Author of “The Little Book of Revelation.” Get your copy now!!https://www.xlibris.com/en/bookstore/bookdetails/597424-the-little-book-of-revelation
447 posts
Who Wrote The Gospels? Are They Giving Us History? Is Luke 1:1-4 A Case Study?
Who Wrote the Gospels? Are They Giving us History? Is Luke 1:1-4 a Case Study?
Eli Kittim
I think we need to seriously reevaluate our traditional view of the New Testament. Almost everything we believe about it is wrong. Christianity is not a historical religion, and it doesn’t need to be defended through archaeology or historical apologetics (e.g. listing eyewitnesses, or proving the resurrection), as is often done. Similarly, the gospels are not historical documents that correspond to real historical events. One would be hard put to reconstruct the so-called “historical Jesus” through fictional/theological stories that are largely based on the Old Testament.
For example, if Luke wrote his gospel based on other people’s opinions (Lk 1:1-4), we are in big trouble! Here’s what probably happened. There was no oral Aramaic tradition.
As scholars are now saying, the New Testament was probably written by the Greco-Roman literati (i.e. the educated upper class/intelligentsia). That’s precisely why the New Testament was composed, for the most part, in Greece and Rome. And that also explains why it was written in Greek by highly literate authors who didn’t understand the finer points of Jewish life in first century Palestine.
The New Testament authors must have been members of the Greco-Roman upper crust and very well-known, and that’s probably why they didn’t add their names to the texts. Some of the potential candidates who may have had a hand in writing the New Testament are Philo, Plutarch, and Josephus. And that’s probably why Luke seems to be familiar with Josephus’ works (Steve Mason). At any rate, it was obviously more than one writer, and all the authors, without exception, must have had transcendent experiences of God. There were no interviews and no “memories” involved, as Luke suggests. Every word they put on paper was coming directly from God. The New Testament is basically written in the form of prophetical writing (i.e. the genre called “apocalyptic literature”) because it’s based exclusively on visions and revelations (see Gal. 1:11-12; 1 Pet. 1:10-11)!
But we have completely misunderstood and misinterpreted these books. The problem is not with the New Testament; it’s with us. If you carefully analyze the New Testament, you’ll find that the epistles give us the “real” Jesus (meaning the actual *timing* of the parousia), whereas the gospels only give us a literary, fictional/theological rendering based on Old Testament material (intertextuality). That’s what’s going on!
Here’s the problem with our traditional interpretation of the preface to Luke’s Gospel. If Luke 1:1-4 is taken as prima facie evidence, then we’re no longer reading the word of God, but a case study. It’s as if Luke is saying: I interviewed someone, who knew someone, who knew someone, who knew one of the apostles. In other words, Luke is basing his gospel on the memories (or false memories) of some individuals. Is this the inspired word of God that we must now accept as eyewitness testimony? I think not!
There are many problems with that view.
First, if Luke is giving us reports from interviews, then his gospel would certainly not be considered as the inspired word of God, but rather a case study which contains the questionable memories of second generation Christians, who may or may not know much, or who may not remember things accurately.
Second, the composite work of Luke-Acts is a fictional composition. The Book of Acts, especially, creates a head-on collision with the authentic Pauline corpus, particularly with Galatians. Not to mention that many of the details in the story are seemingly fabricated (e.g. Pharisees working for Sadducees, the Sanhedrin had no jurisdiction in Syria, Paul’s journeys are contradicted, etc.), and even the term “Christian” was not used until the beginning of the 2nd century. That’s why scholars like EP Sanders and Paula Fredriksen view Acts as a work of historical fiction. In fact, Dr. Fredriksen seriously doubts whether the author of Luke-Acts was Paul's companion. According to her, Luke doesn’t seem to know Paul very well. Bottom line, if you want to understand the actual TIMING of the Birth, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus, read the epistles, not the gospels!
How Did God Inspire the Biblical Authors?
More Posts from Eli-kittim
Who or What is the Ark of the Covenant?
Eli Kittim
The Ark of the Covenant was a gold-plated wooden chest that housed the two tablets of the covenant (Heb. 9:4). Jewish folklore holds that the ark of the covenant disappeared sometime around 586 B.C. when the Babylonian empire destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. Throughout the centuries, many writers, novelists, ufologists, and religious authors have invented two kinds of wild and adventurous stories about the ark of the covenant. They either talk about fearless treasure-hunters, archaeologists, and paleographers who went hunting for the Lost Ark of the Covenant, or about ancient alien civilizations that made contact with humans in prehistoric times. This has led some authors to the startling conclusion that the ark of the covenant may have been part of a highly advanced ancient-alien technology. But the Biblical data do not support such outrageous and outlandish conclusions.
