Saturday, November 18, 2017

Is "Cross" a Correct Translation for STAUROS in the New Testament? By James Johnstone 1881


Is the word "Cross" a Correct Translation in the New Testament? By James Johnstone 1881

The Greek word used in the New Testament to designate the instrument on which Christ was put to death is stauros, which all lexicographers admit means a stake, and not a cross. As there is no word in the Greek language to signify a cross, it has been assumed that stauros may be translated by the word cross, for the following reasons:—

The Romans put some of their criminals to death by nailing them to stakes. This was done by raising the arms of the criminal above his head, and there nailing up his hands, and then nailing his feet to the lower part of the stake. Other criminals the Romans put to death by putting them on an upright beam, with a transverse piece of wood, to which the extended arms were fastened by nails put through the hands. This is a cross. The historian Livy, who wrote before the birth of Christ, confounded these two kinds of instruments, by using the word crux, a cross, to signify a stake, without any transverse beam. Further, the impaling of a man's body by placing it on a sharp pointed stick was, by ancient authors, sometimes called crucifixion. Hence it has been alleged that the Greek word stauros, a stake, may be translated cross, on the assumption that there is no evidence in the Scriptures to show that this is a wrong translation.

DO THE SCRIPTURES WARRANT THIS ASSUMPTION?

Although the Greek language contains no word for a cross, the word stauros, a stake, is not the only word used in the New Testament to indicate the instrument on which Christ was put to death; it is also designated by the word xulon, tree. But here we are met by another assumption men have made, namely, that the word xulon does not literally mean a tree, but wood, and that tree may be a figurative meaning for a cross.

IS THIS WARRANTED BY THE GREEK LANGUAGE?
When we look at a large number of trees growing together, we call them, in our language, a wood; but the Greeks had a special name for trees growing, namely, dendron. This word occurs twenty-six times in the New Testament, and in every instance it refers to a living tree, and never to a tree that has been cut down. Again, the word xulon, tree, occurs nineteen times in the New Testament, and in every instance but four it is applied to trees that have been cut down. The four exceptions to the rule are in Rev. 22:2-14, and Luke 23:31. Again, there is the Greek word xulinos, which expressly means wood, or things made of wood. It occurs in 2 Tim. 2:20, and Rev. 9:20. Seeing that a cross is an instrument manufactured of wood, and that it is not a tree, the fact of the word xulon, tree, being applied to designate the instrument on which Christ was put to death, and not xulinos, wood, shows that the writers of the New Testament knew that it was not a cross, hut xulon, a tree, namely, stauros, a stake, the stem of a dead tree, on which Christ was put to death.

The foregoing evidence is sufficient proof that Christ was put to death on a stake or tree, and not on a cross; if it were not that, three of the instances of xulon in the New Testament have, by the translators of the Hampton Court version of 1611, and by the Westminster translators of 1881, been translated wood instead of tree. It is therefore necessary to investigate what the Scriptures teach us as to the meaning of the word xulon. Of the nineteen instances of the word xulon, it is unnecessary to refer specially to the four cases of it already noticed as being in Rev. 22: 2-14, and Luke 23:31, as these texts unmistakably show that the word there means a living green tree, and not a dead one. What we are to examine is the proofs that all the other instances of xulon, tree, are applied to dead trees.

In Rev. 18: 11,12, xulon is twice translated by the word wood in the versions of 1611 and 1881, therefore, a new translation of these verses is necessary. But, before making it, attention is required to a very proper marginal alteration made in the version of 1881. It is the word cargo, which is twice given instead of the word merchandise. Of course, the translators of 1881 don't give their reason for this change, but the cause of it is to be found in Acts 21:3, where the same Greek word is translated burden, which manifestly means the cargo of the ship. This has an important bearing on the meaning of Rev. 18: 11, 12, for of the various things there mentioned, each of them is as to quantity, intended to mean a ship's cargo. The last of them (verse 13) is "a cargo of bodies and souls of men," namely, a cargo of slaves.

There is another word in Rev. 18: 12, which requires to be noticed before giving a new translation of the verse, namely, skuos, which is twice translated vessel, both in the version of 1611 and that of 1881; but this translation is a mistake. In Acts xxvii. 17, the same word is translated sail in the version of 1611; and in that of 1881 it^is made gear. Whatever skuos means in the said verse, the context shows that it refers to something that was lowered down from having been above the heads of Paul and his companions in the ship. The same word occurs again in verse 19; it is there translated tackling in both the versions of 1611 and 1881. Now, the tackling of a ship includes every kind of thing on board it that lies above its deck, a great number of articles, a plurality, whereas the Greek word used is the accusative singular, and therefore cannot mean a plurality of articles, such as the tackling of a ship. The true meaning of the word skuos, as here used, is the yard, a long tree on which the sail was stretched. It was first lowered down, and after there was no hope of the ship being saved, the men threw it overboard.

The foregoing translation of the word skuos agrees with the information which has been handed down to us, about the ships which the Greeks and Romans had in Paul's time. We have tolerably accurate representations of them on coins and monuments, so that we know with certainty, that the ships in Paul's day had one mainmast near the middle of the vessel. On this mast there was, hoisted up by its centre, a tree, which reached horizontally across the ship. This large tree our sailors call a yard, or spar; on this yard, the main-sail, a large square piece of cloth, was fastened by its top edge, the rest of the sail hung down towards the deck of the vessel, and was there fastened with ropes. It is therefore manifest that when the yard was lowered down, it brought the sail along with it, and then the wind thereafter could have comparatively little effect on the ship. It was this yard, skuos, which was first lowered down, and as it was a tree of great length, it was very heavy, and therefore, was ultimately thrown overboard to lighten the ship, when there was no hope of saving her. The foregoing translation of the word skuos, by that of yard, or spar, enables us to understand more clearly the meaning of Rev. 18: 11, 12, of which the following is a new translation:—

"And the merchants of the earth weep and mourn for her, because their [ships'] cargo no one buys any more. Cargo of gold, and of silver, and of precious stones, and of pearl, and of fine linen, and of purple, and of silk, and of scarlet, and of every thyine tree, and of every tusk of ivory, and of every spar of most valuable tree."

It is only necessary to add, that the word skuos, translated vessels, in connection with ivory, in the version of 1611 and 1881, is manifestly wrong, because ship loads of ivory were in old times, and are in our day, brought in the form of various kinds of tusks. If the reader should feel inclined to cavil at the translation thyine tree, and most valuable tree, and, instead thereof, wish to make them thyine wood, and most valuable wood, he must bear in mind that he is precluded from doing so by the Greek, for the word in the verse is not xulinos, wood, but xulon, tree. These are valuable for spars when the stem is straight, without any bend in it.

I now turn to 1 Cor. 3:12, which, in the version of 1611, is made-—"If any man build on this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble." The version of 1881 follows the old version in having the word wood, but this is a blunder, for the Greek word is not xulinos, wood, but xula, tree, and is the accusative plural, trees. "If any man build on this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, trees, hay, stubble."

Turn now to Acts 16:24—-"And made their feet fast in the stocks." So read the versions of 1611 and 1881, but there is a mistake here, for the stocks which were used in Great Britain consisted of two logs, or stems of trees, one laid on the top of the other, and the prisoners' legs were fastened by being put between them. Now, if Luke, when writing the Acts of the Apostles, thought of these two stems of trees, laid one on the other, he would have used the plural word xula, but he does not do so, he employs the singular words, to xulon, the tree, showing that what Paul and Silas had their feet fastened to was one log, the stem of a tree.

