BDAG supports rendering John 1:1 as "a god"

[Cal_Minian]

BDAG supports the "a god" rendering for Christ in John 1:1 in the following places in its entry for [color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]qeos[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]



Supports John 1:1 “a god” rendering.

Note: BDAG gives an example from 2nd century Christian writings (Dg 10:6) to show how the Son would be viewed as “a god” (not God) in the view of early Christians. See 4a below on Exodus 7:1.

BDAG 405-406 2 "Some writings in our lit. use the word Q. w. ref. to Christ (without necessarily equating Christ with the Father and therefore in harmony with the Shema of Israel Dt. 6:4; cp Mk 10:18 and 4a below), though the interpretation of some of the pass. is in debate. In Mosaic and Gr-Rom traditions the fundamental semantic component in the understanding of deity is the factor of performance, namely saviorhood or extraordinary contributions to one's society. Dg. 10:6 defines the ancient perspective: [color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color] os ha para tou qeou labwn exei tauta tois epideomenois xorhgwn qeos ginetailtwn lambanantwn[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color] he who ministers to the needy what one has received from God proves to be a god to the recipients (cp. Sb III, 6263, 27 of a mother). (...) In any event [color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color] q [color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]. certainly refers to Christ, as one who manifests primary characteristics of deity, in the foll. NT pass.: J 1:1b (w. [color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color] o qeos [color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color] 1a, which refers to God in the monotheistic context of Israel's tradition. On the problem raised by such attribution s. J 10:34 [cp. Ex 7:1; Ps 81:6];

4. that which is nontranscendent but considered worthy of special reverence or respect, god … a. of humans [color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color] qeoi[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color] (as elohim) J 10:34f (Ps 81:6; humans are called q. in the OT also Ex 7:1; 22:27

Says of God used of the Father in John 1:1a that it is not the same as the Son.

[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color] o qeos [color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color] 1:1a, which refers to God in the monotheistic context of Israel’s tradition.

Makes a distinction between God with and without the article.

On [color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color] qeos [color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color] w[ith] and without the article, acc. to whether it means God or the Logos,

Compares god in John 1:1b to Exodus 7:1 and Psalms 81:6

[Jaltus]

I do not think it says what you think it says.

And welcome back, Cal. Have not seen you around for a year or so.

[Cal_Minian]

I do not think it says what you think it says.

And welcome back, Cal. Have not seen you around for a year or so.

Thanks Jaltus,
You know how it goes with time constraints, right?

As for what I think it says, I cited contiguous parts of the text. The Romans 9:5 in this same entry speaks volumes. According to BDAG Paul would not have called the Son [color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]qeos[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color] because it would violate the injunction not to have any other God than Jehovah.

They give an example from 2nd century Greek Christian Diognetus and render it as "a god" when discussing how Jesus could be considered God without violating the SHEMA.

And finally they cite Exodus 7:1 where Moses is elohim and say to compare that to John 1:1b of Jesus while saying that the reference to the Father in John 1:1a has the sense of monotheistic worship.

Cal_Minian

[themuzicman]

Thanks Jaltus,
You know how it goes with time constraints, right?

As for what I think it says, I cited contiguous parts of the text. The Romans 9:5 in this same entry speaks volumes. According to BDAG Paul would not have called the Son [color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]qeos[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color] because it would violate the injunction not to have any other God than Jehovah.

They give an example from 2nd century Greek Christian Diognetus and render it as "a god" when discussing how Jesus could be considered God without violating the SHEMA.

And finally they cite Exodus 7:1 where Moses is elohim and say to compare that to John 1:1b of Jesus while saying that the reference to the Father in John 1:1a has the sense of monotheistic worship.

Cal_Minian

John 1:1-3 is a chiastic structure:

In beginning was the Word
- The word was with God
- - the Word was God
- He was in the beginning with God
All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being

The point is that the Word was God.

