Monotheism and John 1:1

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
stephan happy huller
Posts: 1480
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:06 pm
Contact:

Monotheism and John 1:1

Post by stephan happy huller »

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεός ἦν ὁ Λόγος

= "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god"

Why do people translate this "and the Word was God"? At best I can see it might be render "was divine" but clearly there are two gods here. The Word is with another God in the second part of the sentence and then it says he was divine or a god. What is the justification for the other translation?
Everyone loves the happy times
Andrew
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 7:14 pm

Re: Monotheism and John 1:1

Post by Andrew »

For those of us who aren't proficient in Greek, could you supply a literal translation, retaining the word order of the original Greek and dropping the articles if they aren't present in the original Greek? Could it not be translated as "and the Word was the God", or does Greek specify the articles more clearly?
User avatar
A_Nony_Mouse
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:48 am

Re: Monotheism and John 1:1

Post by A_Nony_Mouse »

stephan happy huller wrote:Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεός ἦν ὁ Λόγος

= "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god"

Why do people translate this "and the Word was God"? At best I can see it might be render "was divine" but clearly there are two gods here. The Word is with another God in the second part of the sentence and then it says he was divine or a god. What is the justification for the other translation?
Why do believers translate things the way they do?

The concept of Logos is from Greek philosophy not the popular stories which the philosophers held to be blasphemy. There is a real invisible, unknowable god. The knowable gods are emanations of that invisible god. Some place around the emanations part insert the Logos. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to explain a 5th c. BC Greek concept being coopted into the opening lines of Genesis.
The religion of the priests is not the religion of the people.
Priests are just people with skin in the game and an income to lose.
-- The Iron Webmaster
User avatar
Gorit Maqueda
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 1:00 am

Re: Monotheism and John 1:1

Post by Gorit Maqueda »

You're not alone, Stephan. This is how Robert Price translates it ("The pre-Nicene New Testament"):
"In the beginning
there was the Word,
and the Word stood before God,
and the Word was a God."
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8024
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Monotheism and John 1:1

Post by Peter Kirby »

In one of his podcasts, Robert M. Price states that the Greek is ambivalent:

(1) There is no definite article in John 1:1 before the word for "god."
(2) In some situations, this necessitates supplying an indefinite article in translation.
(3) In the predicate position and nominative case, a definite article can be omitted in Greek while still being meant.
(4) This is in the predicate position and nominative case.
(5) Therefore, neither translation "the Word was God" nor "the Word was a god" captures the full sense of the Greek grammar here, but both are possible when viewed from strictly a grammatical perspective.

At least that's what Price said.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Eric
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:42 am

Re: Monotheism and John 1:1

Post by Eric »

Gorit Maqueda wrote:You're not alone, Stephan. This is how Robert Price translates it ("The pre-Nicene New Testament"):
"In the beginning
there was the Word,
and the Word stood before God,
and the Word was a God."
Your term "The pre-Nicene New Testament" is a first for me. (I'm new to Greek and Church history.) A question for you with an explanation for guidance please. It is not my intention to delve heavilyy into Textual Criticism as it does not effect my faith or daily life with God. However, I would like to understand more of the Greek. So my question is: Who would you recommend for Greek interpretation and why is there a difference in pre-Nicene Greek and the Greek after the Council of Nicaea (assuming that is what is meant by pre-Nicene Greek)?
To become fully human is divine.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8024
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Monotheism and John 1:1

Post by Peter Kirby »

Eric wrote:Your term "The pre-Nicene New Testament" is a first for me.
This is just Robert M. Price's translation of the New Testament and 27 other texts. The name of Price's book.
Eric wrote:(assuming that is what is meant by pre-Nicene Greek)?
The grammatical ambiguity of the Greek exists in the pre-nicene or post-nicene period. It's not to do with the time period, just with the Greek.

If somebody wanted to say "the Word was God," John 1:1 is how they'd write it.

If somebody wanted to say "the Word was a god," John 1:1 is also how they'd write it.

This doesn't necessarily challenge anyone to the point that they have to believe differently, but it does mean they have to allow some respect to the translational ambiguity that Price (or the Jehovah's Witness translation) picks up on.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Eric
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:42 am

Re: Monotheism and John 1:1

Post by Eric »

Interesting...Thanks Peter
To become fully human is divine.
User avatar
A_Nony_Mouse
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:48 am

Re: Monotheism and John 1:1

Post by A_Nony_Mouse »

Peter Kirby wrote:In one of his podcasts, Robert M. Price states that the Greek is ambivalent:

(1) There is no definite article.
(2) In some situations, this necessitates supplying an indefinite article in translation.
(3) In the predicate position and nominative case, a definite article can be omitted in Greek while still being meant.
(4) This is in the predicate position and nominative case.
(5) Therefore, neither translation "the Word was God" nor "the Word was a god" captures the full sense of the Greek grammar here, but both are possible when viewed from strictly a grammatical perspective.

At least that's what Price said.
I do not remember the grammar name. There is no definite nor indefinite article. However there is the kind of definite article we can only speak not write. "The Miles Gloriosus? The Thee himself?" If there were something special about that god it would be Ha Theos or in the completely unrelated "hebrew" which has the same situation with articles it would be Ho El or whatever term that author favored. Of course it could be Ho Elohim, thee gods or thee goddesses whatever the non-religious are permitted to make of what it really says.
The religion of the priests is not the religion of the people.
Priests are just people with skin in the game and an income to lose.
-- The Iron Webmaster
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8024
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Monotheism and John 1:1

Post by Peter Kirby »

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Peter Kirby wrote:In one of his podcasts, Robert M. Price states that the Greek is ambivalent:

(1) There is no definite article.
(2) In some situations, this necessitates supplying an indefinite article in translation.
(3) In the predicate position and nominative case, a definite article can be omitted in Greek while still being meant.
(4) This is in the predicate position and nominative case.
(5) Therefore, neither translation "the Word was God" nor "the Word was a god" captures the full sense of the Greek grammar here, but both are possible when viewed from strictly a grammatical perspective.

At least that's what Price said.
I do not remember the grammar name. There is no definite nor indefinite article. However there is the kind of definite article we can only speak not write. "The Miles Gloriosus? The Thee himself?" If there were something special about that god it would be Ha Theos or in the completely unrelated "hebrew" which has the same situation with articles it would be Ho El or whatever term that author favored. Of course it could be Ho Elohim, thee gods or thee goddesses whatever the non-religious are permitted to make of what it really says.
What are you talking about?
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Post Reply