John 1:1 according to the Messianic Faith

[yonah_mishael]

God (Theon) no one has seen ever yet, the only begotten (of God...Theos) being in the bosom of the Father (Patros), he has made known.

John 6:46 would be the proof of John 1:18...
οὐχ ὅτι τὸν πατέρα τις ἑώρακεν, εἰ μὴ ὁ ὢν παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ, οὗτος ἑώρακε τὸν πατέρα.

Is there a reason why you added the word "yet" (ἔτι) to this?

 

[yonah_mishael]

As for the meaning of the text, it seems that the author is playing on two ambiguities:

(1) The word θεός is ambiguous and can refer either to God (the Eternal) or to divine beings of other sorts - whether "gods" in paganism or angelic beings within Judaism. It seems to me that we should leave θεός as a noun and simply translate it as "a divine being" in the third phrase of the verse. That is, the Logos was seen as a divine being (perhaps an angelic being) before the incarnation; though it was "with God" and came "from God" (as Jesus) and went back "to God" (at the ascension), the Logos itself was not called "God" (the Eternal) in the text. The distinction between the two is intentional, but the ambiguity seems also to be intentional.

(2) The use of the pronouns in the masculine gender, both because of concord with the masculine grammatical gender of Λόγος and because Jesus himself was masculine, seems to be intentional. It's hard for me to determine at what point in the text we should stop translating the masculine pronouns as "it" (referring to the Logos) and "he" (referring to Jesus). This ambiguity seems intentional as well.

I would suggest the following:
ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος... In the beginning was the Logos,
καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν... and the Logos was with God,
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος... and the Logos was (itself) a divine being.

That is, it was a divine being, but it was not "God" in the infinite sense.

 

[Daniel Gregg]

You're making things up again

It's real. I think you just do not like my Messianic interpretation.
http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/nomin_s.pdf

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Is there a reason why you added the word "yet" (ἔτι) to this?

The word used was πώποτε. You could say it means ever, or ever yet. ἔτι is used as in something like "He was still" or "He was yet"

 

[yonah_mishael]

The word used was πώποτε. You could say it means ever, or ever yet. ἔτι is used as in something like "He was still" or "He was yet"

If he had meant "not yet," he would have used οὐκέτι. The word πώποτε means "never."

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

If he had meant "not yet," he would have used οὐκέτι. The word πώποτε means "never."

Never, ever, ever yet can mean similar things, depends on the context.

 

[daq]

As for the meaning of the text, it seems that the author is playing on two ambiguities:

(1) The word θεός is ambiguous and can refer either to God (the Eternal) or to divine beings of other sorts - whether "gods" in paganism or angelic beings within Judaism. It seems to me that we should leave θεός as a noun and simply translate it as "a divine being" in the third phrase of the verse. That is, the Logos was seen as a divine being (perhaps an angelic being) before the incarnation; though it was "with God" and came "from God" (as Jesus) and went back "to God" (at the ascension), the Logos itself was not called "God" (the Eternal) in the text. The distinction between the two is intentional, but the ambiguity seems also to be intentional.

(2) The use of the pronouns in the masculine gender, both because of concord with the masculine grammatical gender of Λόγος and because Jesus himself was masculine, seems to be intentional. It's hard for me to determine at what point in the text we should stop translating the masculine pronouns as "it" (referring to the Logos) and "he" (referring to Jesus). This ambiguity seems intentional as well.

I would suggest the following:
ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος... In the beginning was the Logos,
καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν... and the Logos was with God,
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος... and the Logos was (itself) a divine being.

That is, it was a divine being, but it was not "God" in the infinite sense.

Have you ever taken a good look at the beginning of the Gospel of John in Papyrus Bodmer P75? Every time I find a site that has a decent right up on it I find that the author includes the over-strike, (or macron), over theos, (ΘΣ), in John 1:1c in his or her translation of what is supposed to be there. However I cannot see any over-strike, which is curious, because it seems highly unlikely and improbable that a scribe would "forget" such a thing in the very first line of the Gospel of John. How can one make such a mistake in such an important passage to early church doctrine at the beginning of the Gospel of John? The papyrus was recently sold and donated to the Vatican Library so perhaps in the future we will get to see some better image files online but, again, I do not see an over-strike over theos in the following:

http://www.katapi.org.uk/NTCompanion/John.html

The smudge over ΘΣ, (second line, third word), appears not to be an over-strike but rather simply that; a smudge or imperfection in the papyrus itself. The over-strikes are very clear in the surrounding text. If it has any meaning at all it seems that it might support the same reading you have provided. However P66 is another papyrus which is dated from about the very same time frame and it does have the over-strike so it seems almost as if this question never even gets asked or is simply swept aside. Curious and more curious.

