(click for image credit)
Sir Anthony Buzzard is the author of a number of books, including the 2007 Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian.
Interesting title, no?
Some Christians will think it true but trivial.
Others, against the evidence, assert it to be false.
Others will urge that he is implicitly but not explicitly a trinitarian, i.e. that his beliefs entailed it, though he did not believe it.
I agree with with Buzzard, though, that it is both true and important. According to the gospels, Jesus’ beliefs included the numerical identity of the one true God with his heavenly Father, and we should assume him to be self-consistent on this subject, so he did not also think that the one true God is numerically identical to this: Father+Son+Spirit. (Things identical to the same thing must also be identical to each other.)
But isn’t Jesus worshiped in the New Testament? And doesn’t that show that he is God himself?
No – I agree with the substance of this recent video by Buzzard:
and this one:
I would add that in Revelation 5, the “worship” offered to both God and to Jesus is plainly fully religious worship, and not some other, lesser sort of honoring.
My recent public presentation was on a similar theme. Stay tuned for videos of the conference and screencast versions.
Print 
PDF
Anthony
I’m not ignoring the kai, I just don’t see it as having the force you see in it. I haven’t found a translation in my collection which translates Kai as PRECISELY/INDEED nor do the lexicons that I have suggest that reading. But even allowing that it could mean that I don’t see that it gets you where your think it gets you, because the Greek BE verb is not in this verse.
The verb KALEOW in the future tense (will be called) follows the KAI so the verse is saying what Jesus will be CALLED not that he came into existence at that point in time.
Yes, Luke doesn’t mention a pre-existence. What of it? It doesn’t make John or Paul contradict Luke when they do, anymore than my wife adding extra details to a story I am telling, where I may have omitted them for brevity or for some other reason, would be contradicting me.
I don’t have access to Brown. I presume you refer to Raymond Brown, and it’s easy to pick and choose scholars who happen to agree with your point of view. When I last came across quotes from Brown on Jn 8 he was stating that the I AM in John meant that Jesus was claiming to be Almighty God. I doubt you’d agree with him… (I don’t either).
The fact that ‘many top commentators agree’ with you is likewise a poor argument. Other top commentators don’t agree with you and we can quote our favourite scholars all we like, but appeals to authority don’t count for much when it comes to settling matters.
Andy
Andy
Please read the Birth Narratives of Brown.
To be called SON of God is exactly synonymous with to BE the Son. Just look it up.
What do you think dio kai means??
The Messiah cannot be older than his ancestor David!!
Anthony
The Lord’s question, leading to the statement that stumped the Pharisees, suggests that he WAS older than his ancestor David (Mt. 22:41-46).
So Matthew 22:41-46 harmonizes perfectly with John 8:57. Again – there is no disagreement between the synoptics and John.
Also:
Psalm 2 is referred to twice in the book of Acts. In Acts 4:25-26, Peter and John quote the first two verses and apply it to the gathering together of “Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the nations and (the) peoples of Israel … against your holy child Jesus, whom you anointed” (v. 27).
Then in ch. 13:32-33, in a context that deals entirely with Christ’s resurrection, Paul quotes Yahweh’s decree in Ps. 2:7: “You are my Son, today I have begotten you.” (The rest of the Psalm describes what his kingdom will be like.)
So the verdict of Herod and Pilate and the nations and Israel was reversed by the resurrection. God fulfilled his promise to Israel by raising Jesus from the dead, and declaring him to be his anointed King.
Therefore, I suggest that Psalm 2.7 has nothing to do with the beginning of Christ’s existence.
Marg
The passage is about the lordship the Messiah has over his “father” David and has nothing to do with chronology.
Matthew & Luke talk about the genesis and “coming into existence” of the Son [Mat 1.1, 18-20; Luke 1.35]. Yet, your reading the Son into John 1.1? Sounds like disagreement to me.
If not…could you tell me how one can be said to have 2 origins? 2 coming into existences? 2 begettings?
Nobody mentioned John 1:1 except you, Xavier.
John 8:57 is the verse that clearly fits the context and makes sense ONLY if it is understood as, “Before Abraham was born, I already was.”
That, in turn, agrees very well with the question, “David calls the Messiah his Lord, so HOW can he be his son?” HOW can he be David’s son if David calls him Lord?