There now remain for examination five texts, Matt. 26: 47, 55, Mark 16: 43, 48, Luke 22:52, in all of which the plural word xuloon, is translated "staves." It would have been more accurate to have translated it by our word clubs, which are stems of young trees. I have now gone over all the instances of this word in the New Testament, except the five texts where it is used regarding the instrument on which Christ was put to death. One of these is Gal. 3: 13—-"Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree," which is a reference to Deut. 21: 22, where the criminal was hanged, not on a cross, but literally on a tree, and corroborates the exclusive nature of the meaning which the Scriptures attach to the word xulon, a tree, namely (except the four texts wherein it is applied to living trees), in all texts it means a portion of the straight stem of a tree deprived of its branches. In Acts 16: 24, it was the stem of a tree to which the feet of Paul and Silas were fastened. In the five texts, Matt. 26: 47, 55, Mark 14: 43, 48, Luke 22: 52, the word xuloon means clubs, namely, the stems of young trees deprived of their branches. And in Rev. 18: 11, 12, xulon is used for ships' cargoes of the stems of trees deprived of their branches. The one cargo being that of thyine trees, the other of spars for making ships' yards, which are dead trees deprived of their branches.

The information we have now derived from the Scriptures stands thus:-—First, a cross is a stem of a tree to which men had manufactured artificial branches, and therefore it came under the category of things called wooden, namely, xulinos, so that if Christ had been put to death on a cross, the word xulinos, with some other Greek word conjoined, would have been employed to designate the cross. Second, the word xulon is used to designate the instrument on which Christ was put to death. Now the Scriptures teach us that xulon means a dead tree without branches, whereas a cross has artificial branches, therefore it is impossible that Christ could have been put to death on a cross. Third, the Scriptures tell us that Christ was put to death on stauros, a stake. Now a stake is a dead tree deprived of its branches, hence the two independent words which the Scriptures apply to the instrument on which Christ was put to death, stauros, a stake, or tree without branches, and xulon, a tree without branches, support and corroborate one another in proving that it was not a cross on which Christ died.

The cross was an emblem of various heathen religions for many centuries before Christ came into the world. It was the most common mark of heathenism at the time the Apostle John wrote in the Apocalypse about the mark of the beast, which is therein foretold was to be a mark of apostacy. And the cross was never used as an emblem of Christianity until it was employed in the false Christianity of the Popes. The tradition that Christ was put to death on a cross originated with the Papacy, and cannot be traced to an earlier date than about the death of Constantine. Hence it is wrong to represent that Christ was put to death on the heathen emblem a cross, by translating the word stauros by that of cross, instead of its right meaning, a stake, and thereby leading to the obscuration of the prophecy about "the mark of the beast" (Rev. 16:2, 19: 20), as fulfilled by the heathen mark of the cross being the mark and an object of worship of that antiChrist, the Papacy.
First published, 6th June 1881.

Friday, November 17, 2017

Great Quotes about the Doctrine of the Trinity

For a list of all of my disks and ebooks, (Amazon and PDF) click here
Quotes:

"God can in no way be described." -- Plato (Father of the Trinity)

"The Trinity itself is a mystery or a "holy secret". It is incomprehensible. It can never be fully understood." -- Dr. Walter Martin

"The doctrine of the Trinity is a post-scriptural attempt to bring to coherent expression diverse affirmations about God..." -- Grolier Encyclopedia

"The Chalcedonian formula [the council's decision declaring Jesus both God and man] makes genuine humanity impossible. The conciliar definition says that Jesus is true man. But if there are two natures in him, it is clear which will dominate. And Jesus becomes immediately very different from us. He is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. He knows the past, present and future...He knows exactly what everyone is thinking and going to do. This is far from ordinary human experience. Jesus is tempted but cannot sin because he is God. What kind of temptation is this? It has little in common with the kinds of struggles we are familiar with." To Know and Follow Jesus, Roman Catholic writer Thomas Hart (Paulist Press, 1984), 46.

"It is exegesis of a mischievous if pious sort that would find the doctrine of the Trinity in the plural form elohim [God]" ("God," Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics)

Historian Will Durant: "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. . . . From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity." And in the book Egyptian Religion, Siegfried Morenz notes: "The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians . . . Three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology."

"The New Testament does not actually speak of tri-unity. We seek this in vain in the triadic formulae of the N.T."—Kittels Theological Dictionary of the N.T.

"The doctrine of the Trinity has in the West come into increasing question...there has for long been a tendency to treat the doctrine as a problem rather than as encapsulating the heart of the Christian Gospel."
The Promise of the Trinity, Gunton, p.31

"Despite their orthodox confession of the Trinity, Christians are, in their practical life, almost mere monotheists. We must be willing to admit that, should the doctrine of the Trinity have to be dropped as false, the major part of religious literature could well remain virtually unchanged." Karl Rahner, The Trinity, J. Donceel, trans, p.10

"There was no theoretical framework in Scripture that explained the relationship of the Father, Son and Spirit.No Old Testament author addressed the issue of a separate being, the Holy Spirit, and its ('her,' in Hebrew) relationship to the Father; the Spirit of God was God's 'spirit' or breath that carried his power. Likewise, no New Testament author addressed the interrelationship of Father, Son, and Spirit. There are triadic formulations in the New Testament, such as the command to baptize "in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" (Matt 28:19), and the prayer of the blessing that "the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all" (2 Cor. 13:14).  But all of these have to do with how God relates to the church. None explains how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit relate to each other in essence. That task fell to a particularly
influential group of 'heretics' - Gnostic Christians of the second century." The River of God, by Gregory J. Riley, p. 62

"Why have Christians generally failed to grasp the grammar of the Trinity as the "fundamental grammar of Christian theology"? Why the "strange paucity of Trinitarian hymns in our modern repertoire of praise"? Or for that matter, in evangelical praise songs, hymns and choruses" Christianity Today, April 28 , 1997, p.28

"Whatever else might be said about the doctrine of the Trinity, it is safe to say that in the history of Christian doctrine there has been no single, universally accepted articulation of the specific way in which it is to be understood. Every attempt to articulate the doctrine has had its detractors and has been viewed as erring in one direction or the other. Articulations stressing the unity of God to the relative de-emphasis of divine threeness have most often been labelled modalist or Sabellian: whereas, those stressing the threefold existence of deity to the relative neglect of divine unity have been castigated as as tri-theistic or polytheistic. It has seemed next to impossible to achieve a balanced presentation of the triune nature of God that is both
relatively detailed and also acceptable to most sincere Christians with theological sensitivity." Logic, Morris, pp. 207, 208

". . . it is a remarkable fact, that no single passage or verse of  the Old or New Testament is received as an assured proof-text of the trinity by the unanimous consent of all Trinitarian writers: some ground their faith on one passage, some on another."
A Religious Encyclopædia: or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology, Based on the Real-Encyklopädie of Herzog, Plitt, and Hauck."

"But how can such weak creatures ever take in so strange, so difficult and so abtruse a doctrine as this [the Trinity], in the explication and defence wherof multitudes of men, even men of learning and piety, have lost themselves in infinite subtleties of dispute and endless mazes of darkness? And can this strange and perplexing notion of three real persons going up to make one true God be so necessary and important a part of that Christian doctrine, which, in the Old Testament and the New, is represented as so plain and so easy, even to the meanest understandings."
William G. Eliot, Discourses on the Doctrines of Christianity (American Unitarian Association, Boston,1877), pp. 97, 100

The Eastern Theologian John of Damascus (c. 675-749) once used a very curios argument in favour of icons...John replied to the criticism are unscriptural by admitting the fact, and adding that you will not find in scripture the Trinity, of homousian or the two natures of Christ either. But we know those doctrines are true. And so, having acknowledged that icons, the Trinity and the incarnation are innovations, John goes on to urge his reader to hold fast to them as venerable traditions delivered to us by the Fathers...He was not the only one to use this argument: Theodore the Studite (759-826) adopted it too. It brings out an odd feature to Christianity, its mutability and speed with which innovations come to be vested with religious solemnity to such an extent that anyone who questions them find himself regarded as the dangerous innovator and heretic." The Christ of Christendom by Don Cupitt, as used in The Myth of God Incarnate, p. 133

Paul, of course, did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity, and he often appears to operate with a subordinationist christology (cf. 15:28)." (Richard Hays, 1 Corinthians, page 192).

