John 1: 1-3

[maklelan]

From the article,

What were Nibley's reasons for rendering Ἐν ἀρχῇ as council?

ἀρχῇ can mean quite a few things. It is most commonly translated "beginning," or "ruler." The sense of the word is that of a source or fount. I don't agree with the "ruling council" reading, and I think the translation is primarily reading LDS doctrine into the Greek.

[David T]

Nevertheless, An unapologetically Restorationist modern translation of the NT, under the direction of the Brethren, that would make the New World Translation look Evangelical by comparison? I'm stoked!

[clairc829]

In reference to this, I found the text of the talk introducing it. And it blew my mind. The BYU Rendition

I just read the article you provided a link to all I can say is WOW! WOW! and WOW!

Already one person has responded in the comments section calling the person who gave the talk a Liar. When a person cannot give a reasoned response they call names, so sad.

[oMtonic]

There is. Jack Welch and John Hall are in charge of it. Hall plans to translate Ἐν ἀρχῇ as "In the council," following Hugh Nibley. I disagree with him regarding a number of his translations, and I've discussed the Johannine logos with him at great length (I'll be interested to see if I influenced his translation at all). You can expect the BYU translation to be a quite distinct translation.

Thanks for the info.

[coolrok7]

Will the real John 1:1 please stand up?

John 1:1-2, 14- 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. . . .And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Note: The KJV does not translate it as "a god"!

Footnotes to the Gospels. . .

S. Kent Brown, C. Wilfred Griggs, and Thomas W. Mackay, â??Footnotes to the Gospels,â? Ensign, Oct 1974, 52

The Prophet Joseph Smith said that â??we believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.â? Since the 1611 a.d. publication of the King James version, many documents of biblical books have been found. Occasionally, these texts or newly discovered background information shed different meanings on selected passages or words than the language provided by the King James translation.

The Church is fortunate in having Brigham Young University scholars who have specialized in comparing the various texts and languages. The Ensign has invited Brothers Brown, Griggs, and Mackay to share background data where such information might be stimulating and informative for readers of the New Testament. (Since it doesnâ??t deal with Christâ??s birth, Markâ??s account is not included.). . .

John

chapter 1

John 1:1â??â??In the beginningâ?

John chooses to begin his Gospel in a different manner than the other Gospel writers. In Mark, â??the beginning of the gospelâ? occurs with the appearance of John the Baptist in the wilderness. (Mark 1:1â??4.) In Matthew, the â??beginningâ? of the gospel story comes at the betrothal of Mary to Joseph. (Matt. 1:18.) In Luke, the â??beginningâ? starts with the story of the birth of John the Baptist. (Luke 1:5â??6.) By opening his gospel with the opening words of Genesis, John stresses the â??beginningâ? to have taken place even before the creation of the earth.

John 1:1â??â??the Word was Godâ?

The absence of the definite article â??theâ? in the Greek text indicates that the Word is a God, but not the only person for whom this is true. This statement sets the tone for Johnâ??s entire testimony in his gospel: the words and acts of Jesus are those of God.

John 1:3â??â??that was madeâ?

Depending on how the Greek text is punctuated, the ending of verse 3 and opening of verse 4 can be translated as they appear in the King James version, or as follows: â??and without him was not any thing made; that which was made by him was life.â?

John 1:14â??â??dwelt among usâ?

Literally, â??tented among usâ? or â??pitched his tent among us.â? This recalls the time when God dwelt in Zion, the City of Enoch (Moses 7:16), and the exodus when Jehovah â??tabernacledâ? among the wandering Israelites. Compare Peterâ??s response in the presence of heavenly messengers on the Mount of Transfiguration. (Matt. 17:4; Mark 9:5; Luke 9:33.). . .

The following is the way this verse (1:1) has been translated by various groups each claiming to be Godâ??s only voice today proclaiming true first century Christianity.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints- Joseph Smith Jr. (not a translation at all):

In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God. (JST, Joseph Smith translation of the Bible)

What the Latter-day Saints believe about Jesus:

[in the pre-existence- Father God (Elohim) with his wife (one of many) bore us as spirits. Jesus (Jehovah), our elder brother (spirit brother of Lucifer), is just one of many gods and is eternally progressing to make it possible for us to become gods as well.]

