In my article 'The Torah Dressed Itself as Flesh' at www.circumcisedheart.info I relate how a number of scholars, following research based around the Dead Sea Scrolls now argue that Yochanan 1:1c should read “And godly was Torah" and that the whole verse then also reads "In the beginning was the Torah, and Torah was for the sake of G-d, And godly was Torah."
This translation is clearly not viewed favourably by those within Christendom who have a Hellenistic and/or anti-Torah pre-suppositional understanding. One such group are Arians. Arians follow the lead of Arius, an Alexandrian Priest at the time of the Nicene Council who argued for the pre-existence of the Messiah.
For example, a Hellenistic Christian and Arian, Mark Davis in
reading my article on this translation of the Greek argued that:
"And godly was Torah"
doesn't work because the Logos has the definite article and is the subject of
the clause and THEOS is the predicate nominative. In other words, the
Logos is THEOS, not that THEOS is the Logos or that the Logos is an attribute
of THEOS. THEOS is a count noun, it is used indefinitely or definitely. If John
had wanted to convey the meaning of "godly" he could've used an
adjective or THEOU (genitive of possession, conveying that the Word was
"of God"). Whenever "THEOS" is applied to a subject in
John's writings, it always refers to a person. Hence, the Logos is a person, a
god, a divine being. The Logos is another name for Jesus. (Revelation 19:13).”
Mark also wrote that:
“Word order does not determine the meaning in Greek as it does in English, inflection does. Both the logos and theos are in the nominative case, and with theos being fronted in front of the verb we require the definite article to determine the subject, which logos has.”
Mark Davis has two points of difference here. Firstly he argues for a grammatical understanding that many Greek scholars actually reject. In part, they reject this argument because it does not fit contextually. In the first instance, the author is steeped in Jewish thought and especially in the clear declarations in the Tanakh, that the ‘word’ or the plans or Torah of God, are clearly not God.
Secondly, this passage in reflecting the style and composition of other similar passages from other Jewish writings that pre-date this prologue, clearly articulates a position that matches the Tanakh in understanding that this ‘word/Torah’ or ‘logos’ (in Greek) is a property or attribute of God rather than a direct description for God.
William D. Chamber[1] (former Professor of NT Language and Literature at the Louisville Presbyterian Seminary) explains this point well: "Every honest person will have to admit that John's saying that the Word or Logos "was divine" is not saying that he was the God with whom he was. It merely tells of a certain quality about the Word or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same God.....
Careful translators recognise that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas an anarthrous construction points to a quality about someone.
‘Theos en ho logos’ (Jn 1:1c) is describing the quality of the Logos-Word …”
This is exactly what the translation of ‘and Godly was the Torah’ argues for – for a quality of the Torah/logos/word[2].
Here are two well-known Trinitarian Greek scholars who also concede the possibility of ‘theos’ being used here in a qualitative sense:
First, Daniel Wallace writes: “Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) 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.”[3]
And Dr Philip Harner (whom Jehovah Witnesses who are also Arians, appear to mis-quote) writes: "I think perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the same NATURE as God.'
This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos ["the word"], no less than ho theos ["the God"], had the NATURE (i.e was God-like) of theos.
In John 1:1, I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite."[4]
Mark also wrote that:
“Word order does not determine the meaning in Greek as it does in English, inflection does. Both the logos and theos are in the nominative case, and with theos being fronted in front of the verb we require the definite article to determine the subject, which logos has.”
Mark Davis has two points of difference here. Firstly he argues for a grammatical understanding that many Greek scholars actually reject. In part, they reject this argument because it does not fit contextually. In the first instance, the author is steeped in Jewish thought and especially in the clear declarations in the Tanakh, that the ‘word’ or the plans or Torah of God, are clearly not God.
Secondly, this passage in reflecting the style and composition of other similar passages from other Jewish writings that pre-date this prologue, clearly articulates a position that matches the Tanakh in understanding that this ‘word/Torah’ or ‘logos’ (in Greek) is a property or attribute of God rather than a direct description for God.