Then there’s 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Hebrews 1:2, among several that have been dealt with at length. There are just too many passages that can’t be allowed to mean what they say, because if they did, they would contradict the teaching of humanitarian unitarians.
But let’s suppose that God DID became the Father of Jesus by “begetting” him in Mary’s womb. What do you mean by that, anyway? Are you suggesting some kind of divine sperm, producing a mythical type of hybrid? I suspect not. Then what other options are there?
That God miraculously caused a fetus to be born without male human sperm, I have no doubt. That, I submit, is how he “prepared” a body for his Son when Christ came into the world. In order for him to offer himself as a sacrifice for sin, he had to have a human body. God caused that human body to exist.
That makes a lot more sense (to me) than any other theory I have heard. And it certainly fits the Scriptures better.
I repeat: “This day have I begotten thee” has nothing to do with Christ’s conception. It has to do with his investiture as the vindicated, resurrected Messiah, no longer subject to death. So it doesn’t mean “began to exist”.
Is that not true, Sir Christopher?
Marg
Agreed. Hence his being called the 2nd adam, human being!
Where does it ever say that? So Jesus was just an empty body shell inhabited by the Son?
Anthony
Regarding dio kai the BDAG lexicon specifically states “therefore … also, denoting that the inference is self-evident, Lk 1:35; Ac 10:29; 24:26; Ro 4:22; 15:22; 2 Cor 1:20; 5:9; Phil 2:9;”
I see no reason to add anything to this definition. Your suggested translation “For this reason PRECISELY the one begotten/born WILL BE the Son of God” is overstating things. “therefore also (or just ‘therefore’, as most modern translations put it) the one to be born will be called holy, the Son of God…” is what the Greek says. Because of his divine conception, the man Jesus would be called holy, the Son of God, as he surely was. It does not exclude him being called that before this, does it?
Sure, being ‘called’ X when you are X means you are X but I think you are saying that the verse means that Jesus BECAME X only because of this event. That’s a possible interpretation, but you cannot prove it from the words in the verse, and translating it to make it appear to cement your claim isn’t a good move. Sure, use it as an evidence but trying to squeeze your theology INTO and then OUT OF one verse is one of the Trinitarian translator’s ploys and I don’t think it helps your case at all to do this.
You wrote “The Messiah cannot be older than his ancestor David!!”. I’m sorry, but you assume what you must prove. Are you saying that it was IMPOSSIBLE for God to take an already existing divine life form and change it into a human life form? That’s certainly a possible interpretation of Phil 2:6-8 and John 1:1-18. And I can argue that ‘begotten’ in Matthew and Luke refers to the beginning of his human life without it excluding the possibility of a pre-existent life. As ‘begotten’ in both Greek and English usually means procreated it is clear that the term here does not adequately cover all the details of Mary’s miraculous conception and that the angel was just using words she and Joseph would understand, without going into all the details.
The challenge for all of us, myself very much included, is not to come up with a theory and then see if the scriptures can be read in the light of it, but, rather, to see what
picture the scriptures paint in the absence of those theories… You seem to base your view of Christ on taking the Word of Jn 1:1 as being ‘God’s plan’ and that, therefore, any reference to a pre-existent Jesus has to be understood in those terms. Fine, as far as theories go. But you have not convinced me that the Word of Jn 1:1 means ‘God’s plan’.
Andy
Thanks for John 1:1, Andy. I am convinced by the CONTEXT (vv. 1-18) that the Word has to mean more than a plan.
The Word became flesh. (That COULD refer to a plan, of course.)
The Word dwelt among us. (Well – maybe. It’s a bit of a stretch …)
The World was made by it/him but the world did not know it/him.
Now “plan” no longer makes any sense. If the plan came into effect only when Jesus was born, then THAT plan could hardly have made the world.
The idea that the plan was in the world, and the world that the plan had made didn’t recognize it, is ludicrous, it seems to me.
However, IF all things were actually made by (dia) the Word, who then became flesh, and lived in the world he/it had made, then it is worth noting that the world (kosmos = world of men) didn’t recognize its maker.
However, to those who received that Word, and believed on his name, to them he gave the power to become the children of God.
