with the video or don't like it, move on. Spend your time and energy on things you do like. Go enjoy life.
@@neomerlin Making sure that you're not falling victim to what is mentioned in 2 Tim. 4.
Dont disagree that it is qualitative, but disagree that the word of god isnt a qualitative statement, and since the greek uses theos in both the word was with theos, and the word was theos, being so close it is perfectly appropriate to use the same english word for theos, which is customarily god
Except the clause "the Word was with God" uses the definite article with theos. That is not true of the clause "the Word was deity."
@@maklelan
Theos, in two senses:
1. Theos, the Father. The eternal, ungenerated generator of the Logos (Son)
2. Theos as deity/divine nature.
A) In the beginning was the Logos
The Logos is eternal.
B) The Logos was with Theon
Logos≠Theon. They are distinct with regard to relationality, ie Father/Son.
C) And the Logos was Theos
Logos=Theos. They are non-distinct with regard to nature, ie divinity. A statement of co-identity of the Logos with the deity.
D) And the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us.
John is telling the reader that Jesus is the eternal, divine Word of the Father, become flesh.
@Dan McClellan all Im saying is it seems perfectly within reason to use the same translation for theos in both places since it is part of the same statement.
the word was with the theos and the word was theos,... whether you say the word was with the deity, and the word was deity, or the word was with the deity and the word was god, or the word was with the god, and the word was deity, while the last may be the clearest, saying that the translation "the word was with the god, and the word was god" is a mistranslation is imo not accurate, and better would be to say isnt the best way to translate it
@@maklelanWhat's your take on "the beginning' John speaks of? That's an often overlooked subject when discussing John 1:1. It's a big deal.
So, here's an example where I agree with you but still will point out that this video is not very useful without Dr. McClellan's view on what the author was trying to say and how that position impacts his belief system.
seeing as he adopts a henotheism interpretation of the bible's monotheism, he would likely say the word is a different deity than the deity mentioned previously, the word was with God, one deity, and the word was deity, though a separate deity than that already mentioned.
This interpretation also fits with his mormonism, though I do believe him when he says he does his biblical scholarship detached from his mormon beliefs
@@David-cw7pd This does not fit with Mormonism. Official Mormon doctrine is that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament. My scholarship flatly rejects that identification.
It is not related to and does not impact my belief system. I've described the conceptual framework I believe undergirded the different NT positions on Jesus' relationship to God in a 2018 Biblical Interpretation article (danielomcclellan.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/mcclellan-2017-cognitive-perspectives-on-early-christology.pdf) and in the appendix to my recent book (www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/pubs/9781628374407.pdf).
@@maklelan Thank you, I'm new to word press, and the link sends me to the most current entry. Can you give me the date of the article in question please?
@@maklelan The link to the appendix returns 404
I've read a decent amount of NT Greek and, as a religious Jew, I don't have a lot invested in the translation of John 1:1. But I haven't yet seen Θεος used in the NT in the abstract sense of "deity." Are there other places which show this usage? Besides, what would it mean to an early Christian writer like "John" to say "The Word was deity"? And why didn't he use words like Θεοτης or Θειοτης which literally mean "deity" or "divinity"? There's also the adjective θειος, "divine" that could have been used. Θεος without the definite article meaning God appears all the time in the NT, as it does in some of the subsequent verses in John 1.
I also really don't follow your argument that in 1st century Judaism or Christianity the category "deity" is NOT exhausted by the God of Israel. Are you saying Jews and Christians of that period entertained other possible deities? Why does it require a "philosophical framework" separate from basic Judaic belief of the time? Are you saying John was working within pagan or polytheistic categories?...At the very least, this needs a great deal more fleshing out (no pun intended, cf. v. 14).
READ WALLACE'S FULL QUOTE. THIS VIDEO IS MISLEADING😢
The author of this video not only twists Wallace's expressions, but demonstrates ignorance of the basic rules of Greek, since he is talking about a subject that is discussed during the first semester of the study of the language. Fortunately, Wallace's expressions can be found on the Internet, on Bill Mounce's website. Both are professors of Greek who have published with Zondervan. Here is the quote and the link.
