The word [Jesus?] was God

[Guest]

I'll answer your last post first, Ely (it's easier).

First, let me apologize. I wrote my statement in haste. I should have said:

I have never discovered an instance in which the article "ho" IS used with "theos" with no further modifiers, in which the phrase "ho theos" does not refer to the Father.

I don't think any in your list qualifies as a counter-example of my revised statement. Let's look at them one by one:

John 8:28
Thomas answered [Jesus] "My Lord and my God!"

"ho theos mou" (the God of me) has a clear reference to Jesus, but "ho theos" does not stand alone, but has the further modifier "mou" (of me).

Hebrews 1:8
But of the Son he says, "God is your throne..."

Here "ho theos" stands alone and thus refers to the Father. The Father is the "throne" of Jesus, that is his authority. "Ho theos" is in the nominative case, and definitely not in the vocative case, so why so many translations have "Your throne, O God" as if God were being addressed, is beyond me.
If Jesus were being addressed as God here, the word should have been in the vocative case, that is "theë". Indeed, this is exactly the word used in the passage where God is directly addressed by our Lord Jesus where he cries, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

2 Corinthians 4:4
In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God.

If this is correctly translated, then "ho theos" has a further modifier, namely "of this world". It is interesting to note, however, that one of the second century writers (I think Irenaeus) believed that Paul, in his enthusiasm, wrote hastily, and did not put the modifier in the correct place. He believed that "ho theos" stood alone and referred to the Father. According to this writer the sentence should have been written like this:

In their case God has blinded the minds of the unbelievers of this age, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God.

The writer stated that there is plenty of evidence that God would do this. The Son of God also spoke in parables that "hearing they might hear and not understand, etc."

Exodus 4:16
He shall speak for you to the people; and he shall be a mouth for you, and you shall be to him as God.

I am not sure why you included this one. Are not the words "ho theos" in the Septuagint, a clear reference to the one true God?

Exodus 7:21 Perhaps you have the wrong reference here. I could not find "ho theos" in this verse.

Exodus 22:8,0
If the thief is not found, the owner of the house shall come near to God, to show whether or not he has put his hand to his neighbor’s goods.
"For every breach of trust, whether it is for ox, for ass, for sheep, for clothing, or for any kind of lost thing, of which one says, ‘This is it,’ the case of both parties shall come before God; he whom God shall condemn shall pay double to his neighbor.

I am not convinced of the idea that "ho theos" in this passage refers to the judges of Israel. It may be that the disputing parties came before the judges of Israel (as God's representatives), but in doing so, it was understood that they were coming before the "only true God." Thus I think that in the passage the referent of "ho theos" is the Father (the only true God).

I Samuel 5:7
And when the men of Ashdod saw how things were, they said, "The ark of the God of Israel must not remain with us; for his hand is heavy upon us and upon Dagon our god."

Both versions of the Septuagint which I possess do not have the definite article "ho" before "theos". However, even if the article were there in the orginal Septuagint, the phrase "ho theos" would have been modified by
"hāmōn" (of us).

[Guest]

Ely, et al,

Earlier in the thread I had gone into side-topics that "dwindled" and I'm not especially interested in debating about 1st and 2nd Temple Judaisms on this thread (Emmet, if you see this).

"Going back to the original languages" is a useful tool, even if one isn't an expert in them: Anyone can do a word study! I've seen how several of you have discussed Greek articles, their presence or absence, etc., in different threads. It seems to me you may be looking for stuff that isn't there or are otherwise trying to base your beliefs about the godhead on articles (present or not). I'm not saying detailed analysis is wrong! But it seems like you might be looking for things that aren't there. Put another way, the absence or presence of a definite article..."Okay, now I'm a JW (or modalist, unitarian, trinitarian, etc."). This isn't the best way to solve these things, imo. Doing this might "work" for some but leads to the strangest conclusions!

Personally I don't base my entire theology on the use, or non-use, of words like "the". Especially if the languages aren't fully broken down and understood first (modern English, modern English translations, are the modern translations correct?, how "a/the" (or no "a/the") was used back then in Greek, how we use it or don't now, etc., etc.).

Anyway....

I think there are many occasions where theos i sused with the article and is not talking about God the Father. John 20:28 and Hebrews 1:8 are both referring to Jesus (though I know you might not agree that the Hebrews one is calling Jesus theos).

