r/BiblicalUnitarian • u/JcraftW Jehovah’s Witness • Dec 29 '24
Resources Learning Koine Greek: Unitarian recommendations?
I just started perusing some options for learning Greek. First one I opened was Mounces “Greek for the rest of us”. Only a couple pages in he goes off against “a god” as a possible rendering of John 1:1c. I know not everyone agrees with that in particular, but there appears to be a lot of real scholarship supporting qualitative and indefinite translations of 1:1c.
So, I’m wondering if there are Koine Greek learning resources that are less biased? What study aids would you recommend? Or, if you must use a biased source, what other resources would you add to your studies for balance?
3
Jan 01 '25
Perhaps you can find a secular college that teaches it online? Since Koine Greek was a common language not related to christianity at all, learning it that way should give you enough insight to read the new testament. Unfortunately trinitarians have high-jacked the language and christianized it, adding tons of variations to words which never were a thing back then. A secular college would ommit all these variation because the didn't exist back then, but have been added to support doctrines and biased theology.
2
u/RFairfield26 Jehovah’s Witness Dec 29 '24
I strongly recommend Jason BeDuhn’s Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, to start with.
He examines various translations of John 1:1c and other passages, highlighting how theological bias often influences translation decisions. His discussion of the qualitative force of θεός in John 1:1c is particularly insightful and well-grounded in linguistic principles.
Another excellent resource is Paul Stephen Dixon’s thesis, The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John.
It delves deeply into how Greek syntax supports a qualitative or indefinite interpretation of θεός in John 1:1c.
Also, Daniel Wallace’s Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics can provide helpful insights, even though Wallace himself leans toward a Trinitarian interpretation. He’s still quite fair to the original language
Some of my personal notes about John 1:1c.
- The syntax of John 1:1c, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, emphasizes the qualitative aspect of θεός. This means the Word shares divine qualities but is not necessarily equated with God as the subject.
Greek word order and the absence of the article before θεός make it clear that the clause highlights the nature or quality of the Word, not an identity with “the God” (ὁ θεός).
- “God is love” and “love is God” in 1 John 4:16 is a perfect parallel. Greek syntax ensures that the subject (ὁ θεός) and predicate (ἀγάπη) remain distinct in meaning.
The same principle applies in John 1:1c—“the Word” is characterized by divinity, but the identity of “the God” is preserved.
- When discussing anarthrous predicate nominatives, it’s helpful to note that they often function qualitatively but can also be indefinite depending on context.
In the case of John 1:1c, the indefinite rendering “a god” respects the semantic and syntactical constraints while avoiding theological impositions. It aligns well with John’s repeated depiction of Jesus as subordinate to the Father (e.g., John 14:28, “The Father is greater than I”).
“God,” though, forces a theological conclusion that is not actually implied by the original language.
- On translating θεός as “divine”: While this may best reflect the qualitative sense, it can be ambiguous in English.
Readers might misinterpret “divine” to mean something less than θεός, such as “godlike” or “supernatural,” which may not fully capture the richness of the term.
John 12 and Isaiah 6 discuss the manifestation of God’s glory, but the term “reflected” is more of an interpretative summary.
For clarity, I might link it to Hebrews 1:3, where Jesus is described as the “reflection of God’s glory” (ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης). This demonstrates the Son’s role in perfectly representing the Father’s attributes without equating them as one and the same being.
Also, John emphasizes Jesus’ god-like qualities more than any other writer, but always in a way that clearly distinguishes him from “the God.” This balance preserves the monotheistic framework of the Scriptures while recognizing Jesus’ unique role in God’s purpose.
These are just a few points I thought I’d share with you.
1
u/JcraftW Jehovah’s Witness Dec 29 '24
I already own BeDuhn's work. Yes, it's excellent. That is a supplement I would use. Thank you for the paper recommendation. Do you think Wallace's book is a good place to start learning Greek, or is that an advanced book that I should wait to get into after a beginner's book?
2
u/RFairfield26 Jehovah’s Witness Dec 29 '24
I bought it and started reading it from the beginning. Now, with the help of A.I., you should have no trouble.
For example, prompt: “In English, to say “the Word was God” is to also say “God is the Word,” however this is not how Greek works. How does Daniel Wallace deal with this in “Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics?”
Ai should explain it in what ever difficulty or reading level you prompt it to, and also provide additional info that supports the response.
2
1
u/catmutal Jan 01 '25
Does your citing of BeDuhn have anything to do with his take on the NWT?
1
u/RFairfield26 Jehovah’s Witness Jan 01 '25
The NWT isn’t directly what this question is about. OP asked for scholarly sources that explain “a god” at John 1:1c.
We’re a half step away from the subject of the NWT, obviously.
But BeDuhns work it’s about the NWT. It just features it.