PS : http://www.csntm.org/manuscript/View/GA_P75
Also the Coptic (Bohairic/Sahidic) Uncial, Bodmer III, was part of the same cache or find, (along with many other papyri from a monastery/library). Interesting thing about the Coptic is the use of an indefinite article, (see link below). Also quite intriguing is the fact that the first occurrence of God in John 1:1 contains the Coptic version of a shortened/abbreviated Nomina Sacra, while the second word for God is spelled out, in plene form, (John 1:1c), just as it is fully spelled out in the non-sacred plural forms in the Greek papyri. Perhaps the scribe of P75 may not have been sure whether the second occurrence of theos was supposed to be a Nomina Sacra, (if indeed that is what the contractions intend to begin with), or whether it should have been spelled out in plene form, (and therefore left it as it now appears to read).

"Codex Bodmer III, is a Coptic uncial manuscript of the four Gospels, dated palaeographically to the 4th century. It contains the text of the Gospel of John with some lacunae. It is written in Bohairic dialect of Coptic language.[1] It is the oldest manuscript of the Bohairic version. Originally codex contained 239 pages, but the first 22 are damaged and only small fragments have survived. The Gospel of John is followed by the text of Book of Genesis (1:1-4:2) with page numbers beginning with α in a new series.[1] It has also fragment of Epistle to Philippians in Sahidic dialect. The first occurrence of "God" in John 1:1 is in contracted form as the Nomina Sacra, whereas the second occurrence is spelled fully. In John 1:18 the word "God" (which no one has seen) is contracted (as the Nomina Sacra), while the word "God" (only-begotten) is spelled out."
http://enhancedwiki.altervista.org/en.php?title=Papyrus_Bodmer_III

In other words, if the previous Greek texts from which the above came from were a perfect match, then there may not have even been any ambiguity in John 1:1 from about the end of the first century to somewhere around the close of the second.

~ Bohairic Text (PDF Pg. 1784)

ΕΝ ΑΡΧΗ ΗΝ Ο ΛΟΓΟϹ ΚΑΙ Ο ΛΟΓΟϹ ΗΝ ΠΡΟϹ ΤΟΝ Θ̅Ν ΚΑΙ ΘΕΟϹ ΗΝ Ο ΛΟΓΟϹ

See also:
http://copticjohn.blogspot.com/2007/05/sahidic-coptic-indefinite-article-at.html
Background information with a list of what was originally found:
A collection of 31 (?) rolls and codices found in a jar: Bodmer/Beatty “papyri”
.
.

 

[daq]

If one simply follows the lead of nearly all Bible translators, in capitalizing Logos, the remainder of the Gospel of John sets the record straight for exactly whom it is that Yeshua says is the Memra-Logos, (and it cannot be the man himself by his own statements).

John 5:22
22. For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment unto the Son:

John 5:31
31. If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

John 8:15
15. You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one.

John 8:50
50. And I seek not mine own glory: there is one Seeker and Judge.

John 12:47-48
47. And if anyone hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, contrariwise so that the world may be delivered.
48. Him rejecting me, and receiving not my words, has one that judges him: the Logos that I have spoken, that one shall judge him in the last day.

John 14:24
24. Him not loving me, keeps not my words: and the Logos-Word which you hear is not of me, [mine own] but-contrariwise, [it is of] the Sender of me, the Father.

Revelation 19:11-13
11 And I saw the heavens opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he does judge and make war.
12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written that no one knew but he himself.
13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Logos-Word of Elohim.

1) The Father judges no one, (John 5:22).
2) The man Yeshua judges no one, (John 8:15, John 12:47).
3) The Memra-Logos is the Seeker and the Judge, (John 8:50, Revelation 19:11-13).
4) The Memra-Logos descended from the heavens in the somatiko-corporeal form of a Dove.
5) Testimony is Spirit.
.
.