William D. Chamber[1] (former Professor of NT Language and Literature at the Louisville Presbyterian Seminary) explains this point well: "Every honest person will have to admit that John's saying that the Word or Logos "was divine" is not saying that he was the God with whom he was. It merely tells of a certain quality about the Word or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same God.....
Careful translators recognise that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas an anarthrous construction points to a quality about someone.
‘Theos en ho logos’ (Jn 1:1c) is describing the quality of the Logos-Word …”
This is exactly what the translation of ‘and Godly was the Torah’ argues for – for a quality of the Torah/logos/word[2].
Here are two well-known Trinitarian Greek scholars who also concede the possibility of ‘theos’ being used here in a qualitative sense:
First, Daniel Wallace writes: “Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) 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.”[3]
And Dr Philip Harner (whom Jehovah Witnesses who are also Arians, appear to mis-quote) writes: "I think perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the same NATURE as God.'
This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos ["the word"], no less than ho theos ["the God"], had the NATURE (i.e was God-like) of theos.
In John 1:1, I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite."[4]
These are just two of many Biblical Greek scholars who
concede that ‘theos’ in Yochanan 1:1c could be understood in a qualitative
sense, that is, that the Greek word ‘logos’ in this phrase is being described
as having a quality or nature that is ‘God-like’ or Godly, and so both these
scholars are not ruling out the possibility that the phrase can be understood
as ‘and godly was the logos’ or ‘and godly was the Torah’ (where the use of
Torah for logos is a separate argument – see my article).
Having accepted the potential or possibility that this
translation may be valid, it is also worth reading a couple of quotes that
Daniel Wallace has also made in respect of the study and impact of the grammar:
“Language, by its nature, is compressed,
cryptic, symbolic. We can see this on many levels. Words in isolation mean next
to nothing -–simply because they are capable of so many meanings. Given no
context, it would be impossible to define, for example, ‘bank,’ or ‘fine,’ or
trust.’ In the NT, ἀφίημι can have a variety of meanings such as ‘forgive,’
‘abandon,’ divorce,’ ‘leave,’ ‘permit,’ etc. Without a context, we are at a
loss to decide.”
And: “Much
in language that is easily misunderstood is outside the scope of syntax, even
broadly defined. Although a decent grasp on syntax is a sine qua non for sound
exegesis, it is not a panacea for all of one’s exegetical woes. Only rarely
does the grammar hand the exegete his or her interpretation on a silver
platter. In most cases, the better we understand the syntax of the NT, the
shorter is our list of viable interpretive options.”[5]
So Wallace
is also explaining that the grammatical considerations of the Greek (of Jn 1:1c
for example) can limit the possible interpretations, but it does not always,
(and certainly not in this case as Wallace himself has pointed out), give us a
definite answer.
This should all help establish that ‘and godly was the Torah’ cannot at least be discounted as a valid interpretation based on Greek grammatical rules.
Further support for the argument that ‘theos’ in Jn 1:1c may be qualitative is found in the Coptic NT (presumably translated from the Greek in the 4th century CE). The Coptic text for 1:1c includes the indefinite article, which, at the very least, shows that those ancient translators, who knew Koine as a living language, didn’t understand it to be a definite noun.
Thus, their understanding leads credence to the argument that ‘theos’ could have a qualitative meaning here and thus fits with the ‘and Godly was the Torah’ interpretation.
This should all help establish that ‘and godly was the Torah’ cannot at least be discounted as a valid interpretation based on Greek grammatical rules.
Further support for the argument that ‘theos’ in Jn 1:1c may be qualitative is found in the Coptic NT (presumably translated from the Greek in the 4th century CE). The Coptic text for 1:1c includes the indefinite article, which, at the very least, shows that those ancient translators, who knew Koine as a living language, didn’t understand it to be a definite noun.
Thus, their understanding leads credence to the argument that ‘theos’ could have a qualitative meaning here and thus fits with the ‘and Godly was the Torah’ interpretation.
Mark Davis’
second argument was that “Whenever ‘THEOS’ is applied to a subject in John's
writings, it always refers to a person.”.