In the flesh-of His unique status in the flesh as the offspring of a mortal mother and of an immortal, or resurrected and glorified, Father. (Articles of Faith, James Talmage, p.473)

Jehovahâ??s Witnesses- Charles Taze Russell:

In (the) beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in (the) beginning with God. (New World Translation)

What the Jehovahâ??s Witnesses believe about Jesus:

Our Lord Jesus Christ is a God. . .still the united voice of the scriptures must emphatically assert that there is but one Almighty God, the Father of all. (Studies in the Scriptures, Vol.V, p.55)

This one was not Jehovah God, but was existing in the form of God. . .he was a spirit person...he was a mighty one although not Almighty as Jehovah God is; . . .He was a God, but not the Almighty God, who is Jehovah. (Let God Be True, pp.34, 35)

At the time of his beginning of life he was created by the everlasting God, Jehovah, without the aid or instrumentality of any mother. In other words, he was the first and direct creation of Jehovah God. . .He was the start of Godâ??s creative work. He was not an incarnation in flesh but was flesh, a human Son of God, a perfect man, no longer a spirit, although having a spiritual or heavenly past and background. (The Kingdom Is At Hand, pp.46, 47, 49)

The Way International- Victor Paul Wierwille:

In the beginning was the Word (God), and the (revealed) Word was with (pros) God (with Him in His foreknowledge, yet independent of Him), and the Word was God. The same (revealed Word) was in the beginning with (pros) God. (Jesus Christ is not God, p.87)

What the Way International believes about Jesus:

Jesus Christ was not God, but â??the Son of God,â? and that without â??God the Sonâ? there is no trinity. What is Christianity without a trinity? It is placed back at the point when the first century apostles lived and dynamically taught those things which God revealed to them and which Jesus himself had shown them during his life. (Jesus Christ is not God, inside cover flap)

God who was in the beginning and who was the logos, is eternal. Jesus Christ, who is Godâ??s communication of Himself in a person, had a beginning when he was born, yet in Godâ??s foreknowledge Jesus Christ was in the beginning. (Jesus Christ is not God, pp.88-89

It boils down to how the Bible is interpreted after it is translated into the received language (especially the noted verses of this thread). The parameters for Mormonism are the following (I disagree with the conclusions based on their misinterpretations):

As Latter-day Saints we accept the following scriptures as the standard works of the Church: the Bible (consisting of the Old Testament and the New Testament), the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and official statements made by our leaders. Regarding the Bible: There is a misconception that the Bible is one book instead of a collection of sixty-six books, thirty-nine of which comprise the Old Testament and twenty-seven of which constitute the New Testament. (The Ensign, Church magazineâ??contains official statements of leaders, Church Conference, Elder Henry D. Taylor, Nov. 1976, p.63)

In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, Church publications, and instructions to local priesthood leaders. (Gospel Principles manual, Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1988, pp. 49-51)

The Standard Works of the Church constitute the written authority of the Church in doctrine. Nevertheless, the Church holds itself in readiness to receive additional light and knowledge â??pertaining to the Kingdom of Godâ? through divine revelation. . .We rely therefore on the teachings of the living oracles of God as of equal validity with the doctrines of the written word. The works adopted by the vote of the Church as authoritative guides in faith and doctrine are four: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. Many books have been and are being published by officers and members of the Church, and such may be sanctioned by the people and the ecclesiastical authorities; but the four publications named are the regularly adopted â??Standard Works of the Church.â? Of the doctrines treated in the authorized standards, the Articles of Faith may be regarded as a fair though but partial summary. (The Articles of Faith, James Talmage, p.7)

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (known informally by the nickname Mormons) believe the Bible. Indeed, so literally and completely do their beliefs and practices conform to the teachings of the Bible that is not uncommon to hear informed persons say: â??If all men believed the Bible, all would be Mormons.â? Bible doctrine is Mormon doctrine, and Mormon doctrine is Bible doctrine. They are one and the same. But as is well known, the Bible does not contain all the doctrines and truths taught by the prophets and apostles, nor have the teachings preserved in it come down to us in an absolutely perfect form. There are and have been many translations and versions of the Bible, each of which varies from the others.â? (WHAT THE MORMONS THINK OF CHRIST pamphlet, p.3)

First Presidency Statement on the King James Version of the Bible

The First Presidency has released the following letter regarding the King James Version of the Bible.

