...to show how theos in John 1:1c should be translated.
As for JW's being "the only ones to translate 'a God,'"
Nobody TRANSLATES Θεὸς, in Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος, "a god", though some assert, falsely, that they do so.
Even the trinitarian Greek expert, W. E. Vine, (although, for obvious reasons, he chooses not to accept it as the proper interpretation) admits that it is literally translated “a god was the Word”.- p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983 printing.
False. And that is why you did not quote what Vine wrote:
To translate it literally, "a god was the Word," is entirely misleading.
I take Vine, here, to be using the word 'translate' in a way similar to how some Christians sometimes refer to Russellites as "JWs" or "Jehovah's Witnesses". No
Christian really thinks that you and the Watchtower Society folks are Jehovah's
witnesses. Nobody can really TRANSLATE Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος as "a god was the word".
So, you can cross Vine off your little list...er, I mean,
torture-stake Vine off your little list. He's just one example of somebody who, like yourself, and everyone else, actually does
not translate θεὸς, "a god".
Equally trinitarian Professor C. H. Dodd, director of the New English Bible project, also admits this is a proper literal translation:
“A possible translation [for John 1:1c] ... would be, ‘The Word was a god.’ As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.” - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, vol. 28, Jan. 1977.
Since Greek has no indefinite article, it is
absolutely impossible that 'The Word was
a god' could be a
word-for-word translation of θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
- What's the English word FOR the Greek word θεὸς? GOD.
- What's the English word FOR the Greek word ἦν? WAS.
- What's the English word FOR the Greek word ὁ? THE.
- What's the English word FOR the Greek word λόγος? WORD.
- What's the Greek word FOR the English word a? That's right! NO Greek word is FOR the English word a!
NO English phrase that contains the article
a, or
an, will EVER be a word-for-word translation of ANY Greek phrase. So much for "The Word was a god" being a word-for-word translation.
The reason Prof. Dodd still rejects “a god” as the actual meaning intended by John is simply because it upsets his trinitarian interpretations of John’s Gospel! - "The reason why it is inacceptable [sic.] is that it runs counter to the current of Johannine thought, and indeed of Christian thought as a whole." - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, vol. 28, Jan. 1977.
Weren't you supposed to be giving examples of non-Russellites who, according to you, translate Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος, "the word was a god"? Yet, here, you just gave an example of another non-Russellite who, as you even admit, "rejects" that it is to be translated as such, and who, thus, does not translate it so.
Trinitarian NT scholar Prof. Murray J. Harris also admits that grammatically John 1:1c may be properly translated, ‘the Word was a god,’ but his trinitarian bias makes him claim that “John’s monotheism” will not allow such an interpretation. - p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.
Why did you not quote his actual words, in which (you claim) he admits what you teach? Quote his exact words, wherein you claim that he translates Θεὸς, in Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος, "a god".
And Dr. J. D. BeDuhn in his Truth in Translation states about John 1:1c:
“ ‘And the Word was a god.’ The preponderance of evidence from Greek grammar… supports this translation.” - p. 132, University Press of America, Inc., 2003.
What "preponderance of evidence" did
this guy provide? The same list of citations of scholars YOU'VE just handed us--minus himself?
Trinitarian Dr. Robert Young admits that a more literal translation of John 1:1c is “and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word” - p. 54, (‘New Covenant’ section), Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, 1977 printing.
The phrase, "a god", LITERALLY NEVER CAN BE a
literal translation of θεὸς, since Greek hasn't an indefinite article.
And highly respected trinitarian scholar, author, and Bible translator, Dr. William Barclay wrote:
"Nowhere does the New Testament identify Jesus with God." - William Barclay: A Spiritual Autobiography, pg 50, William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, 1977.
If, by 'God', Barclay meant
God the Father, what's the problem? No Trinitarian identifies, or believes that the Bible identifies, Jesus with God the Father. Rather, to the contrary,
every Trinitarian denies, and
knows that the Bible denies, that Jesus is God the Father. Such denial is a fundamental tenet of Trinitarianism;
sans that denial, one is not a Trinitarian.
If, by 'God', Barclay meant YHWH, then, when he wrote
that, he was decidely NOT a Trinitarian, and was, rather, an anti-Trinitarian, and of no use to you, here.
And,
“You could translate [John 1:1c], so far as the Greek goes: ‘the Word was a God’; but it seems obvious that this is so much against the whole of the rest of the New Testament that it is wrong.” - p. 205, Ever yours, edited by C. L. Rawlins, Labarum Publ., 1985.
Who, having a high view of the internal coherence of Scripture, would ever commend Barclay as being one who has a high view of Scripture? Everybody who knows that the New Testament is God-breathed, and that the New Testament teaches Trinitarianism, knows that the New Testament never denies Trinitarianism. I, for one, do not recall having ever heard that Barclay was supposed to be a Trinitarian, anyway.
Rather, NOT EVEN the "JWs".
Nobody has ever TRANSLATED Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος as "the word was a god".
And, even were it possible to TRANSLATE Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος as "the word was a god", that STILL could not contradict Trinitarianism. For, last I checked, YHWH is
a god. Do you disagree? Is YHWH
not a god?
