|
|
Satanic quote : trinitarian |
The Watchtower extracts an isolated quote, and draws the opposite conclusion to what the author later states to be his interpretation. Even worse, Harner flatly denies that John 1:1c could be translated "a god" or "divine". Harner's final conclusion as to how the verse should be translated is this: " Perhaps the clause could be translated, "the Word had the same nature as God." This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos." |
Harner, Philip B.: Journal Of Biblical Literature: Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns Mark 15:39 and John 1:1. (Edited by Joseph A. Fitzmyer, 1973, Vol 92 p. 85)
|
|
This is a satanic deliberate misrepresentation of what Philip Harner said in his article, "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1." in The Journal of Biblical Literature 92, March 1993, pp 75-87 is quoted in, "Should you believe the Trinity?", Watchtower publication. |
|
How the Watchtower quoted the source |
"The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions " with an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning." As the Journal notes, this indicates that the lo'gos can be likened to a god. It also says of John 1:1: "The qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [the·os'] cannot be regarded as definite." So John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word, that he was "divine," "godlike," "a god," but not Almighty God." (Philip B. Harner, "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1." in The Journal of Biblical Literature, as quoted in, Should you believe the Trinity?, Watchtower publication)Someone who is "with" another person cannot also be that other person. Note, however, that here again the context lays the groundwork for accurate understanding. Even the King James Version says, "The Word was with God." (Italics ours.) Someone who is "with" another person cannot be the same as that other person. In agreement with this, the Journal of Biblical Literature, edited by Jesuit Joseph A. Fitzmyer, notes that if the latter part of John 1:1 were interpreted to mean " the" God, this "would then contradict the preceding clause," which says that the Word was with God. (Philip B. Harner, "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1." in The Journal of Biblical Literature, as quoted in, Should you believe the Trinity?, Watchtower publication) |
|
What they left out to deliberately misrepresent the source and deceive you: |
Harner states that John could have worded John 1:1c in these five clauses: A. ho logos en ho theos B. theos en ho logos (what John actually wrote) C. ho logos theos en D. ho logos en theos E. ho logos en theios
|
|
Our comment |
|
|
Deception Exposed: |
The Watchtower extracts an isolated quote, and draws the opposite conclusion that the author later states to be his interpretation. Even worse, Harner flatly denies that John 1:1c could be translated "a god" or "divine". |
Additional comments:
Harner gives 5 possible ways John could have written John 1:1c. Clause B is what John actually said. We have added clause F, which Harner didn't use.
|
A. |
ho logos en ho theos |
"the word was the god" |
logos and theos are equivalent: Son=Father |
|
B. |
theos en ho logos |
"god was the word" |
logos has the nature |
|
C. |
ho logos theos en |
"the word god was" |
logos alone has the nature of theos |
|
E. |
ho logos en theios |
"the word was divine" |
Another way of saying that the word was a god or divine being subject to theos. (What Jehovah's Witnesses wish John had written) |
|
D. |
ho logos en theos |
"the word was god" |
logos was a god or divine being. (What Jehovah's Witnesses wish John had written) |
|
F. |
ho theos en ho logos |
"the god was the word" |
logos and theos are equivalent (same as in 1) Father=Son |
If John was trying to say that Jesus was a god or divine being, as the Jehovah Witnesses would have us believe, then he would have used D or E. Since John didn't use these forms, the Jehovah Witness translation of this verse (known as "the New World Translation") is incorrect with respect to its translation of this verse. Nor is John saying that the Word is the same as the Father represented in A and F. For there are Modalists who believe that Jesus was God the Father, being simply another mode of God. They are also mistaken.
Full documentation
Journal Of Biblical Literature: Philip Harner: Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns
(Edited by Joseph A. Fitzmyer, 1973, Vol 92 p. 85)
In light of this examination of John's usage we may turn to the verse in which we are especially interested, 1: 1. Our study so far suggests that the anarthrous predicate in this verse has primarily a qualitative significance and that it would be definite only if there is some specific indication of definiteness in the meaning or context. As an aid in understanding the verse it will be helpful to ask what John might have written as well as what he did write. In terms of the types of word-order and vocabulary available to him, it would appear that John could have written any of the following:
|
A. ho logos en ho theos B. theos en ho logos [what John actually wrote] C. ho logos theos en D. ho logos en theos E. ho logos en theios [see footnote 24] |
Footnote 24: ["The word theios appears only a few times in the NT: Acts 17:27 (v. 1.), 29; Tit 1:9 (v. 1); 2 Pet 1:3, 4. It is not used in the Fourth Gospel. But presumably John could have used it, or some other word meaning "divine," if he had wished to do so.]
Clause A, with an arthrous predicate, would mean that logos and theos are equivalent and interchangeable. There would be no ho theos which is not also ho logos. But this equation of the two would contradict the preceding clause of 1: 1, in which John writes that ho logos 'nv theos. This clause suggests relationship, and thus some form of "personal" differentiation, between the two. Clause D, with the verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the logos was "a god" or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of theos but as a distinct being from ho theos. Clause E would be an attenuated form of D. It would mean that the logos was "divine," without specifying further in what way or to what extent it was divine. It could also imply that the logos, being only theios, was subordinate to theos.
John evidently wished to say something about the logos that was other than A and more than D and E. Clauses B and C, with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite. This would make B and C equivalent to A, and like A they
would then contradict the preceding clause of 1:1.As John has just spoken in terms of relationship and differentiation between ho logos and ho theos, he would implying B or C that they share the same nature as belonging to the reality theos. Clauses B and C are identical in meaning but differ slightly in emphasis. C would mean that the logos (rather than something else) had the nature of theos. B means that the logos has the nature of theos (rather than something else). In this clause, the form that John actually uses, the word theos is placed at the beginning for emphasis.