â??First Presidency Statement on the King James Version of the Bible,â? Ensign, Aug. 1992, 80

Since the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has used the King James Version of the Bible for English-speaking members.

The Bible, as it has been transmitted over the centuries, has suffered the loss of many plain and precious parts. â??We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.â?? (A of F 1:8.)

Many versions of the Bible are available today. Unfortunately, no original manuscripts of any portion of the Bible are available for comparison to determine the most accurate version. However, the Lord has revealed clearly the doctrines of the gospel in these latter-days. The most reliable way to measure the accuracy of any biblical passage is not by comparing different texts, but by comparison with the Book of Mormon and modern-day revelations.

While other Bible versions may be easier to read than the King James Version, in doctrinal matters latter-day revelation supports the King James Version in preference to other English translations. All of the Presidents of the Church, beginning with the Prophet Joseph Smith, have supported the King James Version by encouraging its continued use in the Church. In light of all the above, it is the English language Bible used by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The LDS edition of the Bible (1979) contains the King James Version supplemented and clarified by footnotes, study aids, and cross-references to the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. These four books are the standard works of the Church. We encourage all members to have their own copies of the complete standard works and to use them prayerfully in regular personal and family study, and in Church meetings and assignments.

Sincerely your brethren,

Ezra Taft Benson

Gordon B. Hinckley

Thomas S. Monson

The BofM didn't exist until it came from Joseph's own mouth as his mother attests to his storytelling abilities before he even supposedly had the plates (one who is under spiritual deception is capable of having things revealed beyond the natural capabilities of the individual):

During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly as if he had spent his whole life among them. On the twenty-second of September, 1824, Joseph again visited the place where he found the plates the year previous; . . .

The writings of Baha'u'lla'h are most comprehensive in their range, dealing with every phase of human life, individual and social, with things material and things spiritual, with the interpretation of ancient and modern scriptures, and with prophetic anticipations of both the near and distant future. The range and accuracy of His knowledge was amazing. He could quote and expound the Scriptures of the various religions with which His correspondents or questioners were familiar, in convincing and authoritative manner, although apparently He had never had the ordinary means of access to many of the books referred to. . . .The well-known circumstances of His long imprisonment render it impossible to doubt that the wealth of knowledge shown in His writings must have been acquired from some spiritual source, quite independent of the usual means of study or instruction and the help of books or teachers. (Baha'u'lla'h and the New Era, J. E. Esslemont, p.48)

[David T]

Anyway.

In what Nibley publication(s) can I look for his discussion of this?

Any word if the commentary/translation makes note of (or takes into consideration) the references to and influences of the Book of Enoch on the NT texts?

I'm reading through the Hermeneia 1 Enoch 1 commentary right now, and the idea having an LDS NT Commentary/translation in this format makes me very, very excited. (This publisher also published a separate one-volume translation-only book of 1 Enoch. Perhaps the BYUR would do the same thing... a 15 Vol. commentary edition, as well a translation-only edition...or perhaps a parallel BYUR-KJV edition)

This would also make a Worldwide LDS edition of the NT possible. Just as the Watchtower does with the NWT, they translate their proprietary english translation into the several languages, so copyright wouldn't be an issue. Right now, there are only 2 official LDS editions of the Bible - English (KJV) and Spanish (RV 2009, coming in September). This would instantly solve that problem as well.

Again, it has very exciting implications.

[Doctor Steuss]

Coolrok,

Itâ??s ok if your seething irrational hatred of all things Mormon fails to present itself in every single waking moment of your life.

Promise.

[soren]

We're all familiar with this passage, I'm sure. In the Cardinal Schonborn book I'm reading he cites it, and for some reason a few words stood out to me that never have before:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

The last three words kind of seem like an awkward addition given the assumption of an unequivocal â??allâ? that is applied by the majority of Christianity.

If He made *all* things, then why the strange qualifier at the end about things that were made. It almost reads as if it is a tacit acknowledgment to there being things that werenâ??t made (i.e. that the â??allâ? isnâ??t *all*).

Are there any commentaries that focus on the inclusion of these last few words, or am I just making much ado about nothing?

There is a classical exegetical and translational question as to which sentence "ho gegonen" belongs to. Since ancient Greek manuscripts aren't punctuated, It could be "without him was not one thing that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men," or it could be "all things were created by him, and without him was not one thing made. What came to be in him was life, and the life was the light of men."