I'd like to target Hebrews 1:8.

Ely or anyone else: Have you done a study of this verse? I have basic notes on it someplace but can't find them right now.

By "a study" I mean "comprehensive exegesis" (not just word meanings or the presence or absence of articles, but going to the OT text quoted (Ps 45:6), etc., etc.).

I'd like to know what anyone found about this verse in particular (and I really don't think it would have much to do with definite articles).
Thanks,
Rick

[Guest]

Hi Paidion,

Hebrews 1:8
But of the Son he says, "God is your throne..."

Here "ho theos" stands alone and thus refers to the Father. The Father is the "throne" of Jesus, that is his authority. "Ho theos" is in the nominative case, and definitely not in the vocative case, so why so many translations have "Your throne, O God" as if God were being addressed, is beyond me.

"God is your throne forever and ever"...sounds like a question!


otherwise, a quote from:

Or possibly, “Your throne is God forever and ever.” This translation is quite doubtful, however, since (1) in the context the Son is being contrasted to the angels and is presented as far better than they. The imagery of God being the Son’s throne would seem to be of God being his authority. If so, in what sense could this not be said of the angels? In what sense is the Son thus contrasted with the angels? (2) The MEN...DE construction that connects v. 7 with v. 8 clearly lays out this contrast: “On the one hand, he says of the angels…on the other hand, he says of the Son.” Thus, although it is grammatically possible that QEOS in v. 8 should be taken as a predicate nominative, the context and the correlative conjunctions are decidedly against it. Hebrews 1:8 is thus a strong affirmation of the deity of Christ.

He 1, NeXt Bible:
8] but of (Gk, or "to") the Son he says, (isn't in the Gk text)
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,

Two possible Literal Greek/English:
And to the Son,
"The throne of You, - God, [is] to the age of the age."
OR
And to the Son,
"The throne of You, O God, [is] to the age of the age."

"The throne of You" in today's English is:
"Your (Gk, SOU: pronoun, genitive of: SU "you") throne".

I'm guessing this part of the verse could read:
"Your throne, God, is...."
OR
"God, your throne is...."...but I'm not a Greek expert!

Anyways....

Has anyone done a more comprehensive exegesis of Hebrews 1:8 (beyond the articles, etc.), as I asked above? Should we start a new thread on it?
Thanks again,
Rick

[Guest]

It seems to me you may be looking for stuff that isn't there or are otherwise trying to base your beliefs about the godhead on articles (present or not). I'm not saying detailed analysis is wrong! But it seems like you might be looking for things that aren't there.

If it seems this way, then I'm giving the wrong impression. Sorry about that. I'm just interested in learning what certain writers meant by the words they used. If I'm looking for anything, it's the intended meaning. But look at it this way, we will never know something "isn't there" unless we first look to see if it is there!

Personally I don't base my entire theology on the use, or non-use, of words like "the". Especially if the languages aren't fully broken down and understood first (modern English, modern English translations, are the modern translations correct?, how "a/the" (or no "a/the") was used back then in Greek, how we use it or don't now, etc., etc.).

This (in bold) is precisely the point of my question! I'm seeking to understand the significance of the use or non-use of the article in koine Greek as used in the NT writings. This thread is about John 1, specifically the phrase "the logos was theos." The issue of the article may be instructive in how we interpret this verse. From what I understand, koine Greek is a very precise language and lends itself to this kind of examination. It would be surprising if the use of the article has no siginificance at all.

I'd like to target Hebrews 1:8...I'd like to know what anyone found about this verse in particular (and I really don't think it would have much to do with definite articles).

I think most people would have some thoughts on this verse abnd so it would be good to discuss it. If you'd like to start a seperate thread to do so then go for it - and if I post in it, I'll try not to make any unecessary reference to articles

Shalom
Ely

[Guest]

Hi Ely,

I'm not trying to quell the thread or anything like that. It's just that original languages experts sometimes see more than one possibility in translation of certain texts. And this leads them to the choices they are essentially forced to make before translating. Often, what is "seen" in the text (original to English) is a matter of choice; choices based on assumptions. And, of course, biases and/or assumptions aren't necessarily as "bad" as...inevitable. Our theology always influences us. Yet a good exegete will do all they can to see what the text originally meant, and nothing else. This is why I don't (or try not to) ask the Bible if it is trinitarian? or unitarian? or modalist? (or Calvinist? or Arminian?) and so on. These assumptions or presuppositions are "there" and we were probably taught them. And while we can't escape our own historical context and the questions we ask, or have been taught to ask; our presuppositions may have nothing whatever to do with the original intention and meaning! But I see nothing wrong about linguistic studies. "Linguistics has its limits" (is what I meant and intended " to say", lol).
Anyway, I have a lot going on and "owe" a couple threads already. A new one right now? ....Maybe later Thanks........Rick

