From: Rolf Furuli (furuli@online.no)
Date: Fri Jan 02 1998 - 11:54:12 EST
Jonathan Robie wrote:
<Let me examine three *qualitative*
<understandings of John 1:1c, starting with a translation Wallace suggests:
<"And the Word was divine". I think one thing that make me uncomfortable
<here is the notion of translating a noun with an adjective; qualitative use
<of nouns may be a helpful concept, but is a noun, used qualitatively,
<equivalent to an adjective?
<"And the Word was God". Consider this as a "definite and qualitative"
<statement; to me, the phrase "was God" can have a qualitative sense in
<English - if the Word was God then he had power, glory, was worthy of
<worship, etc.
<"And the Word was a god". Consider this as an "indefinite and qualitative"
<statement; to me, there is a difference between having the qualities and
<attributes associated with "God" and having the qualities and attributes
<associated with "a god", e.g. a member of the large and not particularly
<exclusive club to which the Greek gods belonged.
Dear Jonathan,
Regardless of how we translate John 1:1c there are problems for the English
reader. The translation "and the Word was a god" suggests polytheism but
"And the Word was God" suggests that "the Word" and "God" are convertible
terms, and this is pure Sabellianism. So in any case must we work with the
English translation to understand it.
Your suggestion above, that the rendition "a god" places the Word in the
"club of the Greek gods" is therefore just one possibility, and because
there are other "clubs", even one which is very exclusive, it is difficult
to use this Greek connection against the "a god" rendition. One club, which
is not more exclusive than the one you mentioned, is the one of Philo who
lived c 30 BC-40 CE. Philo was strongly influenced by Greek Platonic
thoughts, and if John`s words in 1:1 was dependent upon him, something
which many workers believe, but I don`t, "the Word" is another god.
The "exclusive club" which may constitute a Jewish setting inside which a
presentation of hO MONOGENHS QEOS as an INDIVIDUAL beside hO QEOS would
neither be blasphemous nor presumtuous, is seen in "4QSongs of the Sabbath
Sacrifice" from Qumran (F.G.Martinez,1994, "The Dead Sea Scrolls
Translated" pp 4226,427)
Look at the following excerpt:
"And exalt his exaltation to the heights, gods of the august divinities,
and the divinity of his glory above all the august heights. For he is God
of the gods of all the chiefs of the heights, and king of kings of all the
eternal councils.(..) Sing with joy those of you enjoying his knowledge,
with rejoicing among the wonderful gods.(..) Praise him, divine spirits
(..) The spirits of the holy of the holy ones, the living gods, the spirits
of everlasting holiness."
The Qumran sect was also evidently influenced by extra-Jewish thoughts, but
this song shows that there was no problem for Jewish minds in the days of
John to speak of "gods" beside the Supreme one without worshiping these
god, thus being polytheists. (This is also what Wes has given some biblical
examples of). However, for a Jew to accept that another individual was
identical with YHWH or that their names were convetible would really have
been an abomination. Remember that the Jews would stone Jesus because he
said (not that he was God) but that he was God`s son (John 10:31-36).
In the last instance, it is the theology of the translators that will
decide how John 1:1 is translated, and this is legitimate because neither
grammar nor syntax is decisive. However, for those trying to find out what
John really meant it is a pity that only two "clubs" are mentioned as
alternatives (the trinity doctrine of the 4th/5th centuries vs the Greek
pantheon) when there are several (the worlds of Philo, Qumran and the OT).
Regards
Rolf
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
furuli@online.no
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:46 EDT