"The doctrine of God as existing in three persons and one substance is not demonstrable by logic or by scriptural proofs.”--Hastings Dict. of The Bible  -Revised edition by F.C. Grant & H.H. Rowley

In the preface to Edward Gibbon's History of Christianity, we read: "If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief."

"We must not contend that the Nicene Creed looks like the New Testament. The creed is an exercise in systematic theology. Although there are portions of the New Testament which are highly theological, the one thing we cannot say is that any of it is systematic theology as it was practiced three hundred years later."
Beisner, E. Calvin's "God in Three Persons."  (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, c1984), footnote 7, p. 145.  BT109 .B45 1984 / 84-051210.

"Throughout the Jewish scriptures, God never "screened or veiled his divine nature." In fact, Isaiah unequivocally proclaimed that the Almighty did not reveal Himself in darkness or in a hidden or veiled fashion. In Isaiah 45:19 the prophet, speaking in the Almighty's name, declares that,
'I have not spoken in secret, from somewhere in a land of darkness; I have not said to Jacob's descendants, "Seek Me in vain." I, the Lord, speak the truth; I declare what is right.' Although the belief in the unity of God is taught and declared on virtually every page of the Jewish scriptures, the doctrine of the Trinity is never mentioned anywhere throughout the entire corpus of the Hebrew Bible. This is understandable when we consider that primitive Christianity, in its earliest stages, was still monotheistic. The authors of the New Testament were completely unaware that the church they had fashioned would eventually embrace a pagan deification of a triune deity. Although the worship of a three-part godhead was well known and fervently venerated throughout the Roman Empire and beyond in religious systems such as Hinduism and Mithraism, it was quite distant from the heretical Judaism out of which Christianity emerged. However, when the Greek and Roman rather than the Hebrew began to dominate the church, it created a theological disaster from which Christendom has never recovered. By the end of the fourth century, the doctrine of the Trinity was firmly in place as a central tenet of the church, and strict monotheism was formally rejected by Vatican councils in Nicea and Constantinople." Rabbi Singer

"Only one, the Father, can absolutely be termed the ‘only true God,’ not at the same time Christ (who is not even in I John 5:20 the true God…). Jesus, in unity with the Father, works as his commissioner (John 10:30), and is His representative (John 14:9, 10) (Professor H.A.W. Meyer, Commentary on the New Testament. The quotation is from his comment on John 17:3).

"It was impossible for the Apostles to identify Christ with Jehovah. Psalm 110:1 and Malachi 3:1 prevented this" (R.A Bigg, D.D. Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Oxford, in International Critical Commentary on I Peter).

"A classic contrast is between [John] 10:30, 'The Father and I are one,' and 14:28, 'The Father is greater than I.' It is the perdurance of such lower christological statements which shows that the Johannine community had not made a rival God out of Jesus, but it also shows that the christology of John still stands at quite a distance from the christology of Nicaea wherein the Father is not greater than the Son." (R.E. Brown "The Johannine Community" 53)

"During these years [the first three centuries of Christianity's existence], most Christians vaguely thought of Jesus as God; yet they did not actually think of him in the same way as they thought of God the Father. They seldom addressed prayers to him, and thought of him somehow as second to God--divine, yes, but not fully God" (Robert Wilken, The Myth of Christian Beginnings, 179).

"Does this mean that early Christian theology was "nothing but" paganism with a biblical accent? Or, to paraphrase Numenius, was Christianity no more than Plato with a faint Palestinian accent?...We should not say it was "no more than" the sum of its parts, but the reality of the pagan environment cannot be neglected." Gods and the One God, Robert M. Grant, p. 170

"Christendom has done away with Christianity without being quite aware of it" (Soren Kierkegaard, cited in Time magazine, Dec. 16, 1946, p. 64).

Emil Brunner, in Dogmatics I:205, writes: "On the triadic passages in the N. T., see below. The only trinitarian passage which is found in some ancient  versions of the Bible (1 John 5:7) is regarded as not genuine."

"The attempt to superimpose these three abstract categories [Father,  Son, and Holy Spirit] on the Godhead and then to claim a Trinity has been discovered, is misleading in the extreme. It is no genuine Trinity, but merely a useful and at times quite penetrating analysis of three aspects of what is involved in making something. But there is no real reason to stop at three, nor is there any validity in isolating idea, energy, and power from a complex process with an indefinite number of terms" (CC Richardson, The Doctrine of the Trinity, 139-140).

"In his theological interpretation of the idea of God, Arius was interested in maintaining a formal understanding of the oneness of God. In defense of the oneness of God, he was obliged to dispute the sameness of essence of the Son and the Holy Spirit with God the Father, as stressed by the theologians of the Neoplatonically influenced Alexandrian school. From the outset, the controversy between both parties took place upon the common basis of the Neoplatonic concept of substance, which was foreign to the New Testament itself. It is no wonder that the continuation of the dispute on the basis of the metaphysics of substance likewise led to concepts that have no foundation in the New Testament--such as the question of the sameness of essence (homoousia) or similarity of essence (homoiousia) of the divine persons." Brittanica.com

"The three-in-one/one-in-three mystery of Father, Son and Holy Ghost made tritheism official. The subsequent almost-deification of the Virgin Mary made it quatrotheism . . . Finally, cart-loads of saints raised to quarter-deification turned Christianity into plain old-fashioned polytheism. By the time of the Crusades, it was the most polytheistic religion to ever have existed, with the possible exception of Hinduism. This untenable contradiction between the assertion of monotheism and the reality of polytheism was dealt with by accusing other religions of the Christian fault. The Church - Catholic and later Protestant - turned aggressively on the two most clearly monotheistic religions in view - Judaism and Islam - and persecuted them as heathen or pagan. "
"The external history of Christianity consists largely of accusations that other religions rely on the worship of more than one god and therefore not the true God. These pagans must therefore be converted, conquered and/or killed for their own good in order that they benefit from the singularity of the Holy Trinity, plus appendages." -- The Doubter's Companion (John Ralston Saul)

"In brief, the ante-Nicene Fathers taught the real distinction and divinity of the three persons . . . but in their attempts at a philosophical interpretation of the Dogma, the ante-Nicene Fathers used certain expressions which would favor sudordinationism. In the late 17th century, the Socinians cited these expressions that the ante-Nicene tradition agreed rather with Arius than with Athanasius . . . Catholic theologians commonly defend the orthodoxy of these early Fathers, while admitting that certain of their expressions were inaccurate and eventually dangerous." -- Colliers Encyclopedia

"You simply simply cannot find the doctrine of the Trinity set out anywhere in the Bible. St Paul has the highest view of Jesus' role and person, but nowhere does he call him God. Nor does Jesus himself explicitly claim to be the second person of the Trinity, wholly equal to his heavenly Father." -- For Christ's Sake by Tom Harpur (Anglican Priest).