I think that fits the context. And it fits Revelation 19:13, which ALSO has to be explained away.
That’s the problem. There are too many passages that cannot be allowed to mean what they say, because they do not fit a theory.
Sounds awfully Mormon to me. : )
You can talk about what’s possible, impossible, etc., but why don’t we just deal with scripture?
Scripture? I quoted Phil 2 & John 1. I think they are scriptures
Mormonism? Don’t know much about their beliefs. I’m certainly not basing anything I post on what they may teach…
Andy
Andy
So in the beginning was the Son and the Son was God? If my Maths is correct that sounds like you have 2 Gods. ; )
As to the Mormon connection look up Eternal progression/Exaltation.
Andy
Widen your investigation. Read Ray Browns’ Birth Narratives. Begotten, brought into existence, WILL BE the Son of God. Brown is careful to point out that “to be called” is synonymous with “being”. Brown candidly says that Luke 1.35 is an embarrassment to Orthodoxy. For them the virginal birth does not bring into existence the Son. Luke knows NOTHING about preexistence. This is clear to ALL great commentary.
We have convinced MANY, I am happy to tell you and of course we are not inventing nothing new. Read 1 John 1.1-3 and allow the writer to correct the popular misunderstanding of John 1.1. It was the word of eternal life WHICH (not WHO) was with the Father.
Your Jesus is not an authentic human being, just dressed up as one.
Anthony
So now HOUTOS of John 1:2 means WHICH not WHO??
HOUTOS neither means WHICH nor WHO. I have consulted the following lexicons:
BDAG, Liddell and Scott, Louw Nida, Thayer and the Exegetical Dictionary of the NT, all of whom concur that HOUTOS means ‘this or this one.’
The BDF Grammar states ‘HOUTOS is used to point to someone present’. Someone. NOT something.
As HOUTOS is a MASCULINE demonstrative pronoun, your suggested translation WHICH is simply incorrect. I have searched my extensive collection of translations and cannot find one that says WHICH… The more literal say something like ‘this one’ and the others say ‘he’ as can be seen from this list:
Young’s Literal Translation: ‘this one was in the beginning with God’
ESV, NIV, NIV 2010, NAB, NASB, Jewish New Testament, Darby, NET (footnote), God’s Word Translation, New Living Translation, The Scriptures, ‘He was in the beginning with God’
King James ‘ The same was in the beginning with God’
Rotherham Emphasised Bible, The Authorised Version, ‘The same was originally with God’
I’m away from home, so I cannot check Moffatt or Schonfield, but will do so when I get the chance.
Thus far, you have argued that HOUTOS means WHICH, KAI means PRECISELY and KALEOW means BE, all of which seem to be definitions designed to support your teachings.
Please, tell us which lexicon or grammar you are basing these on.
I am a firm believer that translation must PRECEDE interpretation and, therefore, an accurate translation is paramount. Your translations seem forced and theologically motivated. I remain unconvinced about the teachings you build on them…
You again state that Luke doesn’t mention a pre-existence, as though an omission is proof that it cannot exist. Mark doesn’t mention the birth of Jesus at all. Perhaps that means he was never born? If Luke stated that Jesus DID NOT have a pre-existence, then it would be significant. His saying nothing about it is no proof whatsoever that it could not be. An argument from silence is weak, and the more weight you place on it the weaker your position becomes.
Xavier
I would not translate Jn 1:1c as ‘The word was God’. The anarthrous theos is distinct from the articular HO THEOS/TON THEON and the translation has to reflect that.
Marg
We haven’t yet got to the interesting bit of John 1:1,2 where the Word is ‘with’ (Greek PROS) God. For now, all I will say is that this is ‘with’ in an external sense. PROS just cannot mean ‘within’. You’d need to use the Greek EN or, in some circumstances, PARA for that. No doubt more will follow on this bit.
Andy
I learned a lot about what governs the precise meaning of para from a prolonged debate on John 17:5. I’m looking forward to learning about pros.
I have to admit, I was disappointed with Anthony’s statement that “We have convinced MANY, I am happy to tell you …” Convincing many proves very little about the quality of your evidence. I’m sure examples will come to mind.
