So, Barclay may have possibly been referring to the verse in its entirety, not merely the "a god" rendering. 3c below)." Although I disagree with BDAG in its attempt to explain away (that's what it is) the language of John using the account about Pythagoras (! Further, his statement that the traditional rendering "narrows the meaning from a quality or category (god/divine) to an individual (God)" seems a strawman argument: Those who argue that theos has a qualitative force in John 1:1c do not argue that Jesus is the individual, God, but rather that he possesses all the qualities or attributes of God. Be Duhn's substitution of "categorical" for Harner's "qualitative," so long was we understand that for John, the category that includes the true God is a category containing only one Being (see Harris, Jesus as God, p. Be Duhn attempted to defend the NWT to Catholic apologist John Pacheco. You will notice that a necessary presupposition of Be Duhn's argument is that John's beliefs about God were not consistent with those professed in Deuteronomy.Or, more likely, he did not remember what he had said about the NWT some 20-odd years before. under 4 below; a similar development can be observed in the use of se,bomai and cognates)." It is suspicious when an author tells us that a particular view is fundamental in "Mosaic...traditions" but then fails to quote Moses or anyone clearly in his tradition in support of the assertion. is complicated by demand of punctuation marks in printed texts. The transposition by the Socinian scholar JSchlichting [died 1661] w-n o`=`to whom belongs' was revived by JWeiss, D. ), since John's milieu is Jewish and his religious canon is the Old Testament, I note that BDAG acknowledges that in John QEOS "certainly refers to Christ." Do you agree? John is not "concerned" with the radical monotheistic commitment of Deuteronomy, Be Duhn suggests.You have four questions and they must be answered, I am afraid, briefly in order to get on to one airmail and because I have a heavy correspondence. "The Word was God" is almost certainly ruled out by the phrasing John uses, and it is not equivalent to "The Word was divine" because without any justification in the original Greek it narrows the meaning from a quality or category (god/divine) to an individual (God)."Unlike most of the scholars used by Jehovah's Witnesses, De Buhn has not been quoted out of context."In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." You could translate, so far as the Greek goes: "the Word was a God"; but it seems obvious that this is so much against the whole of the rest of the New Testament that it is wrong. He does, indeed, believe the NWT and KIT to be generally accurate, and uses the latter when teaching Greek at Northern Arizona University.When Barclay says that John didn't write that "Jesus was God," he merely means that Jesus was not God the Father. All in all, the BDAG entry here is seriously deficient, both in its argumentation and in its scholarship.That Barclay sees an ontological unity between ho theos and ho logos is apparent in the following passage omitted from the Watchtower article:"The only modern translator who fairly and squarely faced this problem is Kenneth Wuest, who said: 'The Word was as to his essence, essential deity.' But it is here that the NEB has brilliantly solved the problem with the absolutely correct rendering: 'What God was the Word was'" (Barclay, p. Still, I think you will have to disagree with it on at least a couple of texts.
Also, the traditional rendering follows the Greek precisely. 8, 41, who quotes Hermippus: Pythagoras returns from a journey to Hades and appears among his followers [eivse,rcesqai eivj th.n evkklhsi,an], and they consider him qei/o,n tina) J (on the combination of ku,rioj and qeo,j s. This includes his recent book, Truth in Translation..It is not my intent to be exhaustive; however I've tried to cover the scholars most often cited; I think you'll find that any omissions will be obscure scholars that are not generally recognized as authoritative in the scholarly community. AWlosk, Rmischer Kaiserkult '78." BDAG agrees that Ignatius frequently called Christ QEOS.If you know of a prominent scholar that I've missed, please let me know so that I may include him/her in a future revision of this article. Odd, isn't it, that once the field of texts goes outside the Bible the author (s) feel no need to offer an explanation for the designation of Christ as QEOS?It is an obvious example of the "poisoning the well" fallacy. Be Duhn's Ph D from the University of Indiana is in Comparative Religious Studies, not in Biblical languages.But it is not clear that Barclay lied in the first place. He is not recognized in the scholarly community as an expert in Biblical Greek.