While this
has already been shown to be false in this case at least, Mark Davis argues
that as, in his understanding, every other use of ‘theos’ in the Gospel of John
refers to a person and not a quality or nature, then this occurrence must as
well. Even if this is true of every other occurrence of ‘theos’ in John’s
Gospel, it can only add some weight to Davis’ argument and really does not
prove anything, especially when the full message of the Tanakh and the NT are taken into account.
As well as
this, there are other places in the Gospel of John where human beings are
referred to as Gods. For example in John 10:34-35:
“34 Jesus
answered them, “Is it not written in Torah, ‘I said, you are
gods’?
35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came ...”
35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came ...”
Some Arians
may respond here and argue that ‘theos’ is in the plural so that doesn’t count.
Yet it appears that only when ‘ho theos’ (the God) is used, (as it is used some
1325 times in the NT) that it appears to always refer to the Almighty and is
not used in any qualitative sense.
And the very use of the plural here (quoting from the Tanakh as well), indicates that humans can be labelled as ‘gods’, and that means as having some quality of being ‘god-like’ either in their ‘assumed’ authority or perhaps in their behaviour.
Of course, ‘ho theos’ is not used in Jn 1:1c.
The translator of the Moffat Bible (James Moffat who was a Professor of Greek and NT Exegesis at Oxford), clearly understand the use of ‘theos’ in Jn 1:1c as he translated it as ‘and the logos was divine’. This is really the same as ‘and godly was the logos’ and so also leads credence to the argument (if ‘Torah’ is accepted as more appropriate that ‘logos’, that the phrase should be ‘and godly was the Torah’).
And the very use of the plural here (quoting from the Tanakh as well), indicates that humans can be labelled as ‘gods’, and that means as having some quality of being ‘god-like’ either in their ‘assumed’ authority or perhaps in their behaviour.
Of course, ‘ho theos’ is not used in Jn 1:1c.
The translator of the Moffat Bible (James Moffat who was a Professor of Greek and NT Exegesis at Oxford), clearly understand the use of ‘theos’ in Jn 1:1c as he translated it as ‘and the logos was divine’. This is really the same as ‘and godly was the logos’ and so also leads credence to the argument (if ‘Torah’ is accepted as more appropriate that ‘logos’, that the phrase should be ‘and godly was the Torah’).
Here’s a
great explanation by John W. Schoenheit:
"A
very clear explanation of how to translate theos without the definite
article can be found in ‘Jesus As They Knew Him’, by William Barclay, a
professor at Trinity College in Glasgow:
In
a case like this we cannot do other than go to the Greek, which is theos
en ho logos. Ho is the definite article, the, and it can be seen that
there is a definite article with logos, but not with theos. When in Greek
two nouns are joined by the verb “to be,” and when both have the definite
article, then the one is fully intended to be identified with the other; but
when one of them is without the article, it becomes more an adjective than a
noun, and describes rather the class or sphere to which the other belongs.
An
illustration from English will make this clear. If I say, “The preacher
is the man,” I use the definite article before both preacher and man,
and I thereby identify the preacher with some quite definite individual man
whom I have in mind. But, if I say, “The preacher is man,” I have omitted the
definite article before man, and what I mean is that the preacher must be
classified as a man, he is in the sphere of manhood, he is a human being.
[In
the last clause of John 1:1] John has no article before theos, God.
The logos, therefore, is not identified as God or with God; the
word theos has become adjectival and describes the sphere to which
the logos belongs. We would, therefore, have to say that this means
that the logos belongs to the same sphere as God; without being
identified with God, the logos has the same kind of life and being as
God. Here the NEB [New English Bible] finds the perfect translation: “What God
was, the Word was.”[6]
While I
think there are other problems with the NEB version, the point is that the
‘Word’ or ‘logos’ or ‘Torah’ has the same nature as God, that is, it is ‘god-like’
or ‘godly’.
‘Torah’
rather than ‘Logos’ or ‘Word’:
Now let us
look again at the argument for ‘Torah’ in Jn 1:1c. Please refer back to the
article ‘The Torah Dressed Itself in
Flesh’ for the main detail on this argument.