"The nominative case is the case that the subject is in. When the subject takes an equative verb like “is” (i.e., a verb that equates the subject with something else), then another noun also appears in the nominative case-the predicate nominative. In the sentence, “John is a man,” “John” is the subject and “man” is the predicate nominative. In English the subject and predicate nominative are distinguished by word order (the subject comes first). Not so in Greek. Since word order in Greek is quite flexible and is used for emphasis rather than for strict grammatical function, other means are used to distinguish subject from predicate nominative. For example, if one of the two nouns has the definite article, it is the subject.
As we have said, word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1 c. The English versions typically have, “and the Word was God.” But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads,
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
and God was the Word.
We know that “the Word” is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: “and the Word was God.” Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was θεός thrown forward? and (2) why does it lack the article?
In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John’s wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism.
To state this another way, look at how the different Greek constructions would be rendered:
καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεός
“and the Word was the God”
(i.e., the Father; Sabellianism)
καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεός
“and the Word was a god” (Arianism)
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
“and the Word was God” (Orthodoxy).
Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has. But he is not the first person of the Trinity. All this is concisely affirmed in καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος."
-Daniel B. Wallace
www.billmounce.com/newtestamentgreek1/exegetical-insight#:~:text=The%20nominative%20case%20is%20the,the%20nominative%20case%C4%85the%20predicate%20nominative.
"Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has. But he is not the first person of the Trinity."
Therefore: Jesus Christ = God. God = Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ has all the attributes that God has. God has all the attributes that Jesus Christ has. But Jesus Christ is not the first person of the Trinity. So Jesus Christ ≠ God. God ≠ Jesus Christ.
This is how you can tell this is all just fan-fiction.
@@christasimon9716 At no time does it say that Jesus is God and is not God. It states that Jesus is God but not the Father. Read it slowly. I quoted Wallace because he is the writer to whom the author of the video refers, misrepresenting his writing. But it is the only way to contradict the doctrine, attacking a straw man that they create by twisting what has been said.
@@carambotcastro Hey, I'm just trying to understand what you wrote. And it makes no sense to me.
The Vulgate reads: Et Deus erat Verbum - And God was the Word.
It's surprising Jerome didn't take advantage of the ambiguity to prop up his Jesus figure by translating the Greek into Latin as: Et Verbum erat Deus - And the Word was God, as later translations do.
So we can still refer to it as "deity". So what does that mean? That means the word has some greater than human aspect, some higher aspect that should be revered. So even if the trinitarian form is being projected, or the absolutism of the God as an unequaled pantheon of One was at a later date as history suggests is the case. This still suygests that scripture is still telling us a pretty equivalent thing in the framework of a pantheon of Gods. Whether you hold to a pantheon view or not, I dont see how this doesnt eventually reduce to the same thing. These words were written in conrext to Jesus Christ, the spirit, and Father, so either you have to pick Modalism, Jesus Christ as a divine man and prophet, or trinitarianism. So on a preliminary analysis of just hearing this, as deity suggests as deity in context to the God of the Israelites, and either the spirit and or Jesus Christ. What other deities would John suggest were in the beginning? Thats the problem for me, especially in the context people see YHWH by this point as something as all powerful in the pantheon.
I personally think that this verse is talking about the creation of Adam. The term "god with small g" or "diety" has also been used for Moses and even for Satan in the Bible but when exactly similar word of greek is used for Moses and satan they put it with small g but when exactly similar word of greek is used for Moses they put it with capital G.
I think the word "Tontheos" stands for a Godly person.
There's no definite articles needed in Koine Greek...
In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
At the beginning of time the Word already was; and God had the Word abiding with him, and the Word was God.
Your data is wrong…..
Do you have countervailing data?
Is not Dr. Wallace a trinitarian?
What is "the data"? Here it seems to merely be grammatical, but no real historical, social, political analysis.
As for Wallace, he would argue within a later historical framework and then retrofit it as stated by McClellan, this is true. I have never met an Evangelical who really understands how to do historical research, but then again, neither does McClellan. He is as bad historically as the Evangelicals.
What "data" should mean here is an analysis of 1st century socio-political, economic, and religious settings of the groups in question and an attempt to place the utterance within that context. The problem is the "data" is sparse and the groups various meaning very early Christianity is a black hole historically which is why scholars try and retrofit from later data. This shouldn't surprise anyone as we are talking about small groups very early and even in the text there is acknowledgment of differences (see Paul vs Jerusalem Council; Paul vs James; Greco-Roman vs Jewish; etc.).
