From: Gregory Jordan (ENG) (jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu)
Date: Wed Aug 16 1995 - 02:23:40 EDT
I didn't want to get into this, especially before I'm going away for a
few days, but just a few comments (and there really should be a FAQ for
B-Greekers on John 1:1!)...
On Tue, 15 Aug 1995, John Moe wrote:
> On Aug 14, Roland Milanese wrote in objection to the following claim by
> John Albu regarding the translation "the word was a god."
> <The Sacred Scriptures confirm the correctness of this rendering.>
>
> >objection: No scriptural evidence is offered to support this claim. In fact,
> the evidence is to the contrary: To say that the Word was "a god"
> violates the
> immediate context, which presents the Word as the creator of all things. Nor
> does it do justice to the gospel as a whole, which claims the same honor for
> the Son as is given to the Father (5:23; 20:28). Nor does it honor the
> context
> of scripture which teaches that there is one true god and that all other
> so-called "gods" are idols (Is 43:10,11; 1Cor 8:4-6; 1Jn 5:20,21).
Those who think that the creator in this period's thought is necessarily
God need to do a little background work. Here, as elsewhere in the NT
(cf. 1 Cor. 8:6), God creates all things through, by means of, Jesus -
that is, with God as architect and source, and Jesus as workman and
mediator. Claiming honor with God is not the same thing as claiming
identity with God - it is a typical Johannine trope in which things of
God are attributed to Jesus, and likewise things of Jesus are attributed
to his followers - those who accept Christians accept Christ, and those
who accept Christ accept God, etc. etc. (cf. John 17:22). John 20:28
cannot be detached from John 14:5 ff. (and remember, the orthodox
interpret these figuratively, since the Son cannot be identical to the
Father as persons in God). And the NT teachings on monotheism cannot be
detached from Jesus's amazing equivocation in John 10:34-36. Overall, I
think the translation "a god" is unlikely, but it isn't impossible, and
this must be admitted.
> I (John Moe) would like to add the objection that John Albu's
> unsubstantiated
> claim overlooks the Scriptural ascription of the "Name which is above
> every name." to Jesus. The LXX tradition of rendering the tetragrammaton
> KURIOS is carried into the NT. Who would deny that ANGALOS KURIOU is an
> echo of the Heb. MALACK YEHWEH heard through LXX ears. Who better than
> JWs should recognize that the "Name that is above every name" is not
> Jesus but the tetragarmmaton. There is room for argument about the many
> uses of KURIOS in the NT but every tongue that confesses KRIOUS IHSOUS
> CRISTOS must, I believe, find "The Word was God" at John 1:1 a rendering
> the corectness of which is "confirmed by the Sacred Scriptures."
And so how would Jews who "heard through LXX ears" even know about the
tetragrammaton of the written Hebrew text? What evidence is there for
that? And if it is Philippians 2 you are referring to, how could the
"name that is above every name" be God's when it is GOD giving it (2:9 ho
theos ... ekharisato autOi to onoma to huper pan onoma)? Or how could
confessing Jesus as "Master" (kurios) be confessing him as God when it
was done to redound to the glory of father God (2:10 eis doksan theou
patros)? This is the same idea we find in Acts 4:12, "there is no other
name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved" - Jesus's name
is salvifically unique and central, but it is "under heaven" (hupo ton
ouranon), that is, the name is inferior to God's alone.
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.
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:25 EDT