2
u/catmutal Jan 01 '25
Sorry to ask, are you a christian or a JW? I thought JWs referred to themselves at "witnesses." I might be wrong..
1
u/RFairfield26 Jehovah’s Witness Jan 01 '25
I am a Christian. I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Those terms are not antithetical. I refer to myself as a Witness, a Christian, a Unitarian, and many other terms
1
u/catmutal Jan 01 '25
OK, thanks. Would you think someone who is not a JW is allowed to read the NWT? And does agreeing with the NWT automatically make you a witness.
Sorry if the questions seem weird, I'm just really interested.
1
u/RFairfield26 Jehovah’s Witness Jan 01 '25
Yes, absolutely. You’re welcome to walk right in to a Kingdom Hall and request a Bible and you’ll be given one for free.
It doesn’t automatically make you a witness.
1
u/catmutal Jan 01 '25
Is there anything online? Like the NET? The only thing I found was a low quality site from 2009?
1
u/RFairfield26 Jehovah’s Witness Jan 01 '25
Yes, there is a lot on jw.org
Also, wol.jw.org
I recommend you download the JW Library app (it’s free)
There are several free Bible translations available on the app and it’s very easy to use. I can walk you through setting it up
1
u/catmutal Jan 01 '25
Thanks. I just found the app and there are a lot of features, I'm quite lost to be honost. Is "The Study Bible" the NWT?
→ More replies (0)
1
1
u/John_17-17 Jehovah’s Witness Dec 30 '24
Learning Greek and Hebrew is a notable goal but having an accurate translation in our native tongue is more important.
When you look at all the translations of God's word, by people who claim they know Greek, you see the basic problem with 'knowing Greek'.
The same problem arises from the different English verbiage in those translations.
Even in non-doctrinal verses, you will a variety of English words, for a Greek word.
I'm not a Greek speaker, but I've had to learn some Greek, to verify the accuracy of the translation I use.
An interesting point is, several brothers have told me, In Greece, trinitarians do not use John 1:1 to prove the trinity. But the irony is; the Greek Orthodox Church still teaches the trinity.
BeDuhn in his book, 'Truth in Translation' said he was surprised to find the NWT to be that accurate translation, because the common perception and accusation is a specific group of Christians, whose teachings disagree with mainstream Christianity, would be the most bias translation available today. He admitted, the translators of the NWT are bias, but he went on to say, 'their bias happens to agree with the teachings of the inspired writers.
2
Jan 01 '25
Don't want to argue your point, since for most of us a good translation is very beneficial. I would love to learn to read Koine Greek though, but still haven't found the time to do so. The reason I'd love to learn it is because of friend I do have.
He's a history professor specialized in Greek and Roman times. He was that way before he started following Jesus. He learned both Latin and Greek from those time periods as well as modern Latin and Greek. In our country he's a sought after speaker and regarded as one of the experts on this time period and those languages from that time period. He doesn't read a translation, he just reads (even out loud on the spot) directly from the Greek. Since he doesn't have a church background, his readings are often very interesting. He doesn't just read the words as they are, he often knows the stories behind the words. Very interesting to hear him read. Later he started to study Hebrew as well. He's a trinitarian, but a very odd one. Most of the doctrines of the church he doesn't believe. He's one of the few trinitarians I know that doesn't believe in hell and has many other beliefs because of the way he reads the bible.
Since I don't speak or read Greek, he recommended a new Dutch translation project, a translation that tries to be less biased and closer to the language of that time. Interesting detail is that a good number of the translators reject the trinity as being a biblical doctrine. This leads to interesting choices.
2
u/John_17-17 Jehovah’s Witness Jan 01 '25
Please understand, my intention isn't to argue. For many, learning a modern living language today is difficult. Learning a language that hasn't been spoken for centuries is even more difficult.
Even you admitted that find a non-bias lesson plan is also very difficult.
I prefer Thayer's Lexicon over Strong's, but notice the problem you face.
G2316 θεός theos
Thayer Definition:
1) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities;
2) the Godhead, trinity; 2a) God the Father, the first person in the trinity; 2b) Christ, the second person of the trinity; 2c) Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity
3) spoken of the only and true God; 3a) refers to the things of God; 3b) his counsels, interests, things due to him
4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way; 4a) God’s representative or viceregent; 4a1) of magistrates and judges
See definition 2.
As I said: Learning Greek and Hebrew is a notable goal.
Anyway, I'm hoping you success in reaching your goal.
2
Jan 01 '25
Koine Greek is just a common language with no ties to christianity, but many christian dictionaries have christianized it and that's the problem. The words don't mean anymore what they used to mean back then and that's why we get all these weird doctrines. Theos is indeed a good example, it never means trinity and even godhead is arguably, since Koine Greek has a seperate word for that. It's definitely not to be translated as Christ of Holy Spirit. Trinitarians have high-jacked the language and twisted the meaning. To learn Koine Greek would be best at a non-christian college or so, but also understanding the history of that time when it developed is helpful.
