Talk:John 1:1/Archive 1

message: George M:
Regarding the statement,
:“The common held theology that Jesus is God naturally leads one to believe that the proper way to render the verse is the one which is most popular. The opposing theology that Jesus is subordinate to God as his Chief agent leads to the conclusion that "...a god" is the proper rendering.”
This material needs a bit of a clarification. Among those who render various translations of John 1:1 it is also common theology that Jesus is GOD (avoiding the irrelevant and nonsensical upper-lower case issues). Jehovah’s Witnesses, for instance, believe that Jesus is GOD, yet their preferred translation, the New World, contains one on the atypical renderings. On the other hand, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe Jesus is GOD in the sense that his Father is GOD. These believe Jesus is GOD in some sense of the term whereas they believe Jesus’ Father is GOD in every sense of the word. 
- Marvin Shilmer 20:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus is GOD 

message: The following comments were moved into a section heading to make the page more readable.  Pastordavid 22:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved Comments 

message: I have added the NPOV and Cleanup templates. The POV template was added as it gives undue weight to a minority position, namely that of JWs (see WP:Undue weight). As for the cleanup template, there are a number of spelling and grammatical mistakes and uses of inappropriate tone - more than I could clean up in a single edit. BenC7 04:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: User BenC7 recently deleted a revision including external references discussing the origin of the Trinity doctrine.  I suppose he believes that presenting to the reader the fact that the Trinity did in actuality have an origin is in some way "argumentative".  THE REPORTING OF THE ESTABLISHED HISTORICAL FACT THAT SOME DOCTRINE HAD A BEGINNING ARGUES NEITHER FOR NOR AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF THE DOCTRINE.  (Would that the same doctrine had no source at all somehow argue more in its favor?)
The deleted reporting simply established where the Christian Trinity doctrine came from.  Is there some reason why the reader should be kept in the dark about these facts, Mr. BenC7?  Or is it that this history is somehow not agreable to you personally?  Remember, the reader can, and will choose to believe, or not, whatever dogma they wish.
This deleted information is essential for the reader to understand the relativity of this one verse to the Trinity doctrine.  The reader should understand that the debate over the Trinity is not ONLY a debate over John 1:1.  John 1:1, and how it is viewed today, is really only a small facet of a much larger, and historically complex issue.  Perhaps, BenC7 would prefer it not to be so.  History, though, was not shaped by BenC7.
Dear Sir BenC7, by deleting this information are you implying that these encyclopedias and other published references are in error about this history, and that you know the real truth?  If so, please share your knowledge.  Meanwhile, please do not engage in the "elimination of viewpoints" (NPOV) nor historical fact, because of your own personal bias.
The following is what BenC7 chose to keep from the reader of the article:
Debate over the correct translation and interpretation of this verse has been ever more heated from the third century forward, culminating today in a contentious arena where both Unitarian and Trinitarian Christians point to purported scriptual proof of their opposing beliefs. In considering the merits of each side of this debate, it is useful to know the chronological relationship between the scripture of John 1:1, and the doctrine of the Trinity. John penned his words toward the end of the 1st century, circa 98 C.E. The Trinity was established as doctrine by the Catholic Church at the Council of Nicea of 325 C.E. Some 225 years separate the two occurences.   
    
The following commentaries concerning the origin of the Trinity doctrine are of interest, and should not be taken as arguing the validity of one belief over the other. They simply state the historical fact that today's popular debate concerning the Trinity (and therefore any particular significance of John 1:1) DID NOT EVEN EXIST during the lives of those that associated with Jesus Christ in person and subsequently wrote about him in the scriptures, nor of all others making up the 1st century Christian congregation. Had the reader been alive at that momentous time, the concept of a trinitarian God would only be heard of in pagan circles. The Trinity did not become part of orthodox Christian belief until much later.   
    
   
The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “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.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.   
   
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.   
   
In The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “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.   
   
According to 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.   
   
John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k 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 ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.   
 
--Thejamesg 07:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have answered your own question: "the debate over the Trinity is not ONLY a debate over John 1:1.  John 1:1, and how it is viewed today, is really only a small facet of a much larger, and historically complex issue..." Why, then, is it being put here? If readers want information about the Trinity, they can go to the relevant article. In any case, the information is argumentitive and tries to lead the reader to a conclusion by presenting only one side of the argument. BenC7 02:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of revisions 