    "No historical fact is better established, than that the doctrine of one God, pure and uncompounded, was that of the early ages of Christianity . . . Nor was the unity of the Supreme Being ousted from the Christian creed by the force of reason, but by the sword of civil government, wielded at the will of the Athanasius. The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands of martyrs . . . The Athanasian paradox that one is three, and three but one, is so incomprehensible to the human mind, that no candid man can say he has any idea of it, and how can he believe what presents no idea? He who thinks he does, only deceives himself. He proves, also, that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such person, gullibility which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck." -- Thomas Jefferson: Letter to James Smith, Dec. 8, 1822 For more Letters from T. Jefferson see:
    http://www.nidlink.com/~bobhard/tjletters.html

"The doctrine is not taught explicitly in the New Testament, where the word God almost invariably refers to the Father" -- MS Encarta 99

"The word itself does not occur in the Bible...The explicit formula was thus formulated in the post-biblical period, although the early stages of its development can be seen in the NT. Attempts to trace the origin still earlier (to the OT literature) cannot be supported by historical-critical scholarship, and these attempts must be understood as retrospective interpretations of this earlier corpus of Scripture in the light of later theological developments." The Harper Collins Study Bible Dictionary

"We are judged to be heretics because we can no longer believe in essence, person, nature, incarnation, as they want us to believe. If these things are necessary for salvation, it is certain that no poor peasant Christian be saved, because he could never understand them in all his life." -- Francis David (1510-79)

Christ's deity was "repugnant not only to sound Reason, but also to the holy Scriptures." -- Fostus Socinus (1539-1604)

Catholic theologian Hans Küng in Christianity and the World Religions, "Even well-informed Muslims simply cannot follow, as the Jews thus far have likewise failed to grasp, the idea of the Trinity . . . The distinctions made by the doctrine of the Trinity between one God and three hypostases do not satisfy Muslims, who are confused, rather than enlightened, by theological terms derived from Syriac, Greek, and Latin. Muslims find it all a word game . . . Why should anyone want to add anything to the notion of God's oneness and uniqueness that can only dilute or nullify that oneness and uniqueness?"

"The word Trinity is not found in the Bible . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century." -- The Illustrated Bible Dictionary

And a Catholic authority says that the Trinity "is not . . . directly and immediately [the] word of God." -- New Catholic Encyclopedia

The Catholic Encyclopedia also says: "In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word [tri'as] (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A. D. 180 . . . Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian." However, this is no proof in itself that Tertullian taught the Trinity. The Catholic work Trinitas - A Theological Encyclopedia of the Holy Trinity, for example, notes that some of Tertullian's words were later used by others to describe the Trinity. But then it states: "But hasty conclusions cannot be drawn from usage, for he does not apply the words to Trinitarian theology."

The Encyclopedia of Religion says: "Theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity."

 Jesuit Fortman: "The New Testament writers . . . give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. . . . Nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead."

The New Encyclopædia Britannica: "Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament."

Bernhard Lohse in A Short History of Christian Doctrine: "As far as the New Testament is concerned, one does not find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity."

Rotherham - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology:
"The N[ew] T[estament] does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity."

"The Bible lacks the express declaration that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence.", said Protestant theologian Karl Barth

Yale University Professor E. Washburn Hopkins: "To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; . . . they say nothing about it." -- Origin and Evolution of Religion.

Tom Harpur states, "As early as the 8th century, the Theologian St. John of Damascus frankly admitted what every modern critical scholar of the NT now realizes: that neither the Doctrine of the Trinity nor that of the 2 natures of Jesus Christ is explicitly set out in scripture. In fact, if you take the record as it is and avoid reading back into it the dogmatic definitions of a later age, you cannot find what is traditionally regarded as orthodox Christianity in the Bible at all." -- For Christ's Sake.

Historian Arthur Weigall: "Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word 'Trinity' appear. The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord." -- The Paganism in Our Christianity

The New Encyclopædia Britannica: "Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord' -- Deut. 6:4
. . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since." -- Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126. (1976)

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: "The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." - (1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

The Encyclopedia Americana: "Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching." -- (1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

"It is fair to say that no one in the first century was a Trinitarian as the doctrine was later defined in the creeds of the fourth century." p. 55 The River of God by G.J. Riley

The Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, "The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches . . . This Greek philosopher's [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions." -- (Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

"The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief. The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of "person" and "nature: which are Gk philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as "essense" and "substance" were erroneously applied to God by some theologians." Dictionary of the Bible by John L. McKenzie, S.J. p. 899

Regarding the Nicene Council and those that followed, Hans Kung in Christianity says, "The conciliar decisions plunged Chrisitianity into undreamed-of theological confusions with constant entanglements in church politics. They produced splits and sparked off a persecution of heretics unique in the history of religion. This is what Christianity became as it changed its nature from a persecuted minority to a majority persecuting others."

-- For much, much more on the Trinity, click here.

"Anyone who can worship a trinity and insist that his religion is a monotheism can believe anything." -- Robert A. Heinlein

Well I like to be fair, so I will now give the other side a chance to explain their belief:

"We are to consider the order of those persons in the Trinity described in the words before us in Matthew 28:19. First the Father and then the Son and then the Holy Ghost; everyone one of which is truly God. This is a mystery which we are all bound to believe, but yet must exercise great care in how we speak of it, it being both easy and dangerous to err in expressing so great a truth as this is. If we think of it, how hard it is to imagine one numerically divine nature in more than one and the same divine person. Or three divine persons in no more than one and the same divine nature. If we speak of it, how hard it is to express it. If I say, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost be three, and everyone a distinct God, it is false. I may say, God the Father is one God and the Son is one God, and the Holy Ghost is one God, but I cannot say that the Father is one God and the Son is another God and the Holy Ghost is a third God. I may say that the Father begat another who is God; yet I cannot say that He begat another God. I may say that from the Father and Son proceeds another who is God; yet I cannot say that from the Father and Son proceeds another God. For though their nature be the same their persons are distinct; and though their persons be distinct, yet still their nature is the same. So that, though the Father be the first person in the Godhead, the Son the second and the Holy Ghost the third, yet the Father is not the first, the Son the second and the Holy Ghost a third God. So hard it is to word so great a mystery aright; or to fit so high a truth with expressions suitable and proper to it, without going one way or another from it." Bishop Beverage, Private Thoughts, Part 2, 48, 49, cited by Charles Morgridge, The True Believers Defence Against Charges Preferred by Trinitarians for Not Believing in the Deity of Christ (Boston: B. Greene, 1837), 16. 


The Word/Logos of the Johannine Prologue as an impersonal "it"


Here are a sample of translations that refer to the Word/Logos of the Johannine Prologue as impersonal, as an "it":

“In the beginnynge was the worde, and the worde was with god, and the worde was god. The same was in the beginnynge with god. All thinges were made by it, and without it, was made nothinge that was made. In it was lyfe, and the lyfe was the lyght of men, and the lyght shyneth in the darcknes but the darcknes comprehended it not” (William Tyndale, The New Testament, 1534).

“In the begynnynge was the worde, and the worde was wyth God; and God was the worde. The same was in the begynnyng wyth God. All thinges were made by it, and wythout it, was made nothynge that was made. In it was lyfe, and the lyfe was the lyght of men, and the lyght shyneth in darcknes, and the darcknes comprehended it not” (Great Bible, The Byble in Englyshe, that is to saye the Content of al the holy Scrypture, both of the olde, and newe Testament, London: Edward Whitchurche, 1539).

“In the beginning was the Worde, and the Worde was with God and that Worde was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made. In it was lif, and the lif was the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkenes, and the darkenes comprehended it not” (Geneva Bible, The Bible and Holy Scriptures conteyned in the Olde and Newe Testament, Geneva: Rouland Hall, 1560).

