Culture, grammar, common usage, and honest Greek scholarship verify the “a god” interpretation at John 1:1c.
The common scriptural understanding of the word “god” shows it to be applied to false gods as well as angels and men who were appointed by God to a certain task. There are numerous trinitarian scholars who admit this.
An exhaustive study of all John’s uses of constructions truly parallel to John 1:1c shows the predicate noun to be indefinite: “a prophet,” “a man,” “a king,” etc. To render the predicate noun at John 1:1c as “God” (“the god” ho theos) violates John’s usage in all the rest of his writings.
No, it doesn't...and contextually (as I stated earlier) to render it as "a god" simply can not be done. Not only is Colwell's rule ignored by such a rendering, but it also conflicts with the rest of the passage, to wit (Excerpt John 1:1-14):
V2-4:
The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
V10:
He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
V14:
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us....
Who is the creator of the world and the giver of life? The God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob; or some lesser god?
Or perhaps John as a Jew really didn't understand the concept of monotheism? For to (full circle) translate John 1:1 as "a god" is to declare that there is another, separate god with all the creative and life giving powers of the true God.
I'm afraid that this is a case of straining a gnat while swallowing a camel.
It’s amazing that one would think John would adopt and adapt the pagan Stoic philosophical concept of the Logos.
Why so? Are you not aware that Paul in his epistles quotes Greek philosophers to make his point? It does us no good to explain something to someone unless we put it into a form using terms that they can understand. Even today (as an example), the Waodani refer to the bible as "God's carvings", Christianity as "God's trail" and death as "jumping the great boa".
It is generally recognized that John was writing his Gospel for Hellenized (Greek-influenced) Jews (who would be most familiar with the Logos concept of Philo of Alexandria).
“The outstanding Alexandrian Jew is, of course, Philo Judaeus (20 B.C.-A.D. 50). .... It has been said rightly that the history of Christian philosophy ‘began not with a Christian but a Jew,’ namely Philo of Alexandria.” - p. 35, The Rise of Christianity, W. H. C. Frend (trinitarian), 1985, Fortress Press.
An equal number of scholars would say that John was writing to the gentile (sic Greek) world at large, but really it's a moot point. The salient point is the extensive use of Greek concept found throughout the Gospel as a method of presenting the Christ.
Words in brackets [ ] have been added by me.
“The idea of a Logos, an immanent reason in the world, is one that meets us under various modifications in many ancient systems of thought, - Indian, Egyptian, Persian. In view of the religious syncretism of the second century, it is barely possible that these extraneous theologies may have exercised some influence on the Fourth Evangelist, but there can be little doubt in regard to the main source from which his Logos doctrine was derived. It had come down to him through Philo, after its final development in Greek philosophy.” - p. 146.
Immanent reason...the mind/reason of God...the rest is speculation, and the main source is not Philo but the stoics.
“…. every verse in the Prologue offers striking analogies to corresponding sayings of Philo. We have seen reason to believe that John had acquainted himself directly with the works of the Alexandrian thinker, and consciously derived from them.” - p. 154, The Fourth Gospel, Its purpose and Theology, E. F. Scott, D.D.
Metzger, Bruce, and Lightfoot would probably take exception to the last sentence...One scholar does not a majority make.
I would also point out that both in this and the previous quote that historically, there is no evidence that the Apostle John had any contact with Philo. In fact, considering that Philo was a Hellenistic Jew in Alexandria Egypt who is barely received or mentioned within Judaism, who alienated the Hebraic Jews by terming them:
"The sophists of literalness", and who died in AD 50...It is highly unlikely that he would have had any influence on John the fisherman growing up in Galilee, nor upon John the Apostle who drew his theology from both his Hebraic Jewish upbringing and a man he personally knew: Jesus.
Although John undoubtedly was familiar with this in his later time in Ephesus, John's
logos and Philo's
logos are sufficiently different enough to cast doubts on John "borrowing" from Philo.
After searching a bit, I found a discussion here:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/logos.html
Philo appeals to certain Christians, but was not well though of in his own time among the Hebraic Jews.
After discussing all other trinitarian-proposed origins of John’s concept of the Logos (including, of course, those of the Stoics; the OT Wisdom concept; etc.) and rejecting them all, a respected trinitarian work concludes:
“In the question of the origin of the Logos-concept [by John], pre-eminent significance is therefore to be attributed to Hellenistic Judaism [Philo].” - p. 1117, vol. 3, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan.
“Philo, the famous Jewish philosopher, .... is the most important example of the Hellenized Jews outside Palestine... he believed wholly in the Mosaic scriptures and in one God whose chief mediator with the world is the Logos” - Philo, vol. 5, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, 1988.
Even the noted Hastings’ Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics tells us that John must be referring to Philo’s conception of the Logos:
“It is clear from the tone of the Prologue [John 1:1-18] that Philo’s conception of the Logos, or something akin to it, was already familiar to those for whom the Evangelist [John] wrote. No explanation of the word Logos is given [anywhere in the entire Gospel]; and almost every verse in this Prologue might be paralleled from Philo [and only Philo].” - p. 136, vol. 8.
All that I see here is a validation of my earlier assertion as to the synonymous meaning of
logos.
Philo in fact, being heavily influenced by Greek stoic philosophy went even further in assigning meaning of logos to include "
the wisdom of God".
Here when you write:
No explanation of the word Logos is given [anywhere in the entire Gospel]; and almost every verse in this Prologue might be paralleled from Philo [and only Philo].”
I must point out that the phrase is "might", and the the insertion of [and only Philo] is your opinion only. Once again, the common cultural usage of logos pre-dates Philo by several hundred years, and is found both in the writing of Plato and Aristotle who influenced Philo to the point that he (Philo) is considered a Middle Platonist Philosopher.
Philo (who lived in Alexandria Egypt about 20 B.C. - 50 A.D.), the best-known, most-respected Hellenistic Jewish theologian by those living in the first and second centuries, clearly and repeatedly taught that the Logos is a god (one lesser than God) and showed this in his writing by using theos (θεὸς) without the definite article (“a god”) to refer to the Logos but used theos with the definite article (ὁ θεὸς) when referring to God ('the god,' ho theos).
Since John clearly based much of his Logos statements on Philo’s concept, we might expect him also to use theos without the article (“a god”) to refer to the Logos. And that is exactly what he did at John 1:1c!
So then, you are saying that we must accept that Philo the Jewish apologist rejects the concept of monotheism in favor of polytheism; and furthermore that we must accept
ex nihilo that John bases his use of logos solely on Philo's interpretation?
I must say...that's a real stretch.