In fact, Anthony’s claim that
has twice been challenged, on the basis of statements by Peter and John (in Acts 4:25-26) and Paul
(in ch. 13:32-33). He still has offered no response.
To those two scriptures can be added Hebrews 1:5, where Psalm 2:7 is quoted in parallel with God’s promise to be a father to Solomon when he became king (2 Samuel 7:14). The New Testament application of Psalm 2:7 is consistent. It never refers to the beginning of anyone’s existence.
In fact, if you read the Psalm itself you will recognize that it has to do with a proclamation of Yahweh when he installs his King on Mount Zion. Nothing in the Psalm suggests anybody’s birth.
In other words, the MANY that are convinced by such evidence must be people who do not heed Paul’s injunction to “test all things”.
Andy
So the Son is not God?
Marg
the word translated “with” [pros] in the phrase: “the word was with God” in John 1.1b “does not imply any movement or action on the part of the Logos”, as if it were talking about one person next to [“with”, para(23)] another, in this case God.
PS: “…elsewhere John uses para tini to express the proximity of one person to another (Jn. 1.39; 4.40; 8.38; 14.17, 23, 25; 19.25; cf. 14.23; note also meta tinos in Jn. 3.22, 25 f. etc.) or the nearness of the Son to the Father (Jn 8.38; 17.5), never pros tina.” Ibid., Brown, NIDNT, p 1205.
Andy
We’re talking about 1 John 1.2, etis = WHICH. Also we have 4 times “that WHICH” not “HE WHO”.
I fully agree that John 1.2 is “this word”.
Please read the Birth Narratives by Brown and the article by Feuillet quoted by him as well then get back to me, please.
Marg
Acts 13.33 speaks of the coming into existence of the Son; v. 34 his resurrection from the dead. I choose to agree with FF Bruce, Robertson’s Words Pictures, Vine’s and OBVIOUS common sense on this point.
Please also read Pannengberg on this point, “Jesus, God and Man”.
Heb 1.5 is parallel to 2Sam 7 which you have misquoted: “I WILL BE His Father…” so when, according to the NT did this occur?
You are in sufficiently schooled to engage this conversation with competence. You should also read Godet’s “Commentary on Luke”. You need a good seminary library or buy these books second hand.
Anthony
I’m travelling today and tomorrow, so I won’t be able to post fully until the weekend. I’m sorry that I misread your previous post. – I simply missed the 1 in front of John and thought we were still discussing john’s gospel. I hope you will accept that this was an honest mistake. And, of course, I withdraw my statement that you had mistranslated HOUTOS in John 1.
I will consider the other points you, Xavier and Marg have posted over the weekend and try to respond early next week.
Andy
Apology accepted.
What is your training/skill/competence in Koine Greek?
Thank you for responding, Anthony. I hope I am allowed to test your statements, though.
Let’s take a look at the context (vv. 26-33).
Paul is speaking in the synagogue to his fellow Jews. The story is sequential. The rulers of the Jews and Pilate condemned and crucified Jesus – and in doing so fulfilled the scriptures (e.g. Psalm 2).
But THEN (vv. 30-33, NRSV):
This entire section – and not just v. 34 – deals with the resurrection of Christ. So the quotation from Psalm 2:7 is explicitly connected with Christ’s resurrection, and not to his birth. Look again:
“God raised him from the dead …[God has fulilled his promise] by raising Jesus, AS IT IS WRITTEN, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you.”
And that fits the pattern of Psalm 2 perfectly.
So what is the justification for saying that v. 33 changes the subject and refers to Christ’s birth?
Marg
Bruce, Robertson and Vine’s…can you really compete with them?
The contrastive de in v.34 should be quite obvious. You’re forgetting, conveniently, the coming into xistence of the Son in Mathew and Luke. And apparently the gennethis of 1 John 5.18 is lost on you also.
Are you suggesting that vv. 29 to 33 are NOT about the resurrection? Let’s look at it again.
It begins with “God RAISED him from the dead.” That leaves no doubt about what Paul means by “RAISING”.
Then he tells us about those who are WITNESSES of the fact that God raised him.
That is the basis for the “good news”. God has fulfilled his promise to the fathers by RAISING Jesus.