[Guest]

Two possible Literal Greek/English:
And to the Son,
"The throne of You, - God, [is] to the age of the age."
OR
And to the Son,
"The throne of You, O God, [is] to the age of the age."

"The throne of You" in today's English is:
"Your (Gk, SOU: pronoun, genitive of: SU "you") throne".

I'm guessing this part of the verse could read:
"Your throne, God, is...."
OR
"God, your throne is...."...but I'm not a Greek expert!

I'm not a Greek expert either, Rick, but I am a Greek student. I have studied Greek for several years and have taught a first-year Greek course to adults.

If my studies mean anything at all, then I must affirm that none of your "possible translations" given above, are possible. Each of them imply that God is being addressed. I state again that "ho theos" is in the nominative case, and not the vocative case. If God were being addressed, it would have to be in the vocative case, as indeed it is, when it is recorded that Christ cried, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

By the way, the psalm from which the quote is taken, has the same wording in the Greek Septuagint as Hebrews 1:8.

"God is your throne forever and ever"...sounds like a question!

It sound like a question only if you assume that "God" is being addressed. Try taking God as the subject of the sentence. Think of it as an answer to a question addressed to the Son of God, "Who is your throne?"

The answer: "God is your throne forever and ever. (or more accurately "for ages and ages").

The objection to this translation in the "NeXt Bible translation note", on the basis that it does not fit into the way in which the author of Hebrews is contrasting the Son of God to the angels, does not seem valid. For the very next verse is:

You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.

It seems to me that the Son's companions are the angels, the Son is anointed beyond them!

Now how does that fit with verse 8? God the Father is the Son's "throne", that is, authority. So because the Son pursues righteousness and eschews wickedness, and because God is his authority, God highly exalts him, and anoints him beyond that of his companions.

Additionally, I don't know why you seem to be trivializing what Ely and I have been discussing about the use of the Greek article. It is of immense importance in understanding John 1:1. Martin Luther, who was a Greek expert, understood this.

Luther put it succinctly:

The lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism.

To elucidate re Luther's statement, the Greek phrase "theos ān ho logos", has no "ho"(the) before "theos"(God). This means that the phrase should not be translated as "The Word (Christ) was The God (Father). That would be to identify the Son as the same divine Individual as the Father (Sabellianism).

But the word order places the subjective completion (theos) FIRST, and the subject "ho logos" AFTER the verb "ān". If the order were not reversed in this way, that is, if John had written the phrase in the natural order: ho logos ān theos, then it would be correctly translated as "The Word was a God", as the New World Translation of the JWs has it, and as the Arians supposedly believed.

[Guest]

Paidion,

The NeXt Bible in an updated version of (click): NET Bible translation
The NeXt Bible has more features, above and beyond the 60,000 + footnotes the NET Bible has. There's a "NeXt Bible link" (above).

The NET Bible is a completely new translation of the Bible with 60,932 translators’ notes! It was completed by more than 25 scholars – experts in the original biblical languages – who worked directly from the best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. Turn the pages and see the breadth of the translators’ notes, documenting their decisions and choices as they worked. The translators’ notes make the original languages far more accessible, allowing you to look over the translator’s shoulder at the very process of translation. This level of documentation is a first for a Bible translation, making transparent the textual basis and the rationale for key renderings (including major interpretive options and alternative translations). This unparalleled level of detail helps connect people to the Bible in the original languages in a way never before possible without years of study of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. It unlocks the riches of the Bible’s truth from entirely new perspectives.

