This translation, the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation is, I think, unique in using the phrase "a god". All other translations use, "God", e.g., the text in the NASB, the NIV and the KJV is identical:
So, is there any justification in the original text for making Jesus merely, "a god"? |
||||
|
|
|
Short answer: no. Long answer: While the Greek lacks the definite article on theos in the clause under discussion, that doesn't mean the English should be translated with an indefinite article. Greek and English do not enjoy a one-to-one relationship between their words. There are times in Greek when the article is present but not translated into English. Likewise, there are places where the article is not present in the Greek but the English requires it, or in this case, requires something to show the definiteness of the word. Example 1: John 18:16 in Greek literally says: "...the disciple, the other, the one known to the high priest..." That's horrible English. So it gets translated (rightly) as "the other disciple, who was known to the high priest." As you can see the word order changed coming into English as well as two definite articles dropping out. Example 2: John 1:1 contains another example of a time without an article in Greek but needed in English. It says, "en arche 'en o logos..." that is (literally) "In beginning was the Word." Notice that there is no definite article before arche. However, even the New World Translation puts the article there. That is how it should be. To leave it out would cause confusion in the English "In a beginning was the Word..." That implies that there were multiple beginnings to the universe, but that isn't what the Bible teaches. It's a difference in Greek and English. Likewise, the Septuagint of Genesis starts with en arche. The reason the clause at the end of John 1:1 lacks the article deals with rules of Greek grammar. English uses word order to drive the meaning of a sentence. We almost always have subjects first, then verbs, then the objects (excepted Yoda speech is). Greek doesn't use word order to differentiate between types of nouns. They use word order for emphasis (Hebrew does the same thing). To tell the difference in the subject and the object (both of which are nouns), Greek uses case endings. They can then put the object of the verb at the beginning of the clause with the subject after the verb and still know what the sentence means. In English, "dog bites man" and "man bites dog" mean entirely different things. However, in Greek, they would put case endings on the nouns and comprehend the same meaning even with the word order switched around. In the following example, I am using case endings here as an illustration. [s] means subject, and [o] means object. In Greek there is no difference between "dog[s] bites man[o]" and "man[o] bites dog[s]." They mean the exact same thing. This works with action verbs, linking verbs are different, but the action verbs show how the Greek usually works. The clause in question (which uses a linking verb) literally reads kai theos 'en 'o logos (literally "and God was the Word" but you won't find it translated that way for good reason). Notice that the word order is switched around with "God" at the front of the clause. Because the verb is a linking verb, the subject and object use the same case ending, the nominative. With a linking verb, the part of the clause that would be the object often drops the article (even though it would use it otherwise), especially when it is in front of the verb (as here). When the object of a clause is a noun like this, it is called the "predicate nominative" and Colwell's Rule allows the translation to indicate the definiteness of the word even when the Greek lacks the article. In English, we don't put "the" in front of God to show definiteness. We capitalize it. That's what Greek scholars recognize in this verse. |
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
This answer is supplementary to Frank Luke's, and supports it. When someone makes a claim about an ancient language's grammar, it always helps me to believe it and internalize it when I can see parallel usages that illustrate the truth of the claim. Thus, I am glad that Frank Luke offered several examples. I have another which is perhaps even more to the point that came up in my reading of the Greek New Testament: Mark 2:28. My interlinear: For those of you who don't know Greek, "the man" and "the Sabbath" are in the genitive, which is often rendered by adding an "of" in English. Now the one confusing thing about this verse is that the τοῦ σαββάτου goes with κύριός and not υἱὸς (to claim otherwise would turn the sentence into mumbo-jumbo, especially in context). Therefore, what is happening is that "Lord" has been moved forward in the sentence for emphasis, but the article has been placed only on "son" because that is the subject of the sentence. Thus, something to the effect of: "Therefore, the Son of Man is Lord, even of the Sabbath!" To claim that the Son of Man is "a lord" of the Sabbath would be very odd, obscure the meaning of the wider passage, and raise other strange questions (who are the other lords? etc.). Compare this verse now to my interlinear of the relevant portion of John 1:1: Notice the grammar of this sentence, though, slightly simpler than the above verse, is fundamentally that same: it is a predicative nominative construction (both major nouns in the sentence are in the nominative case and are joined by the standard copulative verb). |
|||||
|
|
In addition to the points already provided, may I offer a more obvious point based on simple logic? So, the question is, should the latter θεός in John 1:1 be translated into English as "God" or "a god"? In John 1:3, it is written that «πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν», that is, "All things were made by him, and not one thing that was made was made without him." Now, folks, all things were made by the Word (ὁ λόγος, which is the antecedent of the pronoun αὐτοῦ in John 1:3). If the Word is "a god" but not "God," how then did the Word "make all things"? I doubt anyone would contend that "a god" is an uncreated and eternal being. "A god" must be created (a creature), for only God is uncreate and eternal. Only God is the creator of all things. So, how did a god create all things when he himself had to be created? It's illogical. No, it's not a "mystery" that we can simply brush off. It's illogical. It's a contradiction. The Bible is not a book of contradiction. It's a book of truth. The Word must be God because it created all things. Simple as that.