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was that Word. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in the darknesse, and the darknesse comprehendeth it not” (Bishops’ Bible, The Holie Bible, London: Richard Jugge, 1568).

“In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God. This same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and that life was the light of men. And that light shineth in the darknes, and the darknesse comprehended it not” (Lawrence Tomson, The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Translated out of Greeke by Theod. Beza, London: Robert Barker, 1607).

“Before the Creation of the World, Reason did exist, for Reason was then in God; indeed was God himself, it not being possible for God to be without it. Reason, I say, did exist in God before the Creation of the World, every portion of which was created with the greatest Reason; nor can any thing be produc’d that has been made without it. In this Reason alone, formerly resided the perfect Knowledg of the way that leads to everlasting Life; which it was impossible for men to find out otherways than as enlighten’d by this knowledg, made in some measure partakers of it, and under the guidance of it, as it had been a most glorious Light preceding, and pointing out the way they were to follow. But this Light has since been brought down to men, has shin’d among ’em many Years, and continues to direct the Ignorant in the way to Life, tho’ most neglect the use of it, and chuse to wander on still in the darkness of their Ignorance” (John LeClerc, The Harmony of the Evangelists, London: Samuel Buckley, 1701).

“The word was in the beginning; and the word was with God, and the word was God; (the word was with God in the beginning). Through the same all things were made, and without the same was not made even one thing that was made. In the same was life, and that life was the light of human beings; and the light shineth on the darkness, yet the darkness apprehended it not” (Mortimer, Divers Parts of the Holy Scriptures Done into English, London: T. Piety, 1761).

“In the beginning was Wisdom, and Wisdom was with God, and Wisdom was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it, and without it was nothing made. What was made, had life in it, and this life was the light of men; and this light shineth in darkness, and the darkness hindered it not” (Gilbert Wakefield, A Translation of the New Testament, London: Philanthropic Press, 1791).

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it, and without it not a single creature was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shone in darkness; but the darkness admitted it not” (Alexander Campbell, The Sacred Writings of the Apostles and Evangelists of Jesus Christ, Commonly Styled the New Testament, Translated from the Original Greek, Buffaloe, Brooke County, VA: Alexander Campbell, 1826).

“In the beginning existed the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This was in the commencement with God. All things were formed by it, and without it not even one thing was made, which has existed. In it was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shone in darkness, and the darkness did not overpower it” (Rodolphus Dickinson, A New and Corrected Version of the New Testament; or, a Minute Revision, and Professed Translation of the Original Histories, Memoirs, Letters, Prophecies, and Other Productions of the Evangelists and Apostles, Boston: Lilly, Wait, Colman and Holden, 1833).

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it; and without it nothing was made that was made. In it was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shone in the darkness; and the darkness did not admit it” (David Barnard, The Holy Bible; Being the English Version of the Old and New Testaments, Made by Order of King James I, Carefully Revised and Amended, by Several Biblical Scholars. Mannsville, NY: D.S. Dean and Rhodes Barker, 1847).

“In the Beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. This was in the Beginning with God. Through it every thing was done; and without it not even one thing was done, which has been done. In it was life; and the Life was the Light of Men. And the Light shone in the Darkness, and the Darkness apprehended it not” (Benjamin Wilson, The Emphatic Diaglott: Containing the Original Greek Text of What Is Commonly Styled the New Testament, New York: Fowler and Wells, 1864).

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. This was in the beginning with God. All things through it arose into being, and without it arose not even one thing which has arisen. In it is Life, and the Life was the Light of men. And the Light shines on, in the Darkness; and the Darkness did not apprehend it” (Nathaniel S. Folsom, The Four Gospels: Translated from the Greek Text of Tischendorf, Boston: A. Williams, 1869).

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was with God in the (first) beginning. All things were made through it, and without it was not any one thing made. What hath been made by means of it was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness perceived it not” (Samuel Sharpe, The Holy Bible, Being a Revision of the Authorised English Version, London: Williams and Norgate, 1898).

“The Love Thought was the beginning. In the very beginning it was with the Father of Love and it was the Father of Love. All things were made by the Love Thought and without it was not anything made that ever was made. In it was Life and the Life was the Light of men. The Light shone in darkness and the darkness has never been able to overcome it, or even to comprehend it” (Dwight Goddard, The Good News of a Spiritual Realm, New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1916).

“In original being the Word, or GOD-Idea existed; and the GOD-Idea existed in at-one-ment with GOD; and the GOD-Idea was GOD-manifest. The same existed in original being, at-one with GOD. All things came into being in this GOD-conception, and apart from it came not anything into being that came into being. In the GOD-Idea Life, GOD, was manifest, and Life, GOD, was the Light of men. And the Light shineth in darkness; but the darkness comprehendeth it not” (Arthur E. Overbury, The People’s New Testament (New Covenant) Scriptural Writings Translated from the Meta-Physical Standpoint, Monrovia, CA: Arthur E. Overbury, 1925).

“In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word. This was in the beginning toward God. All came into being through it, and apart from it not even one thing came into being which has come into being. In it was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light is appearing in the darkness, and the darkness grasped it not” (A.E. Knoch, The Sacred Scriptures: Concordant Literal New Testament, Canyon Country, CA: Concordant Publishing Concern, 1926).

“In the beginning of all things, when God first created heaven and earth, the Word, or living expression of the Father’s thought, already was in being; and the Word was with, nay, was comprised within the one Godhead, within the being that alone is God, and the Word was himself truly God. When, therefore, with the creation of the universe there was a beginning of time, this divine person already was, God with God [this part of the translation we think disturbs what was earlier well-expressed]. God in closest relation and intimate union with God. And inasmuch as from all eternity God the Word is the distinct utterance of the divine idea which is reflected exteriorly in created things, all things came into being through him, and without him there came into being nothing that has ever been brought about. In him with all perfection of causality, efficient and exemplar, was life; and this life, as imparting to men true intellectual activity, was light; and throughout the long ages that followed upon man’s fall, this light was shining in the darkness, emitting whatever there was of natural and supernatural illumination, and the darkness never altogether overcame the light” (Charles F. Blount, Half-Hours with S. John’s Gospel, London: Burns Oates and Washbourne, 1930).

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was god [this is of interest in excluding a second coequal God]. When he was in the beginning with God all things were created through him; without him came no created thing into being. In him was life, and the life was the light of men; and the light shone on in the darkness, and the darkness overcame it not” (Charles Cutler Torrey, The Four Gospels: A New Translation, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1933).

“In the Beginning there existed the Divine Reason, and the Divine Reason was with God, and the Divine Reason was God. This Divine Reason at the Beginning was in closest relation with God. Through the Divine Reason all things came into being; and apart therefrom there was not brought into being even a single thing which has come to exist. In the Divine Reason there subsisted Life; and that Life was the spiritual Light of mankind. And the Light shone, and still shines, in the spiritual Darkness, and the Darkness has not overpowered it” (G.W. Wade, The Documents of the New Testament Translated and Historically Arranged with Critical Introductions, London: Thomas Murby, 1934).

“In the beginning was the everlasting Word, and the everlasting Word was with God, and of godlike nature was the everlasting Word. Hence it was in the beginning with God. By its activity all things came into being and naught that exists came apart from its activity” (Martin Dibelius, The Message of Jesus Christ, Translated by Frederick C. Grant, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1939).

“In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God. And the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. Through its agency all things came to be, and apart from it hath not one thing come to be. What came to be in it was Life, and the Life was the light of men, and the light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness did not absorb it” (William Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury, Readings in St. John’s Gospel, London: Macmillan, 1939).