The second reading is overwhelmingly favored by ECFs, and is reflected in the standard Nestle-Aland Greek version. I incline to read it the first way, just as you do, but I diverge from a lot of critical scholars who know more than I do.

That throws your idea in question, but not disproof. More important to me is that even if was translate it in the same way as the KJV it makes bad sense literarily for John to twice claim that the Word is Creator yet make the statement less forcefully the second time. "All things were made by him" is what John is backing up when he says "without him was not one thing made..." To conclude this rhetorically strong claim with a sudden qualification that undermines the entire force of what went before is rhetorically poor. It is also untypical of John, who always builds on his claims by repetition.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

The second reading is overwhelmingly favored by ECFs, and is reflected in the standard Nestle-Aland Greek version. I incline to read it the first way, just as you do, but I diverge from a lot of critical scholars who know more than I do.

[...]

Thank you Soren for the insight regarding how the ECFs understood the composition of the verse(s).

The first way just seems clunky to me (I readily admit that my favoring the second way [having just been introduced to it] has to do with personal taste and little [if any] to do with scholarly consensus), unless it was meant to point towards a less Greek understanding of â??all,â? but even then it just seems awkward (to me, that is).

-Stu

[soren]

Thank you Soren for the insight regarding how the ECFs understood the composition of the verse(s).

The first way just seems clunky to me (I readily admit that my favoring the second way [having just been introduced to it] has to do with personal taste and little [if any] to do with scholarly consensus), unless it was meant to point towards a less Greek understanding of â??all,â? but even then it just seems awkward (to me, that is).

-Stu

Thanks. I think I should also add that I am not saying that your reading is simply illogical, as far as if goes. Could the text mean what you say as it is written? Yes, it could. Could that reading be defended coherently? Yes. I am only saying that I think it makes more sense, on a literary, aesthetic level to read it is an absolute claim to creatorship by the word. Call me old-fashioned, but I think aesthetic arguments are important when dealing with a God-breathed text or anything by an author known to be very competent.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]I am only saying that I think it makes more sense, on a literary, aesthetic level to read it is an absolute claim to creatorship by the word. [...]

Sounds groovy to me.

While I have your ear, you wouldn't happen to be familiar with Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J. would you? If you are, is there any particular writings of his that are a â??must readâ? (and available in English)?

If youâ??re not familiar with him, no worries. Cardinal Schonborn mentions him in his book â??Chance or Purpose,â? and he [Teilhard de Chardin] just sounded like a rather fascinating theologian that I think I might enjoy.

[Edited to correct mispelled name]

[soren]

Sounds groovy to me.

While I have your ear, you wouldn't happen to be familiar with Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J. would you? If you are, is there any particular writings of his that are a â??must readâ? (and available in English)?

If youâ??re not familiar with him, no worries. Cardinal Shonborn mentions him in his book â??Chance or Purpose,â? and he [Teilhard de Chardin] just sounded like a rather fascinating theologian that I think I might enjoy.

I strongly dislike Chardin, but he is still very worth reading. First read "The Phenomenon of Man." That will probably be adequate, but if it leaves you hungry for more, continue on and read "The Future of Man."

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Will the real John 1:1 please stand up?

Note: The KJV does not translate it as "a god"!

The following is the way this verse (1:1) has been translated by various groups each claiming to be Godâ??s only voice today proclaiming true first century Christianity.

Awww, Coolrok7 missed the memo, It appears that this "1 In the beginning the logos was, and the logos was at the side of God, and what God was, the logos was. " is quite a valid translation. In the article that Dr Stuess linked too there were a few that translated it like this or put the term "a god" in there.

It would seem that this verse is damaging to Coolrok7's Trinitarian view. That is too bad.

[mfbukowski]

While I have your ear, you wouldn't happen to be familiar with Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J. would you? If you are, is there any particular writings of his that are a â??must readâ? (and available in English)?

If youâ??re not familiar with him, no worries. Cardinal Schonborn mentions him in his book â??Chance or Purpose,â? and he [Teilhard de Chardin] just sounded like a rather fascinating theologian that I think I might enjoy.

[Edited to correct mispelled name]

Definitely read "The Phenomenon of Man". Amazing amazing stuff. Highly relevant to eternal progression and seeing "evolution" (not necessarily Darwinian) as integral to what we would call eternal progression. Not easy to understand - unless you are into phenomenology and then you are used to opaque styles of writing. He likes to define stuff in his own terms and use words in an unusual way. French and German philosophy is similar in that way. Anyway, if you are at all interested in process philosophy, this stuff is a must.

