Enda80

I am told that correctly translated, this phrase should be the word was "a god" not "God" , this phrase from the early chapter of the Gospel of John. Any feedback on this?

pharoah

I'm no expert, but that hypothesis seems implausible to me. The same Greek word is used for "God" in the second instance as in the first. As a matter of fact, the same Greek word is used for "God" throughout the entire chapter. The word that was used CAN mean "a god (or goddess)" but I think that anyone supporting this view has a fairly hefty burden of proof to show that it does mean "a god" in this particular instance.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_d...8249-5680.html

Dean Anderson

You are likely to get the best feedback on this in BC&H, so I'm moving this thread there...

Julian

This is the first line of GJohn:

εν αÏ?χη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην Ï€Ï?ος τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

There is no indefinite particle (a or an in English) in Greek. There is only a definite article (the in English) which is not used in greek as it is in English.

The exact translation of the above line is:
GREEK: εν αÏ?χη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην Ï€Ï?ος τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος
LITERAL: in beginning was the word and the word was with the god and god was the word
Proper translation: The word was in the beginning and the word was with god and the word was god.

Notice how the particles seem kinda arbitrary in the translation? Mostly they are used in whatever fashion sounds good. The greek says in beginning which sounds fine to a greek ear but grates on ours so the is inserted. The definite article is useful in many ways in greek. One way, which is pertinent here, is that frequently the nominative form of a noun with the definite particle is generally the subject of the sentence. This is why, although the greek says and god was the word, it is translated as and the word was god, because word (λογος) is preceeded by the definite nominative article, indicating that it should be the subject of the sentence.

So, the short answer is, no. There is no indefinite particle in greek and the meaning of the author here is clear.

Julian

Peter Kirby

There are some various translations of the first verse of John.

Here is the translation offered by Raymond Brown (The Gospel According to John, p. 3): "In the beginning was the Word; the Word was in God's presence, and the Word was God."

Here is the translation offered by Francis J. Moloney (The Gospel of John, p. 33): "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was turned toward God, and what God was the Word also was."

Here is the translation offered by Frank Schlerrit (Jesus after 2000 Years, p. 422): "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and a God was the Logos."

Here is the translation offered by Funk and Hoover (The Five Gospels, p. 401): "In the beginning there was the divine word and wisdom. The divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was."

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

Booklady

This is how Jehovah's Witnesses translate the verse so that it won't conflict with their theology that Jesus was not God, but rather the human form of the archangel Michael.

Peter Kirby

For what it matters, "the word was a god" is not ruled out by syntax or semantics. It's just not the only possible translation. Orthodox Christians translated it as "the Word was God" so that it doesn't conflict with their theology.

Although it's wordy, many of the best expositors think that the meaning is best considered in English as "and what God was the Word also was." So it's not a strict identity, but a statement that God and the Word share all aspects of divinity. A statement of strict identity would have placed a definite article before theos.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

Julian

Correct. It could be translated as Kirby suggests.
That is a blatantly wrong translation. That sentence clearly identifies two distinct entities equal in nature which is not what the greek says, or even implies. It says the word was god. Nothing more. The weird translation that you quote here is nothing more than a paraphrastic id est of theological contrivance which contorts the core meaning of the greek.
Placing the definite article in front of theos would simply change the sentence so that it would be translated as god was the word making the word a predicate nominative as opposed to the subject. There would be no change in meaning, only word order which in this is of no matter since the two nouns are equated.

Julian

Peter Kirby

I just did a search of the NT for "theos," or "god" in the nominative.

In the vast majority of these 273 cases we see � θεὸς.

In a few of these cases we see θεὸς á½?...., as in θεὸς á½? πατήÏ?.

In six of these cases we see the word without an article, which are:

John 1:1. Ἐν á¼€Ï?χῇ ἦν á½? λόγος, καὶ á½? λόγος ἦν Ï€Ï?ὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν á½? λόγος.

Galatians 6:7. Μὴ πλανᾶσθε, θεὸς οá½? μυκτηÏ?ίζεται· ὃ γὰÏ? á¼?ὰν σπείÏ?ῃ ἄνθÏ?ωπος, τοῦτο καὶ θεÏ?ίσει·

2 Thessalonians 2:4. á½? ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεÏ?αιÏ?όμενος á¼?πὶ πάντα λεγόμενον θεὸν á¼¢ σέβασμα, ὥστε αá½?τὸν εἰ$Ï‚ τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καθίσαι, ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἔστιν θεός.

1 Timothy 2:5. εἷς γὰÏ? θεός, εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθÏ?ώπων, ἄνθÏ?ωπος ΧÏ?ιστὸς Ἰησοῦς,

Hebrews 11:16. διὸ οá½?κ á¼?παισχύνεται αá½?τοὺς á½? θεὸς θεὸς á¼?πικαλεῖσθαι αá½?τῶν, ἡτοίμασεν γὰÏ? αá½?τοῖς πόλιν.

James 2:19. σὺ πιστεύεις ὅτι εἷς θεός �στιν;

The predominance of references to � θεὸς and the content of the references without the article should give us a clue as to the interpretation of John 1:1.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

Julian

Hmmm, interesting. A couple of thoughts:

θεος ο πατεÏ? seems reasonable without the particle preceeding θεος, as it would sound weird but it would take someone more knowledgable than I to make that announcement.

I also don't think that we can restrict our view of this to the nominative case only. I guess the question really becomes: Does the use of the definite particle have a theological meaning when not required for grammatical purposes?

I suspect, no. I don't think that the writers had any real doubts about the god they were writing about and could assume that the reader wouldn't, either. Therefore, I do not think that the particle has any meaning in this context which was what was asked in the OP. As to the nature of this god, well, that's an entirely different matter. John 1:1 clearly declares them to be one and the same, whereas 'that weird translation' makes them out to be two separate entities of similar natures or types, if you will. With or without the particle they are still equated as the same, not similar.

Julian