“The Energising Mind was in existence from the very beginning; the Energising Mind was in communion with God; the Energising Mind was divine. He was with God from all eternity. Everything was brought into existence through him, and apart from him no single entity came into being. He was the spring of life and his life was the Light for mankind. This Light shines in moral and spiritual darkness, and the darkness has never quenched it” (Freeman Wills Crofts, The Four Gospels in One Story, Written as a Modern Biography, London: Longmans, Green and Company, 1949).

“First there was the Thought, and the Thought was in God; the Thought was God. He was in God from the first. It was through him that everything came into being; not one thing came into being without him. As for that which has come into being in union with him, it was life, and that life was the Light of mankind. The Light is shining in the darkness and the darkness does not overpower it” (F.R. Hoare, A Translation from the Greek into Current English of the Gospel According to John, Arranged in its Conjectured Original Order, London: Burns Oates and Washbourne, 1949).

“At the beginning God expressed himself. That personal expression, that word, was with God and was God, and he existed with God from the beginning. All creation took place through him, and none took place without him. In him appeared life and this life was the light of mankind. The light still shines in the darkness, and the darkness has never put it out” (J.B. Phillips, The New Testament in Modern English, New York: Macmillan, 1958).

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a God. In the beginning This Word was with God. All was done through It, and without It not even one thing was done. In It was life, and the life was the light of men. And the Light shone in darkness, and darkness apprehended It not” (James L. Tomanek, The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Anointed. Pocatello, ID: 1958).

“When the world began, the Word was already there. The Word was with God, and the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God. The Word was there in the beginning with God. It was through the agency of the Word that everything else came into being. Without the Word not one single thing came into being. As for the whole creation, the Word was the life principle in it, and that life was the light of men. The light continues to shine in the darkness, and the darkness has never extinguished it” (William Barclay, The New Testament: A New Translation. London: Collins, 1969).

“When time began, the Idea already was. The Idea was at home with God, and the Idea and God were one. This same Idea was at home with God when time began. Through him the universe was made, and apart from him not one thing came to be. In him was life, and the life was humanity’s light. And the light shines on in the darkness, and the darkness never quenched it” (Clarence Jordan, The Cotton Patch Version of Matthew and John, New Win, AL: Association Press, 1970).

“At the very beginning of all things – the Word. God and the Word, God himself. At the beginning of all things, the Word and God. All things became what they are through the Word; without the Word nothing ever became anything. It was the Word that made everything alive; and it was this ‘being alive’ that has been the Light by which men have found their way. The Light is still shining in the Darkness; the Darkness has never put it out” (Alan T. Dale, New World: The Heart of the New Testament in Plain English, New York: Morehouse-Barlow, 1973).

“In the very beginning was the Word. God made all things, nothing has ever existed, or will ever exist, except it be made by God. Within the Word was life and this life became the Light for man. The Light shone, but man, in his ignorance, would not fully understand it” (Andrew Edington, The Word Made Fresh, Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1976).

“Before God did owt else e ad summat ter say. It wus is last werd. Ony it come first. An it summed up is ole attitude to evrythink. Now dis werd wus wid God. Fact it wus part’n parcil uv im. So at start uv evrythink an a long time fore man was akshully made, God’s werd to men wus ready an waitin. Evrythink there is wus made by this werd. E wus God’s one an ony contractor for de ole Universe job. Nowt at all was ever got made sept through this d’partm’nt uv God, wot we call is ‘werd.’ Now just becus dis werd is part uv God isself, all God’s life is in im. An dis life is de light what shines on evrybody. Dis is de light wot evrybody needs. So one day dis light come an shone in de dark around ere. An it proved summat fer keeps. Dare just isn’t enough darkness in de world ter put it out” (Dick Williams and Frank Shaw, The Gospels in Scouse, London: White Lion, 1977).

“In the Beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God. So the Word was divine. It was in the Beginning with God. By it everything had being. And without it nothing had being. What had being by it was Life. And Life was the Light of men. And the Light shines in the Darkness. And the Darkness could not suppress it” (Hugh J. Schonfield, The Original New Testament, Edited and Translated from the Greek by the Jewish Historian of Christian Beginnings, San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985).

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The Word was in the beginning with God; all things were made through the Word, and without the Word was not anything made that was made. In the Word was life, and the life was the light of all. The light shines in the deepest night, and the night has not overcome it” (Inclusive-Language Lectionary Committee, An Inclusive-Language Lectionary, Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1986).

“In the beginning was the plan of Yahweh, and the plan was with Yahweh, and the plan was Yahweh’s. The same plan was in the beginning with Yahweh. All things were done according to it, and without it nothing was done, that was done. In this plan was life, and that life was the light to mankind. Now that light shines in the darkness, but the darkness does not take hold of it” (Yisrayl Hawkins, The Book of Yahweh: The Holy Scriptures, Abilene: House of Yahweh, 1987).

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward God, and God was what the Word was. It was with God in the beginning. All things happened through it, and not one thing that has happened, happened without it. Within it there was Life, and the Life was the light of the world. And in the darkness the light is shining, and the darkness never got hold of it” (Andy Gaus, The Unvarnished New Testament, Grand Rapids: Phanes Press, 1991).

“In the beginning there was the divine word and wisdom. The divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was. It was there with God, from the beginning. Everything came to be by means of it; nothing that exists came to be without its agency. In it was life, and this life was the light of humanity. Light was shining in darkness, and darkness did not master it” (Robert J. Miller, The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholars Version, Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press, 1992).

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The Word was in the beginning with God; all things were made through the Word, and without the Word was not anything made that was made. In the Word was life, and the life was the light of all. The light shines in the deepest night, and the night has not overcome it” (Burton H. Throckmorton, Jr., The Gospels and the Letters of Paul: An Inclusive Language Edition, Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 1992).

“In the beginning there was the divine word and wisdom. The divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was. It was there with God from the beginning. Everything came to be by means of it; nothing that exists came to be without its agency. In it was life, and this life was the light of humanity. Light was shining in darkness, and darkness did not master it” (Robert W. Funk, The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus, New York: Macmillan, 1993).

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The Word was with God in the beginning. All things were made by the Word, and apart from the Word nothing came into being. In the Word was life, and that life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not grasped it” (The New Testament of the Inclusive Language Bible. Notre Dame, IN: Cross Cultural Publications, 1994).

“In the beginning there was the Word; the Word was in God’s presence, and the Word was God. The Word was present to God from the beginning. Through the Word all things came into being, and apart from the Word nothing came into being that has come into being. In the Word was life, and that life was humanity’s light – a Light that shines in the darkness, a Light that the darkness has never overtaken” (The Inclusive New Testament, Brentwood, MD: Priests for Equality, 1994).

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The Word was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through the Word, and without the Word not one thing came into being. What has come into being in the Word was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the deepest night, and the night did not overcome it” (Victor Roland Gold, The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version, New York: Oxford University Press, 1995).

“In the beginning was the message, and the message was directed toward God, and ‘God’ the message was. The same one was directed toward God in the beginning. Through it, all things were done. And without it nothing was done. What has been done in it was life. And the life was the Light of humanity. And the light shone in the darkness. But the darkness did not understand it” (Frank Daniels, The Four Gospels: A Non-Ecclesiastical New Testament, 1996).

“In the beginning was the Word,
The Word that was with God,
God in the beginning was,
All things through God were made.
Without God was not any thing
Made that yet was made.
In God was life, and life was light,
And light all things displayed.
And the life that was the light
Shines in the darkness yet;
And darkness has not overcome
What the light has lit.”
(Jabez L. VanCleef, Gospels in Verse, Xlibris, 1999).