message: One user consistently placing information in article after multiple reverts. Information is included above. I believe that the information is irrelevant to the article (would perhaps be more appropriate to the Trinity article), argumentative and resembles original research. Please indicate to keep or remove information. (No comments are needed for now about the rather biased state of the rest of the article.) BenC7 05:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: #Remove.  It is far too detailed information for this article, needing to be on Trinity (maybe), Unitarianism (probably), or somewhere else all together.  BenC7 is right to have removed it.  A comprimise could be acknowledging the debate (as has been suggested elsewhere on this page) and not deciding the issue for the reader.  Pastordavid 18:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: The disputed text has some definite problems, and I support its deletion.  For one thing, the text isn't really about John 1:1-- It's about whether the concept of the Trinity is valid or not-- the author of the disputed text clearly feels the Trinity is invalid, and anytime I can detect the POV of the author, it's usually a bad thing.
Secondly, the text is misleading.  Noting the 225 years between the composition of the Gospel of John and the Council of Nicea is an odd observation-- the doctrine of the trinity existed before Nicea, of course, but the text seems to suggest or imply that the doctrine of the trinity did not exist prior to Nicea. 
Exceptionally problematic is this sentence:
: "They simply state the historical fact that today's popular debate concerning the Trinity (and therefore any particular significance of John 1:1) DID NOT EVEN EXIST during the lives of those that associated with Jesus Christ in person and subsequently wrote about him in the scriptures, nor of all others making up the 1st century Christian congregation.'   
While it may certainly is a valid opinion that the earliest church was unitarian, it is certainly not an undisputed historical fact.
In short-- it's fine to MENTION that there is a unitarian interpretation of John 1:1, but we cannot decide the issue for the readers one way or the other.  Furthermore, this article isn't the right place for the full debate on the whole issue-- John 1:1 is only one piece of evidence being used in a debate which is clearly notable enough to have its own full discussion elsewhere. 
As such, I have removed the disputed text.
--Alecmconroy 06:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for your edification, the Trinity did not achieve the status of official Catholic creed until 325 C.E. at the Council of Nicea.  Thus, the official beginning of the Trinity as doctrine.  Of course, people were talking about it before they showed up.--Thejamesg 09:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Those sources might be interesting to those working on the :Unitarianism and :Trinity articles, but in general I agree that it's a little much for this one. The manner in which it's presented is also problematic-it would appear the statements are being made "in Wikipedia's voice", not in the source's voice. This could be solved by properly attributing the claims rather than stating them as simple fact-"X, Y, and Z conclude that ABC...", not just "ABC is how it is." I think that the texts, being sourced, are worth a short mention here, but with more NPOV work done to them. Seraphimblade 07:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: To add to previous, that "Translation debates" section needs to be NPOV'd and cut way down. (And during the CLEANUP I think PEOPLE might want to stay OFF the CAPSLOCK key.) The "dispute" over translation also needs to be sourced-"dispute over" means that there's a dispute between reliable experts, not that you or me happens to disagree. Lot of NPOV problems here, so I think the disputed-neutrality tag should stay for the moment. Seraphimblade 07:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Request Comment

message: Hit this article through a random article search... and some styalistic issues imediately hit me.  I will use the section on Ancient Manuscript Dates to demonstrate:
*Keeping that in mind, there are other NT manuscripts in the original Greek that date from 100 A.D. to 300 A.D., which makes them by far the oldest Greek manuscripts in existence today. This is far more useful then the Latin translations which date back to the 5th century AD. That makes the Greek manuscripts 200 to 400 years older then the Latin manuscripts. Therefore, the Greek manuscripts should always be considered for translation while the Latin manuscripts are excellent for references. Plus these manuscripts may be more useful than most think, because these translations were translated out of ancient Greek texts that no longer exist today.
1) Keeping what in mind?  you just started a new section so anything you said before gets a bit disassociated.
2) using "NT" seems a bit jargonesque... why not say New Testiment?
3) I think you mean "This is far more useful than the Latin translations"
4) Why is it more useful? and to whom? (I don't find it useful at all since I don't speak greek.)  I think you mean that theologians or bible compilers or something find it useful 
5) Telling someone which translation to use is very POV.  I think you mean to say that theologians and biblical scholars prefer to use the Greek.
*We should always remember, though, that the Greek manuscripts are copies while the Latin manuscripts are translations there are translation errors and bias is allowed to creep in, just like there are going to be an error or bias in any given translation, including the King James Version, but some Jewish scholars say that the Septuigint is more accurate in some instances than the Mosoratic text.
6) Who's this "we" and why should "we" remember anything?
7) Why not warn that there could be copy errors in the Greek texts since you discuss translation errors (I am not saying it is true... I just have a problem with the contrapunction of copy vs. translation.)
8) More importantly, this is one heck of a run-on sentence.  Break it up into smaller sentences and explain what you mean better.
9) Septuigint?  Mosoratic?  Huh?  Remember that this is being written for the average joe, not fellow theologians.  You can use the terms, but please explain them or wikilink to where they are explained.
Basicly this section (and a fair amount of the rest of the article) comes across as being an argument or instruction on what to do ... and thus sounds POV.  Better to discuss what theologians say on the subject, giving the most space to the majority view, and some space to minority views.
that's my two cents... thanks, and good luck. Blueboar 20:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To give two more cents... not only do I think the article needs a re-write for style, it needs one on the POV issues raised in the recent RFC.  It seems clear that you are dealing with a dispute between a majority view of biblical translation and a minority one.  Wikipedia's rules and guidelines on this make it clear that both views should be presented, but also make it clear that no minority view should receive undue weight.  There seems to be an undue weight being given to the Jehovas Witness translation here.  Discuss it in a NPOV manner... but don't over emphysise it.  Blueboar 23:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Styalistic problems 