By the way, if you have a definitive reading of John 1:1c which is obviously clear to you, you have no historical motor for the councils to argue about it (often violently) later. Add to all this those enjoyable later Gnostic works and you get a fun cauldron of beliefs in the first few centuries about whoever authored John. Also, people should be interpreting books, not isolated texts.
To give McClellan his due, if you're careful, truthful, discerning, you will be quickly dismissed and ignored. Such is the state of our world. If you want something interesting, make sure it's published pre-1945.
What would you recommend for reading on this subject?
The Word was A god.
"NT Greek" is code for "We changed the rules to make it say what we want".
I've heard it argued that simply saying "the word was a god" is still a bit too "lowly" when it reaches English ears compared to what was intended, and that something like "divine", "deity", "what God is" etc. is more apt
Another fantastic video thank you!
John uses two Greek forms for God in John 1:1. It was to show that he was talking about two separate gods.
Logically Jesus could not be WITH God and also be God. Unless there are 2 Gods.
'and the Word was a god' is rhe proper sense and translation.
It just means that Jesus was a mighty being who was WITH God at some point in the distant past. Jesus would be, he being an angel.
John 8:58
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
@@HealedInChrist : What is this ungrammatical incomplete scripture? I am what exactly?
What did Jesus mean?
You mean divine.
So are the Jehovah’s right about Jesus actually being an angel?
No,according to Dan Wallace they are wrong,you should see on Wikipedia John 1:1 there is a part where it discusses on John 1:1
An Angel has no authority to save/send a soul from/to eternal damnation, only God does.
@@TheWitness-fx4xq so if Jesus isn’t god or an angel then who was he?
@@MaTTh3w633 Who said Jesus isn't God? Not me for sure!
In part at least as angel literally means messenger so the Word would be the very first and primary messenger from God. Yahushua indicated that he saw Abraham so was he the "angel of YHWH" that came to see Abraham?
IF theos referred to YHWH, it should have had the definite article.
Theos did not have the definite article.
Therefore, theos doesn't refer to YHWH.
I don't see the problem here. It's only a problem for those who impose the presupposition that theos refers to YHWH.
If you read the entire gospel, (1) the notion that the “Word was God” or, better translated, “ what God was, the Word was” (aka, the essence of the Word was the same essence as that of God), (2) the point made obvious that “the Word” is referring to Jesus Christ (as is made obvious later in the first chapter), and (3) Jesus’ statements about himself (i.e., before Abraham was, I AM”) clearly indicate that the author is implying that Jesus is in fact not only “deity” as if it were unspecified, but the God revealed to Moses-I AM (or, in the third person, Yahweh (“He Is”).
The reason why so many people are confused about the Bible and often remarked that it has so many contradictions is because that same people (along with their followers) is making the verses more complicated than what they really are, simple. They announced to the world that the Bible is full of mysteries and hidden meanings or teachings, that is why most often have to consult experts (e.g. bible scholars, theologians, professors, etc.) to interpret it for them instead of reading it by heart by themselves with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
If you believe that the Bible has many hidden meanings or teachings then you've already FAILED, even before you open the Bible. The Bible has no secrets or hidden message that you have to create your own interpretation thus, makings things more complicated than what they are.
Now, going back to the topic. John's message in John 1:1 has always been simple and straightforward, no hidden meanings whatsoever; "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". What is so hard to understand about the "Word" in this verse? Well, it will only be complicated if you try to infuse your own interpretation in order to fit your own argument or agenda (whatever that is).
Remember, John is uneducated and illiterate then why would he play with words in his book just to confuse his readers? They (the apostles) were chosen by Jesus to be His witnesses, NOT cryptographers (that makes coded messages). Remember, it is the Holy Spirit Himself that makes John and the rest of the apostles able to write and speak different languages. It is through the Holy Spirit of Truth that these verses were made possible. Now, if you have a problem with John's message in John 1:1 then go argue with the Holy Spirit since He is the one who actually wrote those verses.
Now, if you're trying so hard to disprove that Jesus is the "Word" in John 1:1 because you are afraid that your "unitarian" argument will fail then please allow me to go back in the beginning from the Old Testament:
Isiah 48:12-16 - In here, Jesus (God) is the one talking with reference to the "I am the first and the last" quote of Jesus in the New Testament (Revelation 1:8 and Revelation 1:17-18). Also, God the Father and the Holy Spirit is in here as well. Unitarians brace yourselves! :) - you now have another verse(s) in the Old Testament to disprove.