“We believe that the Word of God existed already in the beginning. And we believe that already in the beginning the Word of God was proximate, face to face, to God, and that the word of God was God. This Word of God was, as we have said, proximate to God, God’s way of speaking and acting. We believe that by means of the Word of God, all things came into being, and that apart from the Word of God not even one thing came into being. We believe that in the Word of God all Life was focused, and this Life was the Light of God for the illumination of all people. And the Light of God shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not diminished it” (Norman A. Beck, The New Testament: A New Translation and Redaction, Lima, OH: Fairway Press, 2001).

“In the beginning was the Word, (or, the Expression of (divine) Logic) and the Word was with (or, in communion with) God, and the Word was God (or, was as to His essence God). This One [here the translator reverts to a Second Person] was in the beginning with God. All (things) came to be through Him, and without Him not even one thing came to be which has come to be. In Him was life, and the life was the light of the people. And the Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not apprehend it” (Gary F. Zeolla, Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament of the Holy Bible, Darkness to Light Ministry, 2001).

“Nothing but God, and all that He means, existed in the beginning of absolutely everything. There was no possible way to separate God from His meaning, for only by His meaning can He be identified as God. God’s intentions and purposes existed with Him from the very beginning of everything. God, through His intentions and purposes, created everything that has, or has had, existence in all of time. The essence and meaning of life, itself, was in God, and in all that He means and intends. Out of all that makes Him God, and gives Him meaning, came the gift of enlightenment to the human beings that He created. Into the lonely world, where God had never shown Himself to His creation, He projected Himself in human form, to be the light to humanity that no one could extinguish” (B.E. Junkins, A Fresh Parenthetical Version of the New Testament, New York: University Press of America, 2002).

Thursday, November 16, 2017

Textual Criticism and Christian Doctrine by John A. Broadus 1886


HAS MODERN CRITICISM AFFECTED UNFAVORABLY ANY OF THE ESSENTIAL DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY? 

AS TO TEXT-CRITICISM OP THE NEW TESTAMENT By John A. Broadus, D.D., Louisville, Ky.

A vague fear of Textual Criticism has often been widely felt. When the great English scholars of two centuries ago announced that they had collected some thirty thousand variations in the Greek text of the New Testament, the fact was quickly seized upon by English Deists as showing that the New Testament was utterly unreliable, and awakened great alarm among many timid Christian scholars. True, the unrivalled Bentley at once stated the matter correctly: "Make your 30,000 as many more, if numbers of copies can ever reach that sum; all the better to a knowing and a serious reader, who is thereby more richly furnished to select what he sees genuine. But even put them into the hands of a knave or fool, and yet, with the most sinistrous and absurd choice, he shall not extinguish the light of any one chapter, nor so disguise Christianity, but that every feature of it will still be the same." But it naturally required some time for scholars in general to understand the matter. To this day many good people will ask, Do you not think that probably Divine Providence has preserved the written word from corruption? The true answer is, Yes, but this has been done exactly by means of the numerous variations. When we find a classic writer, or an early Christian Father, preserved in only a single ancient copy, it is a hopeless task to remove all the inevitable corruptions of that copy. But the New Testament being preserved in a great number of Greek copies, in many early versions, and numerous citations by the Fathers, it is possible by the careful study of these to approximate very nearly the true text. Thus we have learned to be thankful for that great mass of variations which used to be thought so alarming, and which now we might raise to five or six times the number to which Bentley referred.

But the stubborn hostility to change, which unfairly calls itself conservatism, still makes an outcry of alarm whenever the fact becomes prominent that the commonly received text contains serious errors. Accordingly, when the Revised New Testament was published, and popular attention was drawn to its somewhat numerous changes of text, many well-meaning persons were really alarmed, and not a few are to this day neglecting the great benefits they might derive from this improved text and version, simply because they "do not like " the textual changes. There are many who regard textual critics as showing a lack of faith in the Bible, when, in fact, this kind of critical work has been mainly done at every period by men who were devout believers. In proportion as we really love the Bible, we must certainly wish to know just what constitutes the Bible, and exactly what it says in every passage. Scholars have repeatedly given general assurance of late years to the same effect as Bentley in the language above quoted. But it may be worth while to state the principal details.

Take now the more progressive school in Text-criticism applied to the New Testament, and let us see how far its results affect the theological or the ecclesiastical teachings of the New Testament.

As to the doctrine of the Trinity, we have certainly lost what used to seem a very clear and complete proof-text. The passage in 1 John 5:7, "There are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one," is beyond all question spurious. It apparently arose from "spiritualizing" the three mentioned in the actual text, viz., the Spirit, the water, and the blood, so as to make them mean the Father, the Holy Ghost, and the atoning Savior. A passage of Augustine, quoted by Tischendorf, shows exactly how this may have taken place. But, at any rate, the passage is certainly spurious, and there would be no more propriety in using it as a proof-text for the Trinity than in so using our famous long-metre Doxology. But, then, ample proof of the doctrine of the Trinity remains.

A favorite proof-text for the divinity of Christ is not wholly lost, but seriously modified. In 1 Tim. 3:16 we cannot possibly any longer read, "God was manifest in the flesh," but "He who was manifested in the flesh." This distinctly implies our Lord's pre-existence, but does not at all affirm His divinity. By the way, Dr. C. J.Vaughan has an excellent sermon upon the true text of this passage in a volume published a few years ago upon texts altered in the Revised New Testament. In Acts 20:28, while the probabilities are in favor of the common text, "to feed the church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood," yet there are strong testimonies supporting "the church of the Lord," and the passage can no longer be used with very great confidence as a proof-text for the divinity of Christ. On the other hand, in John 1:18, "the only-begotten son" should probably give place (as in the margin of the Revised Version) to "God only-begotten." This adds something to the evidence of our Lord's divinity, but its force is lessened by uncertainty as to the text, and also by the fact that the phrase, "God only-begotten," would admit of being interpreted in an Arian sense, and Arius himself appears to have so used it. On the whole, then, something has been lost from familiar proof-texts as to this great point of theology, but there is an abundance of proof-passages which all acknowledge to be genuine. That this is not merely the judgment of a Trinitarian may be shown by the oft-quoted language of Dr. Ezra Abbot, the lamented Unitarian professor at Harvard: "It may be safely said that no Christian doctrine or duty rests on those portions of the text which are affected by differences in the manuscripts; still less is anything essential in Christianity touched by the various readings. They do, to be sure, affect the bearing of a few passages on the doctrine of the Trinity; but the truth or falsity of the doctrine by no means depends upon the reading of those passages."

As to the Holy Spirit, we lose from 1 Peter 1:22, which, instead of reading "in obeying the truth through the Spirit," is now without the last words; and we gain in Acts 16:7, where "the Spirit suffered them not," has become "the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not," corresponding to Romans 8:9, "if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

We might not ourselves regard ecclesiastical questions as among "the essential doctrines of Christianity." But, as some persons think otherwise, it may be well to show what modification the more advanced Text-criticism makes in passages bearing upon these questions.

In Acts 2:47, we can no longer read "added to the Church," but "added to them." The word church does not occur in this book until v:11. In Acts 9:31, we read not the plural, "Then had the churches rest," etc., but the singular: "So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace, being edified; and .... was multiplied."

The last twelve verses of Mark must now be regarded, we think, as of doubtful genuineness. It is very easy to make positive assertions on one side or the other, but the combined external and internal evidence is curiously divided, and it is not possible to make a sober and confident decision. In this state of things one cannot greatly rely on Mark 16:16, "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but that he that disbelieveth shall be condemned," to prove whatever it may have heretofore been regarded as teaching; and so as to the promise in verses 17 and 18 as to healing the sick, taking up serpents, drinking poison, etc. In Mark 1:10, the correct Greek text, is "coming out of the water," while in Matt, 3:16, it. is "from the water."