Consider
the connection between Torah and logos in Deut 32:47: “For this
is no idle word for you—it is your life! By this word [‘logos’ in the Greek
LXX] you will live a long time in the land you are about to cross
the Jordan to possess.”
Here,
‘word’ or ‘logos’ really means Torah, as the Nation of Israel was informed here
in no uncertain terms that hey were to be obedient to the Torah if they we to
live long in the Land of Israel.
But for further clarity, look at the previous two verses:
“45 When Moses finished reciting all these words to all Israel
46 he said to them, “Keep in mind all the words I am solemnly proclaiming to you today; you must command your children to observe carefully all the words of this Torah.”
Here, in Hebrew, the text joins the concepts... "Kol Div'rei Ha'Torah Ha'Zot." ‘...all the words of this Torah’. Also, earlier in the verse we have "Simu le'vav'chem le'chol ha'D'varim..." or "put into your hearts all of the words, which I am testifying before you today...".
Clearly the Torah IS the words or in Greek, the ‘logos’.
But for further clarity, look at the previous two verses:
“45 When Moses finished reciting all these words to all Israel
46 he said to them, “Keep in mind all the words I am solemnly proclaiming to you today; you must command your children to observe carefully all the words of this Torah.”
Here, in Hebrew, the text joins the concepts... "Kol Div'rei Ha'Torah Ha'Zot." ‘...all the words of this Torah’. Also, earlier in the verse we have "Simu le'vav'chem le'chol ha'D'varim..." or "put into your hearts all of the words, which I am testifying before you today...".
Clearly the Torah IS the words or in Greek, the ‘logos’.
When the
Jew/Israelite of the Second Temple Period (1st Century CE) heard the
word ‘logos’/loh'gohse, what else would
he think of except Torah?
Moses calls the ‘10 Commandments’, "Aseret Ha'D'varim" from the Hebrew "D'var"(word), that is, literally the ’10 Words’ (see Exodus 34:28, and Deuteronomy (D'varim) 4:13 and 10:4].
Moses calls the ‘10 Commandments’, "Aseret Ha'D'varim" from the Hebrew "D'var"(word), that is, literally the ’10 Words’ (see Exodus 34:28, and Deuteronomy (D'varim) 4:13 and 10:4].
‘Divrei
HaShem’ to any Jew, means the Word of God, that is, the Torah. Further
there are at least 23 occurrences in the Tanakh [Deut 27:3, 26; 31:12, 24; 32:46; 2 Kings
22:11; 23:24; 2 Chr 34:19; 35:26; Neh 8:9, 13; Prov 7:2; Mic 4:2; Zech 7:12; Is
1:10; 2:3; 5:24; Jer 6:19; 18:18], where ‘Torah’ in Hebrew, is translated in
the LXX as ‘logos/loh'gohse’ in one Greek case or another.
Perhaps the
very best example is Isaiah 2:3 where we have a classic example of Hebraic
parallelism (where a phrase is repeated in a different way, but meaning the
same thing):
"For
out of Zion shall go forth the Torah, and the word (‘logos’) of YHVH from
Jerusalem.” – Is 2:3
So in conclusion, despite the protestations of Arians (and Trinitarians), to give the best sense of what the Jewish author of Yochanan 1:1 meant, when he originally wrote this Gospel (and most likely did so in Hebrew), this translation of Jacobus Schoneveld seems to say it best:
"In the beginning was the Torah, and Torah was for the sake of God, And godly was Torah." – Yochanan 1:1
December 2015www.circumcisedheart.info
[1] Bruce Metzger, a very
well-known and highly respected theologian recommends Chamber’s textbook on
Greek grammar.
[2] Chamber, a Trinitarian, does go on to argue for a Hellenistic
interpretation of Yochanan 1:1c, though he may not have been aware of the
research and arguments for the use of ‘Torah’ rather than ‘Logos/word’
[3] Greek Grammar Beyond the
Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament with Scripture, Subject, and
Greek Word Indexes http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0310218950
[4] Philip B. Harner, "Qualitative Anarthrous
Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1." in 'The Journal of Biblical
Literature'
No comments:
Post a Comment