In both of these passages, the "logos" is simply the words spoken by Yeshua. There is no justification to make this refer to a being called the "Logos". Yeshua's words will be our judge. He said, "Love one another." if we fail to do that, his words will be a witness and judge against us. Yet, his words are not his own, but the Father's just as they were the Father's in John 1:1.

So then, Gadar Perets, the point concerning capitalization was that in the mind of the reader of today there is justification for capitalizing Logos and therefore "the Word" in most all English translations. But the justification comes from the high probability that the so-called Nomina Sacra underwent at least two rounds of standardization early on. We actually have no way of knowing whether the autographs or originals even included Nomina Sacra but, if they did, it was most likely the main four and later more began to be added. Yet the fact that various forms of anthropos are sometimes contracted and sometimes not, (spuriously), and the fact that Jerusalem and Israel are very often contracted, (and to a lesser extent the name of David), implies that rather than just sacred names, (Nomina Sacra), the practice may have also intended an early form of capitalization. At any rate the following is what I believe may have happened with John 1:1c, (at least in the area mentioned in the previous post above, Egypt, Alexandrian texts which came out of Egypt, etcetera).

This: ΘΕΟϹ / θεος
Becomes this: ΘϹ

Then this: ΘϹ
Becomes this: Θ̅Ϲ

Then this: Θ̅Ϲ
Becomes this: Θεος

So this: θεος
Is now this: Θεος

Therefore in the mind of the reader, scribe, modern translator, etcetera:

If this: ΛΟΓΟϹ
Is this: Θ̅Ϲ

Then this: Λόγος
Is this: Θεὸς

Cha-cha-cha-ching!

And therefore the "justification" for the following reading:

Nestle GNT 1904
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.
http://biblehub.com/text/john/1-1.htm

But herein lies the problem: IF one does not do the same with the remainder of the other critical places where we find logos, (at least with the same form of the same word and especially in the same Gospel account where a situation truly is critical and makes a difference), then the same is merely engaged in what is called selection bias and is not treating the text or the word logos fairly across the board. However when we do treat the text fairly then the text itself and the Testimony of Yeshua correct the error as shown in some of the passages which I had previously posted:

John 12:47-48
47. And if anyone hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, contrariwise so that the world may be delivered.
48. Him rejecting me, and receiving not my words, has one that judges him: the Logos that I have spoken, that one shall judge him in the last day.

John 14:24
24. Him not loving me, keeps not my words: and the Logos-Word which you hear is not of me, [mine own] but-contrariwise, [it is of] the Sender of me, the Father.

Yeshua says the Logos is the one whom he speaks. Testimony is Spirit . . .
.
.

 

[daq]

Also, Gadar Perets, there is one more thing I would add concerning capitalization at this point, (because it concerns the same source, Papyrus Bodmer P75). A case for the possibility of early capitalization, (as opposed to Nomina Sacra only), can be made from the same manuscript mentioned above and that also right out of the same passage from the opening lines of the Gospel of John. Here is a larger image file from a different source:

(Image file is linked under "P. Bodmer XIV, XV", Manuscript P75)
http://bibletranslation.ws/manu.html

At the end of John 1:4 the word ΑΝΘΡΩΠΩΝ is contracted and overlined as Α̅Ν̅Ω̅Ν.
ΤΩΝ ΑΝΘΡΩΠΩΝ thus becomes ΤΩΝ Α̅Ν̅Ω̅Ν.