There is also a larger chiastic structure from John 1:1-18, where, in verse 18, John says that Jesus is the only [color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]monogenhV[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color] God, which corresponds to verse 1. So, the bigger picture makes the case pretty clearly.

(As does Daniel Wallace's advanced grammar.)

[Cal_Minian]

John 1:1-3 is a chiastic structure:

In beginning was the Word
- The word was with God
- - the Word was God
- He was in the beginning with God
All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being

The point is that the Word was God.

There is also a larger chiastic structure from John 1:1-18, where, in verse 18, John says that Jesus is the only [color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]monogenhV[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color] God, which corresponds to verse 1. So, the bigger picture makes the case pretty clearly.

(As does Daniel Wallace's advanced grammar.)

No one doubts that Jesus is called [color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]qeos [color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color] in John 1:1 and 1:18. The question is in what sense was he God. BDAG says it is like Moses was elohim in Exodus 7:1 (LXX a god) which is surprising considering that this work is funded by LCMS.

On the other hand it is not surprising that Trinitarian Dan Wallace in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics supports the Trinity.

Cal_Minian

[themuzicman]

Well, Elohim has a lot of meanings in Hebrew. I don't think most scholars consider the LXX to be inerrant.

michael

[Cal_Minian]

Well, Elohim has a lot of meanings in Hebrew. I don't think most scholars consider the LXX to be inerrant.

michael

Yes elohim has a lot of meanings in Hebrew and they carry over into [color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color] qeos [color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color] in the Greek New Testament.

As for the LXX, it says exactly what the Hebrew does at Exodus 7:1 where the KJV renders the verse as:

KJV Exodus 7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

Cal Minian

[themuzicman]

Thus, Moses isn't literally a god, God is just giving Moses that authority to act in such a manner over Pharoah.

No biggie.

michael

[Cal_Minian]

Thus, Moses isn't literally a god, God is just giving Moses that authority to act in such a manner over Pharoah.

No biggie.

michael

Actually that is the point of the BDAG citation of the 2nd century Christian writer diognetus, remember? This is the same article which compares John 1:1 to Exodus 7:1.

In Mosaic and Gr-Rom traditions the fundamental semantic component in the understanding of deity is the factor of performance, namely saviorhood or extraordinary contributions to one's society. Dg. 10:6 defines the ancient perspective: οσ ηα παρα του θεου λαβων εξει ταυτα τοισ επιδεομενοισ ξορηγων θεοσ γινεταιλτων λαμβαναντων he who ministers to the needy what one has received from God proves to be a god to the recipients

Cal_Minian

[OldShepherd]

Actually that is the point of the BDAG citation of the 2nd century Christian writer diognetus, remember? This is the same article which compares John 1:1 to Exodus 7:1.

In Mosaic and Gr-Rom traditions the fundamental semantic component in the understanding of deity is the factor of performance, namely saviorhood or extraordinary contributions to one's society. Dg. 10:6 defines the ancient perspective: οσ ηα παρα του θεου λαβων εξει ταυτα τοισ επιδεομενοισ ξορηγων θεοσ γινεταιλτων λαμβαναντων he who ministers to the needy what one has received from God proves to be a god to the recipients

Cal_Minian

Hello Cal,
You are employing a common tactic used by anti-Trinitarians, on this and other forums. Even when an argument has been completely refuted, as this one has, you either take the same argument to another forum or, as in this case, wait some period of time, and revive the argument in another thread, hoping that none of the prinicipals in the previous discussion will notice.

You presented this same argument before with the same out-of-context quotes, and the same misrepresentations, about 3 years ago. Your argument was completely refuted, at that time, by myself, Jaltus, AVMetro, and others, Here!

[Panayioti]

Hello Cal,
You are employing a common tactic used by anti-Trinitarians, on this and other forums. Even when an argument has been completely refuted, as this one has, you either take the same argument to another forum or, as in this case, wait some period of time, and revive the argument in another thread, hoping that none of the prinicipals in the previous discussion will notice.