message: I took out everything that was blatantly OR (it looks like someone c/ped a seminary paper in here), and removed all the positional argument (as it refers to other verses to support a view of this verse), as well as the translation section.  If this is going to be rewritten and include meaning, there needs to be citable evidence for the positions.  As it stands now, it's a pretty solid bare-bones article on a Biblical verse. MSJapan 23:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tore this to shreds... 

message: I think that the way that the article's value went down after someone who was a Jehovah's Witness (I contacted him) I think it was because we could not agree on specific things, I do think that this article should remain separate from any other article, at least for now, but the article was heavily baised, expecally on the JW side. This article needs to really consentrate on the proper translation and debate over than then for the Trinity. The Trinity needs to be mentioned but not anything major. Quaker24 05:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jehovah's Witnesses 

message: Well, I think it safe to say that we have talked this into the ground, and maybe its time to plot a course forward for this article. With the recent edits (which amount to re-stubifying), I would say that the options are as follows. Sign under the one you think would be best.  (NB: this is not a vote, just an attempt to get a sense of what everyone thinks would be the best next step.  For clarity, keep comments under this discussion thread to a bare minimum.  I have tried to include every option that has come up in the discussion). Pastordavid 07:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw Poll 

message: Listening to the dialogue on the talk page, it seems that the consensus is to move forward with a re-write from the current state of the article.  A couple of thoughts as we move forward.
(1) Please watch for original research and POV. If you were someone who came by because of the RfC, keep the article on your watchlist and help us to watch for this.
(2) Comments about JW translation theology may seem like undue weight - but it is the primary debate that has to do with this verse alone. That said, be sure to set that controversy with the broader context of the translation / interpretation of this verse. 
(3) Be prepared for people to edit your contributions or - if appropriate - tag them as POV/OR.  Don't get into an edit war.  Instead of reverting, figure out how to say something similar in a better way.
Thanks to everyone for keeping a cool head about this.  Pastordavid 22:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds great to me, the clear consensus certainly is to keep this at its current location. I would also encourage everyone to be mindful of giving any arguments undue weight by covering them too thoroughly. Mostly, the article should stick to sourceable facts, and simply frame the debate and present the sides while being careful not to take one. Seraphimblade 22:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move forward 

message: I have re-written the lead paragraph with the following in mind: (1) asserting the notability of this one verse - i.e., a justification for the article on it alone, and (2) introducing the controversy in question without it overshadowing the complete introduction of the verse.  Pastordavid 23:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to have the the sentence that says, "The translation of the King James Version..." changed to simply say, "The King James Version...".  The reason for that is that the KJV is not a translation at all.  The scholars that put it together only worked off of eight modern (for their time) English translations of the Latin Vulgate.  The KJV was not an additional translation of the Vulgate, but rather a recompilation of the 'best-of' out of the eight other English bibles, combined with new, original wording.  This is why it is titled "Version", and not "Translation".  To say that it is a translation, is misleading.  The reference for this information is included above in a section that was previously removed from the article.  So, before making any change, I am asking for your agreement, since you authored the sentence.--Thejamesg 07:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Paragraph 

message: I placed the following sentence in the lead in order to assert the notability of this verse (connecting Christ with Greek Logos & Hebrew Wisdom; shaping later foundational developments in Christian theology).  I will be the first to admit that this is not award-winning prose, but I do think getting the ideas into the lead are important for setting the shape of the rest of the article.  I am open to revision, editing, idea, etc., etc., Pastordavid 20:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This sentence 

message: In order to make the talk page more readable, I would like to archive the discussions leading up and resulting from the recent RfC (basically, everything above "Moving Forward" on the talk page.  However, I don't want it to appear to anyone that I am trying to get rid of or hide their comments or opinions.  So, I put this notice here.  If you don't think we should archive, just let me know and I won't do it.  Pastordavid 21:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the page is long or old enough to warrant archiving, personally. BenC7 01:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: A major point of contention within the debate is the proper application of Colwell's rule. Colwell's rule states:
“In sentences in which the copula is expressed, a definite predicate nominative has the
article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb.”
At issue is whether Cowell's rule applies to John 1:1 and if it is a reliable standard by which grammatical constructions of this type should be measured. In A Summary of Colwell's Rule Prof. Rodney J. Decker says: John 1:1, The relevance of Colwell’s rule to John 1:1 would be worth pursuing in greater detail. Note that the rule does not help by determining definiteness! It has often been misused by
well-intentioned defenders of the deity of Christ.
References
George 19:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Colwell's rule