Re: John 1:1 & the Tetragrammatonm

From: Alan M Feuerbacher (alanf@mdhost.cse.tek.com)
Date: Wed Aug 16 1995 - 16:27:16 EDT


Concerning John 1:1c, Gregory Jordan wrote:

>Let us set aside specious "literal" translations and correctnesses
>"confirmed" by Sacred Scripture. There is only reasonable and
>unreasonable interpretation, and the former in this case is as plural as
>the latter.

I'm no Greek scholar, but from my own reading I have to agree with Greg.
Jehovah's Witnesses often assert that John 1:1c should be translated
"the Word was a god," and trinitarians "the Word was God," based on
grammatical considerations alone.

However, John 1:18, Romans 9:5 and similar scriptures show that no
hard and fast rule can be stated concerning the use of the article
or lack thereof in translating "theos" to "god" or "God." 2 Cor. 4:4
is a case where the article is used (ho theos), yet "god" is clearly
the intended meaning. Philippians 3:19 is another.

It is evident from my reading that grammar alone is no basis for
accepting or rejecting "a god," "God," "divine" or whatever, in
John 1:1c, but that the overall context of the Bible should guide.
Below, I quote from two references that support my conclusion.

J. W. Wenham, writing in _The Elements of New Testament Greek_,
listed some general rules about handling the Greek article and said:

   In ancient manuscripts which did not differentiate between capital
   and small letters, there would be no way of distinguishing between
   Theos (God) and theos (god). Therefore as far as grammar alone is
   concerned, such a sentence could be printed: theos estin ho Logos,
   which would mean either, "The Word is a god", or, "The Word is the
   god". The interpretation of John 1.1 will depend upon whether or
   not the writer is held to believe in only one God or in more than
   one god. It will be noticed that the above rules for the special
   uses of the definite article are none of them rigid and without
   exceptions. It is wiser not to use them as a basis for theological
   argument until the student has reached an advanced stage in the
   knowledge of the language. [p. 35]

In _Jesus as God_ Murray Harris examines with a fine tooth comb the
issue of translating John 1:1. He concludes that, because of the poor
correspondence between the wide connotations of "theos" and the narrower
ones of "god," that *none* of the common renderings give the precisely
correct meaning of the original. He does say that he prefers "the Word
was God" for John 1:1c, but qualifies it (pp. 69-70):

   From this sample of paraphrases it is clear that in the translation
   "the Word was God" the term _God_ is being used to denote his nature
   or essence and not his person. But in normal English usage "God" is
   a proper noun, referring to the person of the Father or corporately
   to the three persons of the Godhead. Moreover, "the Word was God"
   suggests that "the Word" and "God" are convertible terms, that the
   proposition is reciprocating. But the Word is neither the Father
   nor the Trinity. Therefore few will doubt that this time-honored
   translation needs careful exegesis, since it places a distinctive
   sense upon a common English word. The rendering cannot stand without
   explanation.... From this brief survey of proposed renderings of
   John 1:1c, I conclude that the most common translation ("the Word was
   God") remains the most adequate, although it requires that "God" be
   carefully defined or qualified. Harner's paraphrastic translation
   "the Word had the same nature as God" (87), or the paraphrase "the
   Word was identical with God the Father in nature," most accurately
   represents the evangelist's intended meaning.

Most Christians automatically assume, as Harris said they should not,
that "God" in John 1:1c means the Father, and that "the Word" and "God"
are convertible terms. Most Christians are unfamiliar with the careful
exegesis needed to understand just what John said. Therefore, something
better should be done to give the true meaning.

Harris definitely rejects the translation "the Word was a god"
(pp. 67-68). However, his reasons are not based on grammar but on
the argument that acknowledging the existence of "many gods" is
polytheism. From page 60:

   In appendix I S A.5 some of the reasons why a given noun may be
   anarthrous are listed. Since the basic function of the article is
   _deictic_, to add precision to thought by emphasizing individuality
   or identity, the non-occurrence of the article with a noun may point
   to the nonparticularity, the indefiniteness, of the concept.
   Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone, theos en ho
   logos could be rendered "the Word was a god," just as, for example,
   if only grammatical considerations were taken into account, ...
   (John 8:44) could mean "you belong to the father of the devil."
   But the theological context, viz., John's monotheism, makes this
   rendering of 1:1c impossible, for if a monotheist were speaking of
   the Deity he himself reverenced, the singular theos could be applied
   only to the Supreme Being, not to an inferior divine being or
   emanation as if theos were simply generic. That is, in reference to
   his _own_ beliefs, a monotheist could not speak of theoi nor could
   he use theos in the singular (when giving any type of personal
   description) of any being other than the one true God whom he
   worshiped. On the other hand, when the polytheistic inhabitants of
   Malta affirmed that Paul was theos, they were suggesting that he had
   or deserved a place among their _own_ pantheon of gods. "They said
   that he was a god" is therefore a proper translation of elegon auton
   einai theon (Acts 28:6).

Note that Harris, like Wenham, acknowledges that the grammar allows for
"the Word was a god." This ought to put to rest the many claims that
grammar alone is a basis for rejecting this rendering. The grammar is
ambiguous and various renderings are allowed.

Next note that Harris' argument implies that Paul, Matthew and Luke must
have been polytheists, since 1 Cor. 4:4, Matt. 4:9 and Luke 4:7, taken
together, indicate that Satan is a god who could be worshiped, even
worshiped by Jesus if Jesus had chosen to yield to temptation. It was
certainly Paul's _own_ belief that the devil is "the god of the age",
since Luke 4:6 describes him as saying to Jesus about all the kingdoms
of the world, "I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it
has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. So if you
worship me, it will all be yours." Who gave the devil this authority?
God did, in line with his temporary position as God's great adversary.
So we see that Bible writers, Jesus, and even God himself indicate that
Satan is a god who can be worshiped. That is their *own* belief.

My point is that acknowledgment of the existence of other gods does not
imply worship of them. Only such worship is polytheism. Therefore, I
do not accept Harris' argument on this basis.

I'd like to get some feedback from the scholars on this forum on the
above arguments. Thanks for your time.

Alan Feuerbacher
alanf@mdhost.cse.tek.com



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:25 EDT