Commentators on the Fourth Gospel, as far as I know, have not specifically approached the meaning of this clause from the standpoint of the qualitative force of theos as an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb. In many cases their interpretations agree with the explanation that is given above. But consideration of the qualitative meaning of theos would lend further clarification and support to their understanding of the clause. J. H. Bernard, for example, points out that Codex L reads ho theos instead of theos. "But this," he continues, "would identify the Logos with the totality of divine existence, and would contradict the preceding clause. [J. H. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John (New York: Scribner, 1929) 1, 2.] In a similar way W. F. Howard writes that theos and ho logos are not interchangeable. Otherwise, he continues, "the writer could not say 'the Word was with God.' [W. F. Howard, The Gospel according to St. John (IB 8; New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury. 1952) 464.] Both writers, in effect, are arguing that the predicate theos cannot be regarded as definite in this clause. In terms of our analysis above this would mean that clause B should not be assimilated to clause A.
Bruce Vawter explains the meaning of the clause succinctly and lucidly: "The Word is divine, but he is not all of divinity, for he has already been distinguished from another divine Person.
[B. Vawter, The Gospel according to John (JBC; Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall, 1968) 422.] But in terms of our analysis it is important that we understand the phrase "the Word is divine" as an attempt to represent the meaning of clause B rather than D or E. Undoubtedly Vawter means that the Word is "divine" in the same sense that ho theos is divine. But the English language is not as versatile at this point as Greek, and we can avoid misunderstanding the English phrase only if we are aware of the particular force of the Greek expression that it represents.In his discussion of this clause R. E. Brown regards the translation "the Word was God" as correct "for a modern Christian reader whose trinitarian background has accustomed him to thinking of 'God' as a larger concept than 'God the Father.' [R. E. Brown, The Gospel according to John, I-XII (AB 29; Garden City: Doubleday, 1966) 5.]
Yet he also finds it significant that theos is anarthrous. Later he adds, "In vs. Ic the johannine hymn is bordering on the usage of 'God' for the Son, but by omitting the article it avoids any suggestion of personal identification of the Word with the Father. And for Gentile readers the line also avoids any suggestion that the Word was a second God in any Hellenistic sense. [Brown, John, I-XII, 24.]
In terms of our analysis above, Brown is arguing in effect that clause B should be differentiated from A, on the one hand, and D and E on the other . [Brown (John, I-XII, 25) also mentions the view of De Ausejo that throughout the prologue the term "Word" means Jesus Christ, the Word-become-flesh. "If this is so," he comments, "then perhaps there is justification for seeing in the use of the anarthrous theos something more humble than the use of ho theos for the Father." But if theos is qualitative in force, it is not contrasted directly with ho theos. John evidently wished to say that the logos was no less than theos, just as ho theos (by implication) had the nature of theos.]Rudolf Bultmann's explanation of the clause also reflects an appreciation of the qualitative force of theos without specifically recognizing it as such. The clause means first, he suggests,
that the Logos is equated (gleicbgesetzt) with God; "er war Gott." [R. Bultmann, Dai Evangelium der Johannes (Meyer 2; G6ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968) 16.] Bultmann means by iliis that we must not think in terms of two divine beings, in a polytheistic or gnostic sense. [Bultmann, Johannes, 16-17.] Thus he guards against assimilating clause B to D or E. But he explains further that this equation between the two is not a simple identification (einfache Identifikation), because the Logos was pros ton theon. [Bultmann, Johannes, 17.] In this way he guards against assimilating B to clause A. Bultmann's interpretive instinct at this point is unquestionably sound. In terms of the analysis that we have proposed, a recognition of the qualitative significance of theos would remove some ambiguity in his interpretation by differentiating between theos, as the nature that the Logos shared with God, and ho theos as the "person" to whom the Logos stood in relation. Only when this distinction is clear can we say of the Logos that "he was God."These examples illustrate the difficulty of translating the clause accurately into English. The RSV and The Jerusalem Bible translate, "the Word was God." The New English Bible has, "what God was, the Word was." Good News for Modern Man has, "he was the same as God." The problem with all of these translations is that they could represent clause A, in our analysis above, as well as B. This does not mean, of course, that the translators were not aware of the issues involved, nor does it necessarily mean that they regarded the anarthrous theos as definite because it precedes the verb. But in all of these cases the English reader might not understand exactly what John was trying to express.
Perhaps the clause could be translated, "the Word had the same nature as God." This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.At a number of points in this study we have seen that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb may be primarily qualitative in force yet may also have some connotation of definiteness. The categories of qualitativeness and definiteness, that is, are not mutually- exclusive, and frequently it is a delicate exegetical issue for the interpreter to decide which emphasis a Greek writer had in mind. As Colwell called attention to the possibility that such nouns may be definite, the present study has focused on their qualitative force. In Mark 15:39 1 would regard the qualitative emphasis as primary, although there may also be some connotation of definiteness. In John 1:11 think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.
In interpreting clauses of this type it is important to recall that Greek writers also had other types of word-order available.
If a writer simply wished to represent the subject as one of a class, he could use an anarthrous predicate noun after the verb. If he wished to emphasize that the predicate noun was definite, he could supply the article. The availability of these other types of word-order strengthens the view that in many instances we may look primarily for a qualitative emphasis in anarthrous predicate nouns that precede the verb.
Go To Alphabetical Index Of Deceptive Quotes
Written By
Steve Rudd, Used by permission at: www.bible.ca