From a Biblical standpoint, both the “ark of the covenant” and “Noah’s Ark” are symbols that represent salvation in the death of the Messiah. Isaiah 53:5 reads thusly:
he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that
brought us peace, and with his wounds we
are healed.
We can also call it the covenant of salvation based on the atoning death of Christ (Heb. 9:17). If you pay close attention to the biblical symbols and details, you’ll notice that both Noah’s ark and the ark of the covenant represent some type of casket, which signifies the atoning death of the Messiah (that saves humanity). Christ’s covenant is based on his death. Without Christ’s death there is no salvation. That’s what ultimately redeems humanity from death and hell, and allows for resurrection and glorification to occur. Christ, then, is the ark of the covenant, also represented by Noah’s ark (which saves a few faithful humans who believe in God). The caskets are of different sizes. The smaller casket (the ark of the covenant) could only carry one person (the Messiah), whereas the larger one (Noah’s Ark) can accommodate all of humanity (symbolizing those who are baptized into Christ’s death). According to the Book “After the Flood,” by Bill Cooper, “The Hebrew word for ark, tebah, may be related to the Egyptian word db't, = ‘coffin.’ “ Romans 6:3 declares:
Do you not know that all of us who have
been baptized into Christ Jesus were
baptized into his death?
In other words, it’s not Christ’s incarnation but rather his death that saves humanity. All those who follow him and are baptized into his death are saved!
How is Christ the “ark of the covenant”? Christ is the Word of God (Jn 1:1), the Logos, or the Law of God (the Torah)! That’s why the ark of the covenant doesn’t dwell on earth but in heaven. Rev 11:19 reads:
Then God’s temple in heaven was opened,
and the ark of his covenant was seen within
his temple. There were flashes of lightning,
rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake,
and heavy hail.
Who dwells within God’s throne-room, within God’s temple, and is represented by the ark of the covenant? Answer: Jesus Christ! A similar scenario takes place in Revelation 21:2-3:
And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem,
coming down out of heaven from God,
prepared as a bride adorned for her
husband. And I heard a loud voice from the
throne saying, ‘Behold, the dwelling place of
God is with man. He will dwell with them,
and they will be his people, and God himself
will be with them as their God.’
Notice that the terms “God” and “the dwelling place of God” are used interchangeably. In other words, the metaphors of the dwelling place, the tent of meeting (ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ θεοῦ; i.e. the tabernacle), the temple and its sacrificial system, as well as the ark of the covenant, all represent God and signify the blood of the covenant or the blood of the lamb (1 Pet. 1:19; Rev. 7:14; 12:11)! Christ is not only the mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5), but also the high priest who offers up his own life for the salvation of humanity (Heb. 7:17). According to Acts 4:12, there is “no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved”: not Moses, or Muhammad, or Buddha, or Krishna, or Confucius, or Allah, or Yahweh. According to Philippians 2:10-11:
at the name of Jesus every knee should
bow, in heaven and on earth and under the
earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus
Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the
Father.
Therefore, he who is within the throne-room of God, and “among the people,” is none other than the Second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, who “will dwell with them” forevermore (Rev. 21:3). It’s a throwback to Leviticus, which prophesied the incarnation of God, but which the Jews misunderstood and misinterpreted. Leviticus 26:12:
I will be ever present in your midst: I will be
your God, and you shall be My people.
Compare Revelation 21.3:
He will dwell with them, and they will be his
people, and God himself will be with them
as their God.
The Da Vinci Code Versus The Gospels
By Eli Kittim 🎓
Bart Ehrman was once quoted as saying: “If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it.” This is an amusing anecdote that I’d like to use as a springboard for this short essay to try to show that it’s impossible to separate literary characters from the literature in which they are found. For example, when Ehrman says, “If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it,” his comment presupposes that James is a real historical figure. But how can we affirm the historicity of a literary character offhand when the so-called “history” of this character is solely based on, and intimately intertwined with, the literary New Testament structures? And if these literary structures are not historical, what then? The fact that the gospels were written anonymously, and that there were no eyewitnesses and no firsthand accounts, and that the events in Jesus’ life were, for the most part, borrowed from the Old Testament, seems to suggest that they were written in the literary genre known as theological fiction. After all, the gospels read like Broadway plays!
Let me give you an analogy. Dan Brown writes novels. All his novels, just like the gospels, contain some historical places, figures, and events. But the stories, in and of themselves, are completely fictional. So, Ehrman’s strawman argument is tantamount to saying that if we want to examine the historicity of Professor Robert Langdon——who is supposedly a Harvard University professor of history of art and symbology——we’ll have to focus on his relationship with Sophie Neveu, a cryptologist with the French Judicial Police, and the female protagonist of the book. Ehrman’s earlier anecdote would be akin to saying: “if Robert Langdon did not exist, you would think Sophie would know it.”