Verse 34 continues with the same theme. God RAISED Jesus from the dead, fulfilling prophecies that Paul’s Jewish listeners knew. So the theme of resurrection is introduced in verse 29, and continues to the end of v. 37.
To make one single verse mean something altogether different from the rest – even though it uses exactly the same word – seems ridiculous.
This is misleading, Anthony. According to the BAG lexicon, de is used in four different ways. The first two are:
1. to emphasize a contrast
2. very frequently as a transitional particle pure and simple, without any contrast intended
[Notice the words very frequently.]
I notice that de is used in both of these ways in Acts 13:29-34.
1. “… they laid him in a tomb. BUT God raised him from the dead” (29-30). [The contrast is obvious.]
2. “… God has fulfilled his promise … raising up Jesus … AND he raised him up from the dead …” (33-34) [I cannot find any translation which renders de as but in this verse.]
The NIV doesn’t translate the de at all: “The fact that God raised him from the dead, never to decay, is stated in these words: etc.”
So the translators see no contrastive de in verse 34. Neither do I.
Marg
The word translated “raised” CAN be used in reference to resurrection but only when it is used in this context. Thus, in Acts 13.33, God is said to have “raised up” His Son onto the scene and not from the dead. We know this fact from the use by the writer of Ps 2.7, which is in reference to a “begetting” always associated with birth and not death!
Thus, in Acts 13.33, God is said to have “raised up” His Son onto the scene and not from the dead. We know this fact from the use by the writer of Ps 2.7, which is in reference to a “begetting” always associated with birth and not death!
If not can you show us where this is not the case? I.e. beget used in reference to resurrection from the dead.
Xavier, Marg
gennao does not always refer to a begetting in a literal sense. BDAG lists Acts 13:33 as follows (I’ve abbreviated it because it’s a very long entry):
? become the parent of, beget
? by exercising the role of a parental figure
With the following scriptures cited as examples:
1 Cor 4:15; Phlm 10, John 1:13 1John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18. John 3:3, 7. 1John 5:1; Acts 13:33 Heb 1:5, 5:5
With regard to Acts 13:33, I agree the anistami on its own could mean ‘raised up’ in the sense Xavier mentions, but it has to asked whether this would on it’s own *fulfill* the promises made to the forefathers, bearing in mind Paul’s words at 1 Cor 15:16-19. Or, to put the question another way, if God had NOT resurrected Jesus, would his being ‘raised’ by being brought onto the scene fulfill all those promises?
It has also been argued that Ps 2:7 was initially fulfilled with regard to the fleshly King of Israel, and God did not become his father in the begetting sense. Here’s what the Expositor’s Bibke Commentary (abridged version) says
“The “decree” of the Lord deals with the Davidic king and the establishment of God’s kingdom on earth. The divinely appointed king speaks about the Lord’s promise, publicly proclaiming his own relationship with God, the Great King. This decree determines his relationship to the king and to the nations. The Davidic king is by birth and by promise the “son of God,” and God is the Davidic king’s “father” (cf. 2Sa 7:14). In actuality this relationship is confirmed at the moment of the coronation. Therefore the theocratic king must respond to the interests and desires of his father and represent God’s will to his people. Jesus is the Christ, the “Son” of God by the Father’s proclamation (Mt 3:17; Mk 1:11; Lk 3:22).”
Most of this discussion (currently) seems to be revolving around the Greek word GENNAO *having* to mean a literal be getting and that that be getting *has to* mean the *start* of the life of the one being GENNAO’d. But that view is very narrow and the lexicons don’t support it.
Anthony
I would translate HOUTOS of John 1:2 as ‘this one’ rather than ‘this Word’ as John doesn’t repeat LOGOS at this point and ‘this one’ is the natural way to express HOUTOS in English. I wouldn’t translate it as ‘he’ as that is interpreting the text rather than translating it.
I would still point out that the BDF refers to HOUTOS as referring to ‘someone’. I will, over the next few days, research whether this is just a general rule with exceptions or an absolute rule…
I’ve only just arrived home after being delayed by the flooding in the North of the UK, so I will respond to the other points raised over the next few days, once I have had more time to research them.
Andy
Andy
Is beget ever used in the Bible in reference to a resurrection from the dead?