NOTE: Use the "WORD-FOR-WORD" Bible (e.g. NASB, NKJV/KJV, etc.) this time and onwards because they are more accurate than the "THOUGHT-FOR-THOUGHT" and "PARAPHRASE" type of Bible. That is why most people are confused because they are not using the right translation of the Bible that is closest to the Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek version.
Peace and Blessings!
3 points of refutation:
1. We should interpret θεός as being Yahweh because the context demands it. Because θεός is used qualitatively in John 1:1, we should look at the context to understand what quality John is giving to the Word. While we could give θεός a really broad meaning like it is sometimes given in 2nd Temple Judaism, it makes far more sense to simply interpret it in with the immediate context. The immediate context is “The Word was with God” and this is very clearly referring to Yahweh. Therefore, John would have to be a very bad writer to make a predicate nominative, give the Word the quality of θεός, and not expect readers to connect it with θεον in the clause right before.
TLDR: The verse could be praphrased: “The Word was with The Divine, and the Word was Divine”. We should use the first part to interpret the second. Divine is clearly referring to the same being aka Yahweh.
2. John could have just used a different word, θείος as an adjective, but instead he uses the noun. If John didn’t want us to think “the Word was with God” and “the Word was God” were referring to the same being, he did a piss poor job of writing
3. In John 20:28 Thomas refers to Jesus as God, very clearly referring to the Most High, monotheistic capitol G God, and Jesus confirms Thomas claim.
TLDR: Jesus is God
Satan is also referred to as theos at 2 Corinthians 4:4 (see also 1 John 5:19) … it is not abstract for someone of that Yahweh to be called god
This is debated both ways by Scholars of Greek and Greek language.
Shalom
2) McClellan's central claim (that, according to the consensus view of Evangelicals, "The Word was God" is a mistranslation) is easily disproven by a cursory reading of evangelical translations (ESV, NIV, NASB, CSB) or any evangelical commentaries on John. Every single one translates "καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος" as "and the word was God." In fact, expand your search to consider other non-evangelical translations (NRSV, NAB) and commentaries, and you will find "the word was God" is the standard translation.
@@hjk7833 The hypocrisy of Evangelical Bible translations is not my problem.
Hey, really appreciate your breakdown on this but as far as how it would have been seen in a 1st century Jewish context (being strictly monotheists, so that if there was someone identified with diety it would be the one God), especially when taken with the rest of the gospel of John (one example being all of the I am statements, ego emi) I think it's clear that John is making the claim that the Word, which he clarifies is Christ, is the same God of Israel. The second century writers like Polycarp, ignatius (desciple s of John) Irenaeus (desciple of Polycarp) clement of Rome (desciple of peter, also technically a 1st century writer as he was martyred in 99) were simply expounding on what was in the scriptures and the teachings that they received from the Apostles, specifically in the context of defending the orthodox faith from fales teachers (thus the title of Irenaeus' seminal works, against heresies). It doesn't seem likely that John, a jew who Literally records Jesus claiming the Divine name (Jn 8:58), would refer someone as a deity and not be referring to the One God. Furthermore, it seems even more spurious that if John taught this, his descipes would have taught the opposite. So in conclusion the Interpretive framework is not only present in John's own culture and spiritual texts (see the entire old testament canon) but within the book itself
I did not see the video not to be in any way influenced by your premises. I love the gospel of john, and have translated it several time. Now: those three magnificent sentences are the simplest and the hardest to translate at the same time. If one aimes to a "Koine" translation to keep the tone of the original, I'd say that KJ is absolutely correct in the way it presents it, beautifully and simply translated. However, that may not really make evident John's philosophy for two obvious reasons, being the main one the concept of God a Jew had. Thr word en (was) in Jewish has a much deeper meaning, being happened / ocurred a common synonim, and that is the case here. The Jewish vision of God is not static, it is a one always in-act. So a much better translation to give back the meaning of both John's logos and his God should be:
In the beginning the Word was living already - and the Word stood in front of God - and the word was divine.