But we wouldn’t know about Robert Langdon if it wasn’t for The Da Vinci Code. You can’t separate the character Robert Langdon from The Da Vinci Code and present him independently of it because he’s a character within that book. Therefore, his historicity or lack thereof depends entirely on how we view The Da Vinci Code. If The Da Vinci Code turns out to be a novel (which in fact it is), then how can we possibly ask historians to give us their professional opinions about him? It’s like asking historians to give us a historical assessment of bugs bunny? Was he real? So, as you can see, it’s all based on the literary structure of The Da Vinci Code, which turns out to be a novel!
By comparison, the historicity of Jesus depends entirely on how we view the literary structure of the gospel literature. Although modern critical scholars view the gospels as theological documents, they, nevertheless, believe that they contain a historic core or nucleus. They also think that we have evidence of an oral tradition. We do not! There are no eyewitnesses and no firsthand accounts. All we have about the life and times of Jesus are the gospel narratives, which were composed approximately 40 to 70 years after the purported events by anonymous Greek authors who never met Jesus. And they seem to be works of theological fiction. So where is the historical evidence that these events actually happened? We have to believe they happened because the gospel characters tell us so? It’s tantamount to saying that the events in The Da Vinci Code actually happened because Robert Langdon says so. But if the story is theological, so are its characters. Thus, the motto of the story is: don’t get caught up in the characters. The message is much more important! As for those who look to Josephus’ Antiquities for confirmation, unfortunately——due to the obvious interpolations——it cannot be considered authentic. Not to mention that Josephus presumably would have been acquainted with the gospel stories, most of which were disseminated decades earlier.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to downplay the seriousness of the gospel message. I’m simply trying to clarify it. The gospels are inspired, but they were never meant to be taken literally. I’m also a believer and I have a high view of scripture. The message of Christ is real. But when will the Jesus-story play out is not something the gospels can address. Only the epistles give us the real Jesus!
🎥 Eli of Kittim
Rumble Channel 🎥
🕎 Eli Kittim On Bible Prophecy ✝️
————————————-
🎓📚 Award-Winning Goodreads Author & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 📚🎓
————————————-
🌏🪐🌓🌍🌖🌎🪐
The Genesis 6 Oracle: The Birth of the Gods
By Independent Scholar and Goodreads Author Eli Kittim 🎓📚
The Sons of God Are Not Extraterrestrials: They Are Supernatural Spirits
Erich von Däniken is one of the first figures to popularize the idea that extraterrestrials visited Earth a long time ago and influenced human civilization. And, since then, many authors have picked up this idea and continued to expand on it, using mythologies from around the world, including the Bible. For example, Tim Alberino, Graham Hancock, and many other such writers——who also promote theories on alternative history and ancient civilizations——believe that there was an advanced alien civilization on earth, with very advanced technology, that was wiped out by a comet impact c. 12,900 to 11,700 years ago (aka “the younger dryas impact”).
However, it is important to note that mainstream science refutes the ancient alien-civilization theory. Books on these topics are generally in the realm of science-fiction, pseudoarchaeology, pseudohistory, and pseudoscience. These writings have not undergone rigorous scholarly peer review and have not been published in any credible academic or Biblical journals.
As regards the Scriptures, ancient astronaut theorists typically try to link alien civilizations and extraterrestrials to the Genesis 6 account, when “the sons of God” (called the “watchers” in the apocryphal book of Enoch) had supposed “sexual relations” with human women, whose offspring were said to be giants, the so-called “Nephilim” (cf. Jude 1.6). But this is reading too much into the Biblical story. The Bible is neither a sci‑fi novel, nor a historical treatise. It is a book about an invisible spiritual or metaphysical reality that interacts with our own.
What is more, the Bible has many different literary genres, such as prophecy, poetry, wisdom, parable, apocalyptic, narrative, and history. It is obviously inappropriate to interpret poetry or parable in the same way that we would interpret history because that would ultimately lead to logical absurdities. Alas, the history of Biblical interpretation is riddled with exegetes who have erroneously tried to force **metaphors** into a **literal interpretation,** which of course cannot be done without creating ridiculous effects that you only encounter in sci-fi films. This view creates logical absurdities, such as talking animals, trees of immortality that are guarded by aliens with lightsabers, fruits literally producing evil after consumption, people turning into pillars of salt, mythological beasts with multiple heads that are populating our planet, and the like. Not only does this eisegesis defy the actual interpretation that is given by scripture itself, but it also leads to complete and utter nonsense.
Bible Translations Versus The Hebrew Text
Now if we turn our attention to the original Hebrew text, nothing in the Genesis 6 narrative suggests an advanced alien civilization of extraterrestrials, nor can one adduce that the Genesis 6 narrative should be taken literally as a historical account. Unfortunately, some English Bible versions have mistranslated certain words by inserting their own *theological interpretations* that are not found in the original Hebrew text. For example, The New American Bible renders Genesis 6.4 as follows:
the sons of God had intercourse with the
daughters of human beings.
