Re.: John 1:1c
My schedule demands that I not attempt to engage in a detailed
discussion of the translation of John 1:1, but when I read Alan Craig's
> Conversly, the reader should not be encouraged by faulty
> (biased) translation [i.e., "the Word was God."]...
I must make one statement (and that is all I will make on this
subject--especially since it has been labored extensively on this list
To call "the Word was God" a "faulty (biased) translation" is
overstated and reflects little understanding of the text
and its context. To suggest that it be translated "a god" or
"divine" reflects not only those problems, but a lack of
understanding of the English language as well. I will make only a
few points and one suggestion:
1. The author of the statement (Jn. 1:1) was a monotheistic Jew;
2. Greek has a word for "divine": theios (not theos).
3. Re. the stmt.:
> When one uses the argument that to render it as such would
> promote `polytheism,' this then also begs the question for a
> fairness to be thorough
is not only nearly unintelligible English, but ignores point one
above (which "fairness" would mandate!).
4. Re. the stmt.:
> And so, for any one to have rendered this as "a god," they are
>justified in doing so; and this, [because...] 2). This is the
Translating "a god" is NOT "literal" (whatever that amorphous word
means!), if for no other reason that the fact that Greek does not
have an indefinite article and the article in Greek behaves quite
differently than the English article.
My suggestion: read Murray J. Harris' detailed exegetical
discussion of this passage before proceeding any further: _Jesus
as God: The NT Use of 'theos' in Reference to Jesus_ (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1992), 51-71. He adresses all the issues thus far
raised, including most of the lengthy list of writers cited by Craig.
Calvary Theological Seminary, Kansas City