Your original argument, Xavier, was that gennao always refers to the beginning of someone’s existence. Andy’s lexicon has given you many passages where that is not the case. I want to refer to a few of them specifically.
In John 3:3, 4, 5, and 7, Jesus tells Nicodemus that unless one is born (gennao) from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus can’t understand it. Jesus then goes on to describe how that new birth will finally be brought about through the “lifting up” of the Son of God.
1 John 5:1 explains: “Everyone believing that Jesus is the Christ has been born (gennao) of God.”
In neither of these cases does gennao refer to the beginning of a person’s existence.
In fact, the person being “begotten” has a part to play. He must “believe that Jesus is the Christ.”
Then there is 1 Co. 4:15. Paul says, “I have begotten you in the gospel.” It’s the same form of gennao that is used so often in the first 16 verses of Matthew. But in Paul’s case, it has nothing to do with the beginning of anybody’s existence.
That leaves me free to mention another word used in both of the birth narratives. It is the word firstborn. We are told that Mary gave birth to her son, the firstborn; and you could argue that firstborn could never refer to anything except a birth.
But in Colossians 1:15-18, the Son is called both firstborn of all creation AND firstborn of the dead.
Then there’s Rev. 1:5, where the Son is called the firstborn out from the dead.
So there is no justification for taking one clause out of Acts 13:30-34 and making it refer to something completely different from the context. Verse 30 begins with “God raised him from the dead,” and v. 34 begins with the same thing. ALL of it has to do with Christ’s resurrection.
When your theory hangs on a particular meaning of a particular word, it’s hanging on a thin thread.
Marg & Andy
Let me try this again…where in the Bible is beget a reference to resurrection from the dead?
Xavier
Shouldn’t your question be ‘where in the Bible is GENNAO a reference to resurrection from the dead?’?
In any case, the BDAG lexicon specifically links Acts 13:33′s GENNAO to the resurrection, using GENNAO in its figurative sense of ‘exercising the role of a parental figure’.
Rather than accepting this without question, in my previous post I asked a question: does Jesus’ arrival on the scene fulfill all the promises God made or was it his resurrection? If, as Paul argues, it was his resurrection then the GENNAO of Acts 13:33 HAS TO be in relation to his resurrection. If the resurrection was not necessary to fulfill all the promises, then the GENNAO of Acts 13:33 could refer to his arrival on the scene.
So, in a sense, Xavier the answer to your question depends on the answer to mine
How do you answer?
In addition, there does not *have* to be another scripture where GENNAO is used in relation to the resurrection. These things aren’t decided by statistics but by context. And, if God resurrects someone, would he not, in a sense, become a father to that one?
Andy
Andy
I thought so…thanks
Andy
Thanks, but “THIS ONE” shows that you have decided that Logos is a Person.
Why not agree with John in 1 John 1? He says “that WHICH” five times!
You are reading your preexistence into Logos!
All translation is an interpretation! I think you have not thought this through.
What is your training/skill/competence in Koine Greek?
Psalm 2 is really the focal point of this whole discussion, so let’s look at it in detail.
The first two verses are quoted by Peter in Acts 4:25 – “Why did the heathens rage …? The kings of the earth stood up and the rulers were assembled … against the Lord and his Anointed.”
Then he explains the connection: “… Herod and Pontius Pilate, with nations and the peoples of Israel, were assembled together against your holy child Jesus, whom you anointed …”
Psalm 2 goes on, “He who sits in the heavens will laugh.” Why? Because their defiance is futile. God’s verdict is clear: “I have set my king (my anointed) on Zion, my holy mount.”
And then the anointed king speaks: “… YHWH … said to me, ‘You are my son. Today I have begotten you.’”
The speaker is not a fetus. It is the king who has been set on Mount Zion who claims that Today YHWH has become his father.
No wonder the Jews considered this to be a part of the coronation of the king.
Besides, it is a fulfillment of God’s promise to David regarding his son, Solomon: “He will be my son, and I will be his father” (2 Samuel 7:14). It has nothing to do with the beginning of Solomon’s existence. It has to do with his position as God’s representative on the throne of Israel.
Getting back to Acts 13, Paul quotes Psalm 2:7 in a context that cannot be mistaken. It is all about God’s raising Jesus from the dead, the necessary prelude to Peter’s statement that “God has made this same Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36).