However this contraction occurs at the end of a line of script. The question therefore arises: was it done here because of space as has been postulated by some in the overall argument as one of the reasons for the "Nomina Sacra"? If it was done to save space in this instance then why not do the same two lines down where we see ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟϹ fall into the same exact line position as ΑΝΘΡΩΠΩΝ? And yet here ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟϹ is written out in the full plene form rather than a contracted, abbreviated, overlined form. Moreover the word in this case also does not fit the space, and is broken off, and then continued in the beginning of the next line of script. This strongly implies that the scribe and/or his exemplar, which he is copying, view ΤΩΝ ΑΝΘΡΩΠΩΝ as needing to be capitalized while ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟϹ is fully written out in plene form even though it also fell at the end of a line, in the same position as the contracted ΑΝΘΡΩΠΩΝ, (Α̅Ν̅Ω̅Ν), and had to be broken off onto the next line of script. Therefore in this case the scribe and/or his exemplar does not contract ΑΝΘΡΩΠΩΝ to save space but rather for some other reason. Yet clearly anthropos and its forms are not sacred names, (which is the implied meaning of Nomina Sacra). It seems the only real reason for this particular occasion is merely for capitalization purposes. This rationale can only come from the meaning of the words and their usage within their contexts. In John 1:4 the author is clearly speaking of Man in the sense of Mankind, (which seems a legitimate reason to see a need to capitalize "Man" or "Mankind"). However, in John 1:6, ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟϹ speaks of a single man, that is Yochanan the Immerser, and in that instance ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟϹ is anarthrous, (without the definite article, "a man"), just as is ΘϹ in John 1:1c.

John 1:4-6
4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of Mankind (ΤΩΝ Α̅Ν̅Ω̅Ν).
5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness cannot overcome it.
6 There was a man, (ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟϹ), sent from Elohim, whose name was Yoḥanan.

We find the same practice becoming prevalent when it comes to "the son of Man", where huios, (son), is not often contracted while anthropou is quite often contracted and overlined. This anomaly coupled with the point concerning anthropos shows that the assumptions posted by the OP are just that: assumptions, (based primarily on already held doctrines). It is telling that the image file which the OP has posted makes no mention the anthropos contractions, (which are manifold), for anthropos cannot be thought of as deity, as the OP has suggested is the case with the term Nomina Sacra, so the fact that anthropos is so often contracted was simply left out of the image file, (selection bias). In the readings containing "the son of Man" the phrase was apparently not necessarily understood so much as a title insomuch as "Man" or "Mankind" was viewed as needing to be capitalized. There have been statistical studies done showing that huios was not early on considered to be part of the Nomina Sacra, (as opposed to what the OP says in his image file chart). Both P66 and P75 have a low rate of contraction when it comes to this word and those contractions appear to have been spurious, (simply meaning we do not understand the reason and it appears random). Speaking of Bodmer P75 the author of the following short study linked below says this:

"As regards υιος only 12/56 sacred and 2/25 mundane occurrences are contracted. In the phrases ‘Son of man’ and ‘Son of God’, υιος is mostly written plene (80). The complete absence of theological or interpretive contraction can be seen in that the scribe is not averse from ignoring the need for contraction in clear sacred context."
http://www.academia.edu/6423187/Charlesworth_Consensus_Standardization_Nomina_Sacra_Aegyptus

This is in stark contradiction to what the OP's image file suggests under #6 on his chart:

Since a nomina sacra stands were THEOS would ordinarily be in Greek, the indication of the early Papyri is that Elohim אלהים is to be understood. Elohim is an intensitive plural in Hebrew based on the noun Eloah meaning powerful one with a connotation of deity. The plural makes the word superlative, "most" or "all" hence Almighty. That is as exact as you can get in English for the meaning of Elohim.

The breve is simply to indicate which words are marked in the Greek text as nomina Sacra, i.e. as deity and also Hebrew/Aramaic titles or names for YHWH.

Who even goes so far as to state, "nomina Sacra, i.e. as deity", which is nothing more than speculation, just as most all of this is also speculation to begin with. But some speculation is better than other speculation I suppose, and that is pretty much it, so take everything with a grain of salt, (or two).
.
.

 

[gadar perets]

Also, Gadar Perets, there is one more thing I would add concerning capitalization at this point, (because it concerns the same source, Papyrus Bodmer P75). A case for the possibility of early capitalization, (as opposed to Nomina Sacra only), can be made from the same manuscript mentioned above and that also right out of the same passage from the opening lines of the Gospel of John. Here is a larger image file from a different source:

(Image file is linked under "P. Bodmer XIV, XV", Manuscript P75)
http://bibletranslation.ws/manu.html

At the end of John 1:4 the word ΑΝΘΡΩΠΩΝ is contracted and overlined as Α̅Ν̅Ω̅Ν.
ΤΩΝ ΑΝΘΡΩΠΩΝ thus becomes ΤΩΝ Α̅Ν̅Ω̅Ν.