I have several reasons why I don't "get into" linguistic debates about certain words on this or other forums. First, I read discussions by original languages experts (such as B-Greek) that fully cover linguistic details. I could conceivably copy and paste what they say but it is easier to just read it and/or provide links. If other people read these links too, which I have done with other people on the web before; then there is more of a context for forum posting (we would post quotes and comment). Second, I've already seen "linguistics debates" on other forums about all of the same verses that are covered in threads on this forum. These threads tend to be repetitive (like "re-runs" on tv) and have people who aren't experts giving their "hunches" about what a text might mean, which is fine for theoretical purposes. However, some of these people, such as yourself, have higher levels of expertise than others. I'm not an expert myself and, frankly, languages (including English) have always "hard" for me. So, in this sense, it is best for me to go to the experts...because "forums" can tend confuse me more! But I have had good learning experiences on forums where we studied a topic using links for context (like one from B-Greek, e.g.). Third, in the end, what a verse means or how it should be translated is often a matter of the choices translators or other people make. These choices, which are probably inevitable, are often made on theological or other grounds as opposed to what the texts says (since a text may have more than one legitimate translation). I understand your choice on how you think Hebrews 1:8 should be translated and do not -- and will not -- contest it. Nor will I argue against your view that the rendering of Hebrews 1:8 in: The New Greek/English Interlinear New Testament (Fourth Edition, Tyndale House Publishers. c. 1993) which I posted from is impossible.

After reading this whole thread (click): B-Greek, Hebrews 1:8

....translators differ as to whether the passage should read "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever..."' or "God is your throne forever..."'. Translations will usually have both readings. The question has to do with whether QEOS is used as a nominative which would make it the subject, "God is your throne" or whether it is used as a vocative in which QEOS is addressed, "Your throne, O God...". The nominative can and is used as a vocative [eg.John 20:28].

A.T.Robertson in his 'Word Pictures of the New Testament' on Heb.1:8 states, "It is not certain whether o theos is here the vocative [address with the nominative form as in John 20:28 with the Messiah termed theos as is possible, John 1:18] or o theos is nominative (subject or predicate) with estin (is) understood: "God is thy throne" or "Thy throne is God." Either makes good sense." In my opinion I take it as the vocative because it flows well with Heb.1:10-12 where the Son is also addressed clearly in the vocative as KURIE ["Lord"]. In Heb.1:8-12, the two main divine titles QEOS and KURIOS are used of the Son.

Bear in mind the b-greek list is not the place for theological debate. This passage has the potential to draw theological daggers.

Lastly, Paidion: You believe "Your throne, O God" is an impossible rendering, disagreeing with some original languages experts. I understand your opinion but do not want to challenge you about this or get into any other kind of linguistic or theological debate about it with you. Otherwise, I won't disrupt this thread and please accept my apologies for doing so....
Thanks and have a good evening,
Rick

[Guest]

I have several reasons why I don't "get into" linguistic debates about certain words on this or other forums. First, I read discussions by original languages experts (such as B-Greek) that fully cover linguistic details.

Do you trust the experts in other areas of life? I don't. I have found that the majority of experts are often wrong. I have to find out for myself, if I can. Usually experts are trained to accept biases already generally accepted. Frequently these biases are based on supposition rather than fact.

In any case, I am not asking you to debate me concerning Greek grammar. I am only sharing on this thread what I know.

Excerpt from B-Greek:

The nominative can and is used as a vocative [eg.John 20:28].

I don't think so, and do not see John 20:28 as an example of a nominative being used as a vocative. It is an exclamation. Thomas exclaims "My Lord and my God!" He has come to an understanding or a recognition. He is not addressing Jesus in the sense that he has a statement to make to him or a question to ask. If Hebrews 1:8 were a vocative "Your throne, O God, is for ages and ages", then one may notice that a statement is being made. But the vocative is not used. Thus it should read, "God is your throne for ages and ages."

When Jesus cried, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" was recorded, the vocative case was used because God was addressed and a question was asked.

If anyone can present a clear case of a nominative being used as a vocative, I will concede, and admit I was mistaken. I have no desire to prove that I'm right. I just want to know the truth.

In the case of John 1:18, I have no doubt that the original text read, "The only-begotten God; he has made him known." It is written that way in the only Greek manuscript prior to 300 A.D. which has survived.
Yes, the Son was the only-begotten God. God the Father was unbegotten.

[Guest]

Hello Paidion,

Just a quick note to let you know I saw your post and....

I grew up in the "Question Authority" era and still do that (even with myself), lol.

Anyway, you and I have seem to have certain "theological agreements" (for lack of vocabulary) that we could post about on another thread (for example on He 1:8, believe it or not). However, this thread is about John chapter one...so I'll leave it at that....