Divine is the most appropriate attribute in the third scene noth grammatically and logically. The greek original lacks the article in the third sentence.
it all adds up Dan... the word was with God, and the word was God , and the word became flesh and dwelt among us... Jesus Christ , Dan, he is the word...Christ has a throne at the right of God, they both have, Christ was born by God, Christ is God... Amen!
Right the word was the word God so on the beginning was the word isn’t wasn’t good himself but the 3 letter word God so when Jesus he was the word he meant he was literally God which isn’t true he was not the word God at all I believe it is THE WPED WAS GOD what is the word mentioned was GOd God is 100% not the word we don’t know this word could be anything or it could mean his the word but if he meant like his voice I’m the bible like the word of God as he said he would said words because it’s more than one word no one has ever explained what the word was doesn’t say unless it says the word is God which ik would believe more than God being the word another thing is he could be literally the wprd God but thts we call him he is God then not a word it makes more sense the wprd was with God so a word was with him so what’s the word it then says the word was God I’ll say it again I think about it like I do in the beginning was the word ‘God’ the word was with God So a word was with him the word was God what was the word with him God think what you want but it makes sense.
Hehe
And what is "the word". I've been asking christians for years, all say "Jesus", but none can give any reason for this.
The translation "the Word was God" is correct. Why isn't there an article before "Theos"? It's actually simple, because "ho Theos" is the Father in the preceding clause "The Word was with God (ho Theos)", if the article article was included then, the text would be saying Jesus was the Father, but Jesus isn't the Father, He is God with the Father, that's the point of John 1:1.
You've just wrecked the Trinity.
@@roytee3127Not really
He literally explained to you, at the start of this video, why your interpretation is gramatically incorrect by the rules of Greek grammar.
No. And Jesus has a God. John 1 1 makes a distinction between God and the word. And Jesus is not mentioned in John 1 1. The word is God's spoken command, not a being. So when God created Jesus by his word, the word became human.
Thank you.
The Word was God = God was the Word (kai theos en ho logos).
"deity" - while grammatically correct, obscures the importance of the word that John used. Whatever "God" was in the second line's "The Word was with God" is deliberately partnered with the third line's "The Word was God."
Thus, Dan is correct that it is a qualitative description - whatever "God" is in the second line, the Word is in the third line. IOW, the Word was whatever "God" was in the second line. It does not mean they are the same entity, it simply means if the God of the second line is "God" then the Word of the third line is also "God." Not "a god," not a deity, not divine: "God." There is no need to complicate or obscure the issue.
But the Word is the God of Israel - we see at least eighty OT-NT parallels showing that the words and descriptions of the OT YHWH are solely applied to the NT's Jesus Christ. Ergo, they are the same entity. Jesus Christ was the mortal YHWH. This same entity was known as "YHWH" to the OT Hebrews, and "Jesus Christ" to the NT Jews and Gentiles.
That’s odd, why not say that “the Logos of the NeoPlatonists IS Zeus/Theos” rather than “was,” then? If “was” is such an important/accurate part of the translation, then it seems that John is trying to say that the angels of Yahweh or Yahweh himself like the Hindus say for their dirties and like what Jacob/Israel/“James” wrestled with.
As he often does, Dan just concentrated on one area/point and did not draw your attention to the other relevant data.
I'm not arguing with Dan's translation, of John 1:1.
However it is also the case, that the "word" in John 1:1 is not only identified as a living being but is further identified as Jesus.
This being, called the Word, made everything:
"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." (John 1:3)
This being, called the Word, was made flesh and came to earth and dwelt with humans - Jesus;
"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, ... full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)
This same being, the Word, Jesus, who came to the world also made the world;
"He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not." (John 1:10)
A lot of people are confused about this, but the definite article before Logos makes it nominative. Theos is accusative.
The reason the word order seems backwards is just to show emphasis that Jesus is GOD.
This verse is simply saying "The promise [word] of God was divine" .. that is the promised word made by God was a divine promise. Its origin was of God, and not of man.. thats the word that was in the beginning (beginning being when it word/promise was made to Abraham) with God . . there is no Logos becoming God in these texts. Its simply a divine promise being fulfilled in the flesh (ie, in time, space, and history)
You keep indicating the doctrine of the Trinity was developed in the 2nd to 5th century. I see it is largely a 4th to 7th century development. There was really no concept of the Trinity in any substantial sense (as it is understood today) until the 4th century. We might see a precursor in the 3rd century, but that was an extreme minority view. Where in the second century is anything articulated that is even close to the trinity? The closest things are forged letters of Ignatius. But those are bogus. My understanding is that 2nd century Proto-orthodox "fathers" abstained from using the term Homoousion in reference to the Son.