However this contraction occurs at the end of a line of script. The question therefore arises: was it done here because of space as has been postulated by some in the overall argument as one of the reasons for the "Nomina Sacra"? If it was done to save space in this instance then why not do the same two lines down where we see ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟϹ fall into the same exact line position as ΑΝΘΡΩΠΩΝ? And yet here ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟϹ is written out in the full plene form rather than a contracted, abbreviated, overlined form. Moreover the word in this case also does not fit the space, and is broken off, and then continued in the beginning of the next line of script. This strongly implies that the scribe and/or his exemplar, which he is copying, view ΤΩΝ ΑΝΘΡΩΠΩΝ as needing to be capitalized while ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟϹ is fully written out in plene form even though it also fell at the end of a line, in the same position as the contracted ΑΝΘΡΩΠΩΝ, (Α̅Ν̅Ω̅Ν), and had to be broken off onto the next line of script. Therefore in this case the scribe and/or his exemplar does not contract ΑΝΘΡΩΠΩΝ to save space but rather for some other reason. Yet clearly anthropos and its forms are not sacred names, (which is the implied meaning of Nomina Sacra). It seems the only real reason for this particular occasion is merely for capitalization purposes. This rationale can only come from the meaning of the words and their usage within their contexts. In John 1:4 the author is clearly speaking of Man in the sense of Mankind, (which seems a legitimate reason to see a need to capitalize "Man" or "Mankind"). However, in John 1:6, ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟϹ speaks of a single man, that is Yochanan the Immerser, and in that instance ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟϹ is anarthrous, (without the definite article, "a man"), just as is ΘϹ in John 1:1c.

John 1:4-6
4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of Mankind (ΤΩΝ Α̅Ν̅Ω̅Ν).
5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness cannot overcome it.
6 There was a man, (ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟϹ), sent from Elohim, whose name was Yoḥanan.

We find the same practice becoming prevalent when it comes to "the son of Man", where huios, (son), is not often contracted while anthropou is quite often contracted and overlined. This anomaly coupled with the point concerning anthropos shows that the assumptions posted by the OP are just that: assumptions, (based primarily on already held doctrines). It is telling that the image file which the OP has posted makes no mention the anthropos contractions, (which are manifold), for anthropos cannot be thought of as deity, as the OP has suggested is the case with the term Nomina Sacra, so the fact that anthropos is so often contracted was simply left out of the image file, (selection bias). In the readings containing "the son of Man" the phrase was apparently not necessarily understood so much as a title insomuch as "Man" or "Mankind" was viewed as needing to be capitalized. There have been statistical studies done showing that huios was not early on considered to be part of the Nomina Sacra, (as opposed to what the OP says in his image file chart). Both P66 and P75 have a low rate of contraction when it comes to this word and those contractions appear to have been spurious, (simply meaning we do not understand the reason and it appears random). Speaking of Bodmer P75 the author of the following short study linked below says this:

"As regards υιος only 12/56 sacred and 2/25 mundane occurrences are contracted. In the phrases ‘Son of man’ and ‘Son of God’, υιος is mostly written plene (80). The complete absence of theological or interpretive contraction can be seen in that the scribe is not averse from ignoring the need for contraction in clear sacred context."
http://www.academia.edu/6423187/Charlesworth_Consensus_Standardization_Nomina_Sacra_Aegyptus

This is in stark contradiction to what the OP's image file suggests under #6 on his chart:





Who even goes so far as to state, "nomina Sacra, i.e. as deity", which is nothing more than speculation, just as most all of this is also speculation to begin with. But some speculation is better than other speculation I suppose, and that is pretty much it, so take everything with a grain of salt, (or two).
.
.

I will do as you say daq and take all that speculation with a grain of salt.

 

[daq]

I will do as you say daq and take all that speculation with a grain of salt.

Well, except for the Testimony of Yeshua, that I do not consider speculation.
.
.

 

[yonah_mishael]

I would just say that the line above Θ̅Ϲ could very well be smudged out. If you notice the title of the book, the following are missing: ΕΥΑΓ(ΓΕ)ΛΙΟΝ (ΚΑ)ΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΗΝ (it doesn't spell Ἰωάννην with a doubled ν). If it's missing the γε from Ευαγγέλιον and the κα from κατά, then the overline might be missing as a result of that large smudge. In fact, even the Ϲ there is unclear. It actually looks to me that the overline was smudged out in the same way that the top half of the Ϲ was smudged out. I wouldn't use this text to draw any conclusions.

