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.
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.
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.
You ever think it's poetic license? As in: the word is god/deity. Meaning that before there was the spoken word, there was nothing. Man didn't truly exist, separate from the animals, until the spoken word(language) was first developed. It was darkness, there was no "history" before we could talk to one another. Just a thought
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
“Word was divine”… I always felt that was the best translation
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.
Thanks you for explaning in this short video. I have had many apologist that tries to argue otherwise.
You ever think it's poetic license? As in: the word is god/deity. Meaning that before there was the spoken word, there was nothing. Man didn't truly exist, separate from the animals, until the spoken word(language) was first developed. It was darkness, there was no "history" before we could talk to one another. Just a thought
Funny how people try to argue over translations and miss the context. Keep reading boys. It says the Word became flesh… HELLO!!!
Deconstructionism ?
That's a shame. It's one of the most beautiful passages in the bible.
I can’t believe I’ve never heard this before. Thank you. Fascinating
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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)
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.
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?
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.