So the word gennao is applied by Paul to Christ’s resurrection – God’s vindication of his anointed king.
And now I want to come back to Anthony’s claim that
Judging from the evidence so far, that claim is false.
Sorry about the formatting. Also – the previous comment had to do with the discussion about gennao. I didn’t realize that Anthony had posted a comment abut the Logos while I was writing.
On THAT subject, I have a question. No matter how you translate the pronouns in vv. 1-3, “it” seems inappropriate in statements like “It was in the world and the world was made by it and the world did not know it. It came to its own, and its own did not receive it. But as many as received it, to them it gave authority to become the children of God, to those believing in the name of it” (vv. 10-12).
What is the name of “it” – the name that people are to believe in?
Anthony
John 1 deals with HO LOGOS. 1 John 1 deals with TOU LOGOU TAYN ZOAYN. Given this difference it can’t simply be assumed that the two passages, whilst clearly related, are synonymous. I would not translate one in the terms used by the other.
Marg
The personal pronouns of John 1 are masculine and cannot be translated as ‘it’. They have to be ‘he’. The demonstrative pronoun HOUTOS is more flexible – and can refer to persons or things. The big question for John 1:1 is whether HO LOGOS is a thing or a person and how it is PROS TON THEON (with, towards, or even face to face with, God).
Anthony
Of course there is some interpretation in translation. Otherwise, we could just pick definitions from lexicons and come up with really weird expressions. However “All translation is an interpretation!” is probably putting it too loosely.
Maybe ‘this one’ is too interpretative. My main objection to ‘this word’ is that it feels rather wooden in English.
Andy
Andy
So why do you think the first European translations, in Spanish and English, translated it as “it” and not “he”?
And are you ever going to answer Anthony’s question regarding your knowledge of the Greek?
Xavier- do those first European translations translate the same pronoun as “it” in verses 10-12?
That is not a rhetorical question. I don’t know, and I really would like to. Can you give me a link to one of those translations?
Marg
Actually, Anthony Buzzard has a pretty comprehensive list extending to the present:
http://focusonthekingdom.org/translations.htm
As for the Spanish connection see my study on it:
http://inthenameofwhowhat.blogspot.com/2011/06/palabra-or-verbo-truth-or-tradition.html
Xavier
I actually replied to this question (asked by you, not Anthony) in my post of 24th May in this thread. I wrote “I know Koine Greek, but have not received formal training in it. It has been an interest of mine for 30+ years.”
I’m not in a position to answer why some translations in the past translated personal pronouns as ‘it’. Unfortunately, they are not around to answer for their decisions either.
Andy.
Andy
Thanks but you are displaying a lack of knowledge of elementary grammar!
The personal pronouns for logos are masculine and this is nothing to do with sexual gender! You really cannot engage the conversation if you don’t know this. Please do some homework first.
You are confusing sexual and grammatical gender as any of millions of language teachers would tell you.
Anthony
Anthony
Thank you for the correction – you are of course quite right that I mixed things up. Marg, I apologise for this as I made it in my reply to you…
Andy
Thank you. I was already aware of the difference, which is why I did not argue about the pronoun “it” in the first few verses. That was never my question.
And thank you for the link, Xavier. The translation I found most interesting was the “Gospel in Scouse” (whatever that is). I really like the last few sentences.
The problem is that there was not a single quotation of anything beyond verse 5. What I want to see is a translation of verses 10-12.
So my question remains: Can you give me a link to a translation which translates those verses with the word “it”? For example:
“It was in the world and the world was made by it and the world did not know it. It came to its own, and its own did not receive it. But as many as received it, to them it gave authority to become the children of God, to those believing in the name of it” (vv. 10-12).
And if there is, what is the name of “it”? What is the name that people are to believe in?
By the way, Andy, don’t be too hard on yourself. You have admitted a mistake, and learned from it. That is to your credit.
Marg
Thank you for you kind words. I am always hard on myself and it’s incredibly embarrassing to have made such an elementary mistake.
I take no credit for apologising – that was the only honest thing to do and one thing I think everyone involved in this discussion wants is honesty.
Andy
Marg
There is no need to put “it” there. Once the word is in the world it is a “he”!