 

[daq]

I would just say that the line above Θ̅Ϲ could very well be smudged out. If you notice the title of the book, the following are missing: ΕΥΑΓ(ΓΕ)ΛΙΟΝ (ΚΑ)ΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΗΝ (it doesn't spell Ἰωάννην with a doubled ν). If it's missing the γε from Ευαγγέλιον and the κα from κατά, then the overline might be missing as a result of that large smudge. In fact, even the Ϲ there is unclear. It actually looks to me that the overline was smudged out in the same way that the top half of the Ϲ was smudged out. I wouldn't use this text to draw any conclusions.

Thanks!
.
.

 

[Hoshiyya]

As for the meaning of the text, it seems that the author is playing on two ambiguities:

(1) The word θεός is ambiguous and can refer either to God (the Eternal) or to divine beings of other sorts - whether "gods" in paganism or angelic beings within Judaism. It seems to me that we should leave θεός as a noun and simply translate it as "a divine being" in the third phrase of the verse. That is, the Logos was seen as a divine being (perhaps an angelic being) before the incarnation; though it was "with God" and came "from God" (as Jesus) and went back "to God" (at the ascension), the Logos itself was not called "God" (the Eternal) in the text. The distinction between the two is intentional, but the ambiguity seems also to be intentional.

(2) The use of the pronouns in the masculine gender, both because of concord with the masculine grammatical gender of Λόγος and because Jesus himself was masculine, seems to be intentional. It's hard for me to determine at what point in the text we should stop translating the masculine pronouns as "it" (referring to the Logos) and "he" (referring to Jesus). This ambiguity seems intentional as well.

I would suggest the following:
ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος... In the beginning was the Logos,
καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν... and the Logos was with God,
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος... and the Logos was (itself) a divine being.

That is, it was a divine being, but it was not "God" in the infinite sense.

Correct. There is a definite article that actually emphasizes this:

καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν = and the Memra was with the Supernatural One

What surprises me is that atheists shy away from such views. There seems to be a great lack of intellectual appreciation for the similarities between the Elism of Mesopotamia and the Elohim/Hashem-religion of Israel. I think a greater appreciation of their similarities, and the Biblical assumption of each nation having its own angelic prince (cf. Daniel) would lead to a much improved and far more mature understanding of the Bible and its teachings.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Correct. There is a definite article that actually emphasizes this:

καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν = and the Memra was with the Supernatural One

What surprises me is that atheists shy away from such views. There seems to be a great lack of intellectual appreciation for the similarities between the Elism of Mesopotamia and the Elohim/Hashem-religion of Israel. I think a greater appreciation of their similarities, and the Biblical assumption of each nation having its own angelic prince (cf. Daniel) would lead to a much improved and far more mature understanding of the Bible and its teachings.

I'm not sure I follow your comment about atheists. I've not seen atheists misunderstanding this as much as people from other groups that we cannot name on this forum. It was from an agnostic that I first heard something like this brought up with regard to Deuteronomy 32 regarding the apportionment of the nations to the sons of Elyon.

Additionally, there are many instances in which anarthrous θεός is used to refer to God (big-G). We cannot rely on the presence or absence of the article to determine meaning.

 

[Hoshiyya]

I'm not sure I follow your comment about atheists. I've not seen atheists misunderstanding this as much as people from other groups that we cannot name on this forum. It was from an agnostic that I first heard something like this brought up with regard to Deuteronomy 32 regarding the apportionment of the nations to the sons of Elyon.

Additionally, there are many instances in which anarthrous θεός is used to refer to God (big-G). We cannot rely on the presence or absence of the article to determine meaning.

Atheists may or may not be more honest than others in this regard, but not enough. They prefer to draw parallels to Egyptiac and European religion, mostly due to extreme unfamiliarity with the Sumeric Elism that became the common religious substrate for most of the middle east. If atheists have no agenda relative to their classification of the Elohim religion of Israel, their only excuse for this miclassification must be ignorance.