In 1 Cor. 11:24, the word "broken" must undoubtedly be omitted, and we read, "This is my body, which is for you." Something seemed to be wanting here, and the term broken may have been suggested to early students or copyists by 10:16, " The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ?" So in 1 Cor. 11:29, we no longer read "he that eatheth and drinketh unworthily," etc., but "he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body." It may be quite a relief for pastors to be rid of this term "unworthily," which by sensitive and uninstructed persons has often been greatly misinterpreted.

If this list of passages seems meagre, that only makes plain the fact that modern Text-criticism has no alarming results as regards anything essential to Christianity.

William Loader on John 1:1


"The Word was 'God'

"The gospel begins with the words, 'In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was theos (`God').' 'The Word was theos' must not be isolated and made into a simple equation: the Word was God. Grammatically this is a possible translation, but not the only one. The statement's meaning, and so its translation, must be determined by its context. It could also be translated: 'the Word was a god' or 'the Word was divine'. Grammatical considerations alone fail to decide the question, since all three translations can be defended on grammatical grounds."
`The Christology of the Fourth Gospel-Structures and Issues

Also:

“[A]nd the Word was Divine.”—Ervin Edward Stringfellow, A.M. Professor of New Testament Language and Literature in Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, The Gospels, A Translation, Harmony and Annotations, St. Louis, John S. Swift Co., Inc., 1943. Professor Stringfellow adds this footnote: “In the Greek this word is the same words translated ‘God’ in verse 1, except the definite article is lacking. In this manner the Word in not identified with God.”, p. 5.

“[T]he Word of Speech was a God”—John Crellius (Latin form of the German, Krell] The Two Books of John Crellius Fancus, Touching One God the Father, Wherein things also concerning the Nature of the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit are discoursed of, 1631.

“The Logos was with God, and the Logos was divine (a divine being).” (e.a.)—Robert Harvey, D.D., Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Westminster College, Cambridge, The Historic Jesus in the New Testament, London; Student Move- ment Christian  Press, 1931, p.129.                               
To translate it literally ‘a god was the Word’ is entirely misleading.—W.E.Vine, But, Vine, does admit that “a god was the Word,” is the literal translation!

Not that he [John] identified him [the Word] with the Godhead (ho Theos); on the contrary, he clearly distinguishes the Son and the Father and makes him inferior in dignity (“the Father is greater than I”), but he declares that the Son is “God” (Theos), that is, of divine essence or nature.—Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, edition of 1910, Vol. I, p. 690.

Therefore, Christians who spoke of Jesus as the Word were saying that he held the highest place in the order of things, second only to God himself...the Word shared all the attributes and powers of God.—J.C. Fenton, The Gospel According to John in the Revised Standard Version, p. 32.

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Psalms 1-3 from John Milton (1608-1674)


Psalm 1-3 from John Milton (1608-1674)

See also 250 Rare Bibles & Testaments on Two DVDroms

For a list of all of my disks and ebooks (PDF and Amazon) click here

Psalm 1

Blessed is the man who hath not walked astray
In council of the wicked, and i' the way
Of sinners hath not stood, and in the seat
Of scorners hath not sat. But in the great
Jehovah's law is ever his delight,
And in his law he studies day and night.
He shall be as a tree which planted grows
By watery streams, and in his season knows
To yield his fruit, and his leaf shall not fall,
And what he takes in hand shall prosper all.
Not so the wicked, but as chaff which fanned
The wind drives, so the wicked shall not stand
In judgment, or abide their trial then,
Nor sinners in the assembly of just men.
For the Lord knows the upright way of the just,
And the way of bad men to ruin must.

Psalm 2

Why do the Gentiles tumult, and the Nations
Muse a vain thing, the Kings of th' earth upstand
With power, and Princes in their Congregations
Lay deep their plots together through each Land,
Against the Lord and his Messiah dear?
Let us break off, say they, by strength of hand
Their bonds, and cast from us, no more to wear,
Their twisted cords. He who in Heaven doth dwell
Shall laugh, the Lord shall scoff them, then severe
Speak to them in his wrath, and in his fell
And fierce ire trouble them', but I, saith he,
Anointed have my King (though ye rebel)
On Sion my holy hill. A firm decree
I will declare: The Lord to me hath said,
Thou art my Son I have begotten thee
This day; ask of me, and the grant is made;
As thy possession I on thee bestow
Th' Heathen, and as thy conquest to be sway'd
Earth's utmost bounds: them shalt thou bring full low
With Iron Sceptre bruis'd, and them disperse
Like to a potter's vessel shiver'd so.
And now be wise at length, ye Kings averse,
Be taught, ye judges of the earth; with fear
Jehovah serve, and let your joy converse
With trembling; kiss the Son lest he appear
In anger and ye perish in the way
If once his wrath take fire like fuel sere.
Happy all those who have in him their stay. (8 August 1653)

Psalm 3 When he fled from Absalom

Lord, how many are my foes!
How many those
That in arms against me rise!
Many are they
That of my life distrustfully thus say,
No help for him in God there lies.
But thou, Lord, art my shield, my glory,
Thee through my story
The exalter of my head I count;
Aloud I cried
Unto Jehovah, he full soon replied,
And heard me from his holy mount.

I lay and slept, I waked again;
For my sustain
Was the Lord. Of many millions
The populous rout
I fear not though encamping round about
They pitch against me their pavilions.
Rise, Lord, save me, my God, for thou
Hast smote ere now
On the cheek-bone all my foes,
Of men abhorred
Hast broke the teeth. This help was from the Lord;
Thy blessing on thy people flows. (9 August 1653)

metatron3@gmail.com

Tuesday, November 14, 2017

Prof. Felix Just, S.J. on John 1:1 (Loyola Marymount University)


From http://catholic-resources.org/John/Outlines-Prologue.htm

The Prologue to the Fourth Gospel (John 1:1-18) 
Prof. Felix Just, S.J. - Loyola Marymount University
Text of the Greek New Testament +  My Own Hyper-Literal Translation

Years ago Prof. Felix Just, S.J. had for John 1:1 the following translation:

In origin was the Word, 
and the Word was toward God, 
and god[-ly] was the Word 

Now at the above link he has:

 In origin was the Logos,
and the Logos was toward [the] God,
and god/deity/God was the Logos.

He also has the following interesting comments:

If the evangelist meant, "and the Word was God" (as it is often translated, capital 'God', in the full Trinitarian sense of later Christianity), he probably would have written "KAI hO LOGOS HN hO ThEOS" (or "KAI hO ThEOS HN hO LOGOS" - essentially saying A=B or B=A). Instead, he wrote "KAI ThEOS HN hO LOGOS," omitting the expected article "hO" in front of "ThEOS."

and

The first difference/difficulty: Ancient Greek has "definite articles" (in masculine, feminine, and neuter forms - but all equivalent to "the" in English), but it does NOT have any "INdefinite articles" (English "a, an"). In translation, we usually write "the" if the Greek noun is preceded by a definite article, while we often (but not always) have to ADD the word "a" or "an" in standard English when the definite article is missing in Greek (for example, "hO STAUROS" is "the cross," while "STAUROS" alone is "a cross"). So translating "KAI ThEOS HN hO LOGOS" as "and the Word was a god" (as Jehovah's Witnesses do) adds an indefinite article in English that is not explicit in the original Greek text, and may or may not be appropriate in English translation.

metatron3@gmail.com