Again, simple logic. If θεὸς was definite (arthrous), then it would mean that the Word was the Father. If θεὸς was indefinite (anathrous), it would mean that the Word was "a god" --- essentially promoting polytheism. Add that to the fact that we are said to honor the Son as we honor the Father (John 5:23), and you'd be committing idolatry by worshipping "a god" rather than the only true God, YHVH. Rather, θεὸς is neither definite, not indefinite, but qualitative. Let me provide examples using the word ἄνθρωπος. Suppose I wanted to translate the following English phrases into Greek: "He is the man." αὐτός ἐστίν ὁ ἄνθρωπος. "He is a man." αὐτός ἐστίν ἄνθρωπος. Both of these phrases tell me who the man is. The former tells me that he is a certain man, as noted by the definite article ὁ preceding ἄνθρωπος. The latter tells me that he is a man, but it does not designate a particular man. But, suppose I wanted to tell you what he (αὐτός) is? Not who, but what. In his Categories (1.5), Aristotle writes, "For instance, the individual man is included in the species 'man', and the genus to which the species belongs is 'animal'; these, therefore that is to say, the species 'man' and the genus 'animal, are termed secondary substances." οὐσία describes what something is (without getting into a lengthy philosophical discourse), not who it is. And, Aristotle states that ἄνθρωπος qualifies as a "secondary οὐσία." Now, some people may think, "Aristotle, really?" Well, some people may think that John was an ignorant fishermen, but at the least, he had an exceptional grasp of the Greek language. In fact, I believe he was remarkably learned and intelligent --- especially in philosophy. This is, after all, the same man that begins his Gospel with the mention of one of the richest philosophical terms in history, λόγος. John also wrote to Greeks, and isn't it obvious that Greece was the epicenter of philosophical thought? In summary, when John writes, «καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος», he is telling us what the Word is --- its nature --- not who the Word is (i.e., the Father). Like ἄνθρωπος, θεός can also refer to an οὐσία. |
||||
|
|
|
The definite article is left off to highlight a difference. Many times the definite article is left off of the predicate of a sentence.
Jesus is a god. Apart from god Jesus created all things.
He is image of god -- he looks like him but He was created. Almighty god was the creator Jehovah. |
|||||||
|
|
The translation of 'THEOS' as 'a god' is not a good choice. On the other side, however, the widely accepted decision not to make any distinction between articulated 'HO THEOS' and unarticulated 'THEOS' apparent in this context is not very good either because it seems not to represent the gospel writer's intention adequately. The Word, HO LOGOS, has everything that belongs to God. He shares the very essence of the One with whom all originates. The Word was with the God, in the beginning. HO LOGOS ÊN PROS TON THEON. In English or German it cannot be said as in the Greek. To translate God was the Word is not what John intended to say. Otherwise he would have said it thus. HO THEOS ÊN HO LOGOS would have been perfectly possible to say if that was what he wanted to say. To translate 'A god was the word' is a foolish attack. Quite senseless and contradictory. No reason to boast. Any translation must fall short in this case. Maybe this is what we should come to appreciate. |
|||||||
|