Made “through it” wisdom/word. In verse 10 the light is actually a person but not in verse 5! This shows the transition.
1 Jn 1:2, 3 clears it all up as John’s corrective comment on what is being twisted in his Gospel
Anthony
Thank you, Anthony. That agrees with what I believe. I woud only add that in the Word was LIFE. And the living Word existed before the birth of Christ.
So the Word became a man, whose name was Jesus. He was in the world (of men), and the world was made through him, and the world did not know him.
There is no problem, then, with 1 Corinthians 8:6. There is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things come.
Same with Colossians 1:16. All things were created through him (last clause).
Same with Hebrews 1:2. It was through the Son that God made the ages. But it wasn’t until the end of those ages that the Son appeared to put away sins by the sacrifice of himself (ch. 9:26-27).
The identification of the Word with the Son should not be a problem, even if NEITHER word be understood as a “person” until revealed as a man. The man, most definitely, was a person. We can agree on THAT.
Can we agree, then, that the meaning of Psalm 2:7 and of Acts 13:33 can be understood according to their CONTEXT, and that Paul quoted the Psalm in reference to Christ’s resurrection?
Hi Marg,
Good to see you’re still actively involved in such great discussions. Have you read Christology in the Making by James D. G. Dunn?
Thanks,
Jaco
Marg
Why do you keep writing Word and not word? You are adding to Scripture.
The word “beget” is applied to the beginning of the life of the Son! Luke 1:35 and Matt 1:18, 20. 1 Jn 5:18 (not KJV) gives the same “begotten” for the origin of the Son. This is not hard at all.
Acts 13:33 refers obviously to the “raising up” of the Son at his birth. As you know top expositors like Vine, Robertson and Bruce and others see this clearly. Why make BEGET mean other than what it means “to cause to come into existence”?
That is not true of the resurrection FROM THE DEAD of Jesus. Acts 13:34 speaks of the resurrection BY CONTRAST (de). Not so hard.
Anthony
To all,
Why is it wrong to believe that Jesus, the Son of God, began to exist at his birth? And as such the 2nd adam, human Messiah as foretold by the Jewish writers?
I’m glad to see your name, Jaco. I have always enjoyed your contributions to any discussion – whether I agreed with you or not!
No, I have not read the book by Dunn. Can you give me a clue? or a link to a review? or something?
That’s all I need to know, Anthony. The word became a man. So the transition from “it” to “he” was marked by the birth of Jesus.
From that point on, he (the word) was in the world; and even though the world came into existence through HIM (the word), the world did not know HIM (the agent responsible for its existence).
And that means that Hebrews 1:10-12 makes perfect sense, on the basis of the law of agency. There is no need for Xavier to withdraw his previous (legitimate) observation that the words regarding the earth and the heavens in the O.T. ALWAYS refer to the Genesis creation.
One other thing. The synoptics all quote Jesus as saying, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall never pass away.”
Those words seem appropriate ONLY from the one who is the logos.
It seems ironic that John is the one who puts in the cautionary note. He quotes Jesus as saying, “My words are not my own.” He was not God; but his words were God’s words. They shall never pass away.
The whole thing is so very consistent, if you let it mean what is says, and stop trying to make everything fit a theory that hangs from a particular use of one particular Greek word.
Marg
Sure, and now the creation language is applied to the Son when it comes to “the world to come, of which we speak” [Heb 2.5].
The prevailing disagreement here is that you think “the word/wisdom” was an actual 2nd Person beside the one God YHWH. I see Jaco brought up Dunn so let me give you something to think about from him:
Marg
Thanks, your first sentence is right. The word became a HE when Jesus began to exist. You then contradict yourself by giving us a HIM before Jesus is alive.
As long as you realize that the word is not JESUS until Jesus is alive…OK.
The promise of Messiah in the OT never ever says that the Messiah is other than human and a descendant of David.
He is to be the prophet like Moses. If not, you must provide an OT prophecy which designates the Messiah as originally not a human!
1 Jn 4:1 makes the test of truth belief in the human Messiah, not a preexisting angel or God the Son! This is THE subject in the NT since we are to believe in the Messiah & not a fictititious non-human Messiah.
God did not speak in a SON in the OT times, Heb.1. You are contradicting this statement.