“As done in the previous sections, we will transliterate this clause into English letters:
kai theos ēn ho logos
Since we already recognize these words, let’s quickly translate them:
“and God was the word”
Is this a good translation of the Greek? No, it is not. First, it should be observed that “logos,” not “theos,” is the subject. Why? Because theos does not have an article in front of it like logos does. The clause is not, “kai ho theos ēn logos.” John recorded this differently. He, under divine inspiration, writes, “kai theos ēn ho logos.”
“Ho logos,” then, is the subject since it contains the definite article. This is why, in our translation, we would place “logos” before “theos.”
Furthermore, if John had written, “ho theos ēn ho logos,” then he would be advocating Sabellianism, which basically states that God the Father and God the Son are one and the same, thus denying the Trinity. If he would have constructed his sentence that way, we could have roughly translated it as, “The God was the Word.” But this is not what John records. John actually leaves out the article from theos. Even more so, if John had stated, “The God was the Word,” he would have contradicted the second clause, which states that the Word was with God. This would have denied the eternal distinction between the Father and the Son. After all, if the Son was the Father, then how could he have been distinct from himself?
But since there is no article before theos, does that mean Jesus was “a god” and not “God.” After all, John leaves out the article before theos. Should we then translate this as “the Word was divine” or “the Word was a god?” In short, are the Jehovah’s Witnesses right in doing this? After all, Jehovah’s Witnesses say that, “John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word-that he was ‘divine,’ ‘godlike,’ ‘a god,’ but not Almighty God.”
This is hardly the case. Under divine guidance, John actually constructs this clause to refute such an idea. As MacArthur rightly notes, if John had wanted “to say that the Word was merely in some sense divine [“a god”], he could have used the adjective theios (cf. 2 Peter 1:4). ” But, as we can see, he does not use theios at all. John is saying something more than “Jesus was ‘a god.’”
The only resulting conclusion is that Christ, being eternally distinct from the Father (refer to our discussion on clause two), was nonetheless God.”- Matt Slick (carm.org)
Only God is creator, and all things were made by Christ
If the intended meaning is referring to quality then St John would used theotes which is an adjective instead of theos anarthrous which is a noun. This is why only Jehovah Witnesses translate this as a deity instead of God. St Gregory of Nazianzus explained that ho theos can only apply to the Father alone that's why in Nicene creed we profess one God the Father. Not one God the essence or one God Trinity. St Basil of Caesarea when defending monotheism didn't argue with common essence but rather argue there's only one God because there's only one Father. This is why Scripture must be exegete through the lenses of Church history. How it was interpreted in the 2nd 3rd 4th 5th century to present time. If there's a deviation it would be detected. Social Trinitarianism is polytheism. Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades are three persons with consubstantial nature.
The Father in John 1 and John 17 is also called God without the definite article. So is the father also not the God of Israel according to John?
If John had placed the definite article before ‘God’ when applied to the ‘Word’ then this would mean the God of Israel is the Word. However, John doesn’t think that the Father is the ‘Word’. In addition, it would also imply that the Father and Jesus were the same, which John does not.
I mean... if it meant a God 💃🤖, it would be able to include Yahweh too.
For anyone who wants to listen to this nonsense, here is the original Greek for you, I include the previous verse to help for contrast:
Kai ho Logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en ho Logos.
and the WORD was with THE GOD (accusative masculine singular), and GOD (nominative masculine singular) was the Word
Let me simplify: "and the word was with (or part of) the ONLY GOD , and GOD (the person named God) was the Word."
Don't listen to false teachers, God's word is clear.
The name is never said for it is not of this world. Only words made for this world are said here. The One came to call, will you answer when the One called Jesus, Christ, Emmanual comes. Wisdom was here, the gate is narrow and harrowing is the path to redemption.Fear nottt.
But yet YHWY 😂😂😂 so back to square one lol
The logos is deity and is still pointing to the fact …. That the logos
(utterance of YHWY) is still deity as in Godhead!!