Obviously the definite article is used to determine meaning in any given sentence. A definite article does not necessarily indicate the Creator in every sentence, but is of course as significant as any other part of the sentence. Sometimes one can remove it without the meaning changing, but not in this case. The definite article separates the Logos (which is adjectivally divine/supernatural) from THE Theon (the Divine/Supernatural One).

 

[yonah_mishael]

Atheists may or may not be more honest than others in this regard, but not enough. They prefer to draw parallels to Egyptiac and European religion, mostly due to extreme unfamiliarity with the Sumeric Elism that became the common religious substrate for most of the middle east. If atheists have no agenda relative to their classification of the Elohim religion of Israel, their only excuse for this miclassification must be ignorance.

Obviously the definite article is used to determine meaning in any given sentence. A definite article does not necessarily indicate the Creator in every sentence, but is of course as significant as any other part of the sentence. Sometimes one can remove it without the meaning changing, but not in this case. The definite article separates the Logos (which is adjectivally divine/supernatural) from THE Theon (the Divine/Supernatural One).

Well, I don't think that has to do with being atheist or being credulous. I think it has to do with having a gap in your education. There are a lot of believing people who are plenty separated from the culture of the Ancient Near East (ANE) and have no idea what their religious outlook was like. I guess I'm just puzzled at why you mention atheists particularly. It's a problem of being in our time and place - not one of religious outlook. We need to educate people more widely on what the religion of Canaan and the surrounding area was like in order for them to better appreciate and understand the distinction of Jewish religion within that context.

 

[Hoshiyya]

Well, I don't think that has to do with being atheist or being credulous. I think it has to do with having a gap in your education. There are a lot of believing people who are plenty separated from the culture of the Ancient Near East (ANE) and have no idea what their religious outlook was like. I guess I'm just puzzled at why you mention atheists particularly. It's a problem of being in our time and place - not one of religious outlook. We need to educate people more widely on what the religion of Canaan and the surrounding area was like in order for them to better appreciate and understand the distinction of Jewish religion within that context.

" I guess I'm just puzzled at why you mention atheists particularly. It's a problem of being in our time and place - not one of religious outlook."

My assumption or hope is that at least some atheists don't have an agenda that problematizes their understanding of this. Believers may have agendas, especially the Protestants are very lacking in objectivity and prefer "creative" thinking so as to create narratives rather than making observations.

So, inasmuch as they don't have an agenda, their (the atheists') excuse for misclassifying Judaism must be based on ignorance/unfamiliarity.

Anyone can see and admit that Odin, Wednaz and Wotan are linguistically and conceptually forms of the same, as are the religions associated with each of these. They are one category, often called Odinist, Wotanic or simply Germanic religion.

But when it comes to El, Elohim, Alaha and Allah, the linguistic and conceptual connections are misunderstood or overlooked very often.

Indeed, many seem more prepared to discuss the supposed similarities between Elohim and Ohrmazd than the far more obvious and important similarities between Elohim and El. It naturally follows that many of them see Allah as entirely or mostly derived from the Bible, failing to appreciate the extent to which Allah was already worshipped in Arabia prior to the codification of what we today call Islam. This has become more common knowledge in the last decades, perhaps due to Salman Rushdie's influence more so than any intellectual progress.

 

[gadar perets]

I would suggest the following:
ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος... In the beginning was the Logos,
καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν... and the Logos was with God,
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος... and the Logos was (itself) a divine being.

That is, it was a divine being, but it was not "God" in the infinite sense.

καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν = and the Memra was with the Supernatural One

You are both making the logos a divine being although I do not know why yonah_mishael added (itself). Why can't theos be used as an adjective describing the logos?

"And mighty was the logos" or "And powerful was the logos"
​

The Hebrew elohim was used as an adjective as well (Gen 23:6; Ex 9:28; 1Sam 14:15).

 

[Hoshiyya]

You are both making the logos a divine being although I do not know why yonah_mishael added (itself). Why can't theos be used as an adjective describing the logos?

"And mighty was the logos" or "And powerful was the logos"
​

The Hebrew elohim was used as an adjective as well (Gen 23:6; Ex 9:28; 1Sam 14:15).

"Why can't theos be used as an adjective describing the logos?"

You tell me. I said the logos was adjectivally supernatural, while the definite article distinguishes Ton Theon as the supernatural one, the Creator.