You presented this same argument before with the same out-of-context quotes, and the same misrepresentations, about 3 years ago. Your argument was completely refuted, at that time, by myself, Jaltus, AVMetro, and others, Here!

Dear Cal:

You are misconstruing the Greek. I suggest you read the Greek Fathers rather than anything else.

Peter

[Cal_Minian]

Dear Cal:

You are misconstruing the Greek. I suggest you read the Greek Fathers rather than anything else.

Peter

Dear Peter,
I think you miss my point. It is that BDAG supports the rendering of John 1:1 as "a god." What do you think of the Diognetus quote from 2nd century Christian literature which BDAG lists in the section explaining how Christ could be considered θεοσ without violating the SHEMA?

Dg. 10:6 defines the ancient perspective: οσ ηα παρα του θεου λαβων εξει ταυτα τοισ επιδεομενοισ ξορηγων θεοσ γινεταιλτων λαμβαναντων he who ministers to the needy what one has received from God proves to be a god to the recipients

[Panayioti]

Dear Peter,
I think you miss my point. It is that BDAG supports the rendering of John 1:1 as "a god." What do you think of the Diognetus quote from 2nd century Christian literature which BDAG lists in the section explaining how Christ could be considered θεοσ without violating the SHEMA?

Our Lord is NOT "a god" the Greek "Kai Theos en o Logos" - "and the word was God" - the Son of God and the second person of the Blessed Trinity. Arius made the same argument that you are making and the Fathers, through the support of the Apostolic teaching (i.e. Sacred Tradition), as well as scripture, said that Arius was wrong NOT just at the council of Nicea, as Dan Brown and others would have you believe, but prior to the council and always (before and after Nicea).

Read what St. Athanasios wrote and said on the subject, as well as all the Greek Fathers, even the Latin Fathers such as St. Jerome and Blessed Augustine. The scripture supports the apostolic teaching NOT Arius, NOT the JW, but the truth of God's revealed faith. Jesus Christ is THE GOD not a god.

[Panayioti]

Our Lord is NOT "a god" the Greek "Kai Theos en o Logos" - "and the word was God" - the Son of God and the second person of the Blessed Trinity. Arius made the same argument that you are making and the Fathers, through the support of the Apostolic teaching (i.e. Sacred Tradition), as well as scripture, said that Arius was wrong NOT just at the council of Nicea, as Dan Brown and others would have you believe, but prior to the council and always (before and after Nicea).

Read what St. Athanasios wrote and said on the subject, as well as all the Greek Fathers, even the Latin Fathers such as St. Jerome and Blessed Augustine. The scripture supports the apostolic teaching NOT Arius, NOT the JW, but the truth of God's revealed faith. Jesus Christ is THE GOD not a god.

As far as the SHEMA is concerned this is the NEW COVENANT not the old. The Apostles were coming to terms with a new teaching, and new revelation. However, St. John the Apostle and St. Paul came to terms with the revealed truth and expressly declared it (i.e. St. John in John 1:1 and St. Paul in Romans 9:5 and Colosians Chapters 1 & 2).

[Cal_Minian]

Our Lord is NOT "a god" the Greek "Kai Theos en o Logos" - "and the word was God" - the Son of God and the second person of the Blessed Trinity. Arius made the same argument that you are making and the Fathers, through the support of the Apostolic teaching (i.e. Sacred Tradition), as well as scripture, said that Arius was wrong NOT just at the council of Nicea, as Dan Brown and others would have you believe, but prior to the council and always (before and after Nicea).

Read what St. Athanasios wrote and said on the subject, as well as all the Greek Fathers, even the Latin Fathers such as St. Jerome and Blessed Augustine. The scripture supports the apostolic teaching NOT Arius, NOT the JW, but the truth of God's revealed faith. Jesus Christ is THE GOD not a god.

Do you really believe what Athanasius taught on the subject of John 1:1?
In the phrase "In the beginning was the Word," Athanasius interpreted the word "beginning" as "origin" and meant the Father, as "in the Father was the Word."

Is that what you believe?