[mfbukowski]

Sure. The Greek currently, with current versification:

My translation:

1 In the beginning the logos was, and the logos was at the side of God, and what God was, the logos was. 2 He was in the beginning at the side of God. 3 Everything through him was made, and nothing which was made was made without him. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of mankind.

My proposed versification and translation:

1 In the beginning the logos was, and the logos was at the side of God, and what God was, the logos was. 2 He was in the beginning at the side of God. 3 Everything through him was made, and nothing was made without him. 4 That which came to be in him was life, and the life was the light of mankind.

γέγονεν can be translated a number of different ways, but the main sense is coming into existence.

Thanks for this. I have struggled with this for quite a while with my various concordances and you put together instantly some understandings that I sweated over and never were sure if they were right! Great thread!

[coolrok7]

Awww, Coolrok7 missed the memo, It appears that this "1 In the beginning the logos was, and the logos was at the side of God, and what God was, the logos was. " is quite a valid translation. In the article that Dr Stuess linked too there were a few that translated it like this or put the term "a god" in there.

It would seem that this verse is damaging to Coolrok7's Trinitarian view. That is too bad.

Ezra Taft Benson

Gordon B. Hinckley

Thomas S. Monson

The first two names are of course people not here anymore wherein President Monson's name is now at the top and he is still here. Until I see Maklelan's or any others names in place with President Monson, then their translations are not the standard to which Mormonism appeals to.

Joseph's so-called translation is not a translation at all unless you can demonstrate from the Greek manuscripts in which Joseph "translated" from:

In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God. (JST, Joseph Smith translation of the Bible)

Once again, the KJV (no one sent me a memo):

John 1:1-2, 14- 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. . . .And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

And:

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matthew 28:18-20)

[Saint Sinner]

I translate the phrase as the beginning of verse 4. Critical editions tend to put the end of the sentence at καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. If we move the end of 3 to the beginning of 4, we get the following:

Which I would translate, "That which came to be in him was life, and the life was the light of mankind."

Wow...never would have thought about that. Thanks for the insight.

Saint Sinner

[urroner]

The first two names are of course people not here anymore wherein President Monson's name is now at the top and he is still here. Until I see Maklelan's or any others names in place with President Monson, then their translations are not the standard to which Mormonism appeals to.

Did Mak ever say that the Church should accept this a true doctrine?

Cool, what exactly is the standard which Mormonism appeals to?

Joseph's so-called translation is not a translation at all unless you can demonstrate from the Greek manuscripts in which Joseph "translated" from:

What is meant by the word "translation?" Does it only mean and has always meant "To render in another language?"

[Lachoneus]

We're all familiar with this passage, I'm sure. In the Cardinal Schonborn book I'm reading he cites it, and for some reason a few words stood out to me that never have before:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

The last three words kind of seem like an awkward addition given the assumption of an unequivocal â??allâ? that is applied by the majority of Christianity.

If He made *all* things, then why the strange qualifier at the end about things that were made. It almost reads as if it is a tacit acknowledgment to there being things that werenâ??t made (i.e. that the â??allâ? isnâ??t *all*).

Are there any commentaries that focus on the inclusion of these last few words, or am I just making much ado about nothing?

I have always understood the bolded phrase to refer to those things that were not made because they cannot be made. In other words, Christ did not literally make "all things" because not all things were made. But of those things that were made, none of them was made apart from Christ.

For example, from the scriptures we learn that certain things are eternal and, therefore, they were not created or made.

Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

D&C 93:29

Joseph Smith further explained that in addition to man's spirit, there are other things that are eternal and not made.

The spirit of man is not a created being; it existed from eternity, and will exist to eternity. Anything created cannot be eternal; and earth, water, etc., had their existence in an elementary state, from eternity.

3 History of the Church 386 (2 July 1839)

Therefore, it seems that the bold phrase in John 1:3 simply acknowledges that there are certain things that Christ did not create because those things are eternal and cannot be created.

Kevin Barney appears to acknowledge this meaning in 1 Footnotes to the New Testament for Latter-day Saints 480, fnt b

John clarifies his meaning by noting that of all things that were made, none were created without Christ.