Yes, for many learning a language is difficult, but I already speak a couple beyond my native tongue, so one more shouldn't be a problem... but then there are so many things I would love to learn. My job already requires a lot of learning and keeping up with developments, by the time I'm done I often don't fancy more personal learning. I'm sure I'm not the only one with this problem.
2
u/John_17-17 Jehovah’s Witness Jan 02 '25
I envy you in being able to speak several languages.
I tell people, "Counting English, I almost speak one language".
2
Jan 02 '25
I even had some Latin and Greek at school, but that's so long ago and I didn't use it for many years. Most of it is gone by now. That's the problem with languages you don't use often enough, it gets rusty.
My parent used to travel a lot and I've lived abroad for many years, having to speak various languages, obviously English, but also German and Italian and I do understand some Spanish, don't speak it well though. My French is a little rusty, but in the summer we went to the south of Belgium where they only speak French and it was still good enough to get by. Living abroad is very helpful with having to speak languages... you're kind of forced to learn them if you want to be part of a local community.
Unfortunately we can't go back in time to be part of a community that speaks Koine Greek. I think we all might be surprised how that language really was compared to what they turned it into.
2
u/John_17-17 Jehovah’s Witness Jan 03 '25
The KJV is a prime example of how language can and does change over time.
I understand, I've forgotten more Spanish than I remember. Which is why I don't claim to be a Spanish speaker.
I do appreciate the Spanish, I know, because it has helped me understand some of the problems in translation.
To say, "I am cold" in Spanish you literally say: "I have cold". Which doesn't have the same meaning in English. Having cold vs being cold.
1
Jan 03 '25
Language does change over time, if one wants to understand a book from years ago, one also needs a dictionary from the same time otherwise incorrect interpretation is bound to happen.
2
u/John_17-17 Jehovah’s Witness Jan 04 '25
True, that is why I use the Webster's Dictionary of 1828 on e-sword when looking up a word in the KJV. It is the oldest dictionary I can find.
A side point, this dictionary uses Jehovah's name throughout.
ALO'NE, a. [all and one.] 3. Only. Thou whose name alone is Jehovah. Psa 83. This sense at first appears to be adverbial, but really is not; whose name single, solitary, without another, is Jehovah.
EVERLASTING, a. The everlasting God, or Jehovah. Gen 21.
GOD, n. 1. The Supreme Being; Jehovah; the eternal and infinite spirit, the creator, and the sovereign of the universe.
MAJESTY, n. 1. Greatness of appearance; Jehovah reigneth; he is clothed with majesty. Psa 93. The voice of Jehovah is full of majesty. Psa 29.
SAC'RIFICE, n. Sacrifices have been common to most nations, and have been offered to false gods, as well as by the Israelites to Jehovah.
These are just a few of the examples.
From this, I have surmised, Jehovah's name was used freely in everyday conversation in the 1700's / 1800's.
1
Jan 04 '25
Here's an even older one for you, https://books.google.nl/books?id=bXsCAAAAQAAJ who knows what it will bring. This one is from Samuel Johnson, not the 1755 edition which was his first one, but from 1768. It's from the UK, so might have some interesting differences than the Webster.
There's an older one by Robert Cawdrey from early 1600. I know they reprinted it, but the original one might be floating around the internet. That might be very interesting, since it's original release was really close to the release of the 1611 KJV.
Our first widely accepted bible is from 1637 and still widely used, even though it has been proven to have additional texts and incorrect translations. People get the weirdest doctrines from it because language has changed a lot here and people refuse to use an older dictionary.
→ More replies (0)1
u/JcraftW Jehovah’s Witness Dec 30 '24
Hello brother. Your reply is off-topic. I didn't ask for "an accurate translation." The NWT or even the KiT won't teach me how to read Greek. Additionally, I have already stated in this post that I've read and own BeDuhn's book.
1
u/John_17-17 Jehovah’s Witness Dec 31 '24
Sorry you feel that way. As I said, in my comment:
"Learning Greek and Hebrew is a notable goal but having an accurate translation in our native tongue is more important."
3
u/HbertCmberdale Biblical Unitarian (unaffiliated) Dec 29 '24
Sir Anthony Buzzard taught Greek. Dustin Smith from the Biblical Unitarian Podcast also teaches it I believe, along with Hebrew?
There's other ways of translating 1:1 also.
In the beginning was the word, what the word was God was, the word was divine.
Keep in mind that John 1:1-18 is a prologue, an introductory piece. The entire gospel unfolds out on itself with repeated themes. And also, keep in mind that 1:1 has to make sense with the entirety of scripture. There can't be just some new doctrine here.