The NET Bible similarly says:
the sons of God were having sexual
relations with the daughters of humankind.
The New Living Translation also adds words and images that are not found in the original text:
the sons of God had intercourse with
women.
These are not only unfaithful translations of the original Hebrew text, but they are also bad interpretations that suggest interbreeding between spirits and mortals. Biologically, people can interbreed with one another, but people cannot interbreed with animals or spirits. This, then, shows a fundamental hermeneutical error in trying to understand Genesis 6 in purely physical, biological, or historical terms. According to Wikipedia:
Sons of God (Hebrew: בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים,
romanized: Bənē hāʾĔlōhīm, literally: "sons
of the Elohim") is a phrase used in the
Tanakh or Old Testament and in Christian
Apocrypha. The phrase is also used in
Kabbalah where bene elohim are part of
different Jewish angelic hierarchies.
So, the sons of god (οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ LXX) are spirits (see Ps. 82), while the daughters of men are human beings. The Genesis 6.2 account of the sons of god——who supposedly marry the daughters of men——is an allusion to a “spiritual marriage,” not a physical one, as when a *spiritual rebirth* in God (Jn 3.5-7) is like being married to God. That’s why the believers in Christ are said to be the bride of Christ (see 2 Cor 11.2)! Similarly, Genesis 6.2 is alluding to “supernatural beings“ (the so-called “fallen ones”) who entered women and united themselves to them in spirit, thus giving them a sort of Faustian *spiritual rebirth.* In Genesis 6.4, Young’s Literal Translation reads thusly:
The fallen ones were in the earth in those
days, and even afterwards when sons of
God come in unto daughters of men, and
they have borne to them -- they are the
heroes, who, from of old, are the men of
name.
It is, essentially, a *theological* (not a historical) account that tries to explain the origins of evil and how wickedness multiplied on earth (Gen. 6.5):
The LORD saw that the wickedness of man
was great in the earth, and that every
intention of the thoughts of his heart was
only evil continually.
The Hebrew word וַיִּקְח֤וּ (way·yiq·ḥū) means “they took” (Gen. 6.2). That is to say, the sons of God took נָשִׁ֔ים (nā·šîm) “wives” or “women” (Gen 6.2) in the *spiritual* sense of inhabiting or possessing them. The language of Genesis 6 suggests that they entered them. In Gen. 6.4, the Hebrew term יָבֹ֜אוּ (yā·ḇō·’ū) means “to come in,” or “go in.” But it is not explicitly referring to sexual intercourse, as most people mistakenly assume. Moreover, the Hebrew text in Gen. 6.4 doesn’t actually say that the earthly women bore human children to the sons of God. The text uses the term וְיָלְד֖וּ (wə·yā·lə·ḏū), which means “bore” or “brought forth, but it doesn’t say “children” per se. Readers often assume that the “mighty men … of old” were the “human children” that the mortal women supposedly bore.
But we must be very careful, here, because that’s not exactly what the text is saying. Notice that the *union* between the sons of god and the mortal women is initially spiritual, not biological. This spiritual union ultimately brought forth הַגִּבֹּרִ֛ים (hag·gib·bō·rîm) “the mighty” אֲשֶׁ֥ר (’ă·šer) “who” [were] מֵעוֹלָ֖ם (mê·‘ō·w·lām) “from ancient times” or “from eternity.” These were אַנְשֵׁ֥י (’an·šê) “men” הַשֵּֽׁם׃ (haš·šêm) of “the NAME” of God (Gen. 6.4). So, this spiritual union between spirits and mortals eventually *brought forth* embodied ancient spirits. These are obviously wicked spirits that deliberately possess human women for the purpose of giving birth to hybrids, such as the “Nephilim” or the so-called “giants.”
But, as I will demonstrate, we should not view these types of accounts as referring to a race of multiple giants but rather to the arrival of the gods, the superpowerful “giants that were from of old, the Heroes of fame” (Gen. 6.4). Therefore, even though this spiritual union will eventually give birth to an evil offspring in human history, the text is nevertheless trying to show the backstory to this event, namely, that what gave rise to it is a spiritual union, not a physical one!
The Births of Two Giants: The Virgin Birth and the Birth of the Antichrist
In fact, Genesis 6 sounds like a *reversal* of the virgin birth theme in which the Spirit of God impregnates a daughter of men, who then gives birth to a *giant,* a spirit from everlasting, namely, to God himself! So, while the gospels *prophesy* about the union of God’s Spirit with a mortal woman, bringing forth an everlasting spirit of God into the world of time and space, Genesis 6 seems to be *prophesying* about the same type of union, but this time between a dark spirit and a woman, bringing forth another ancient spirit, a man of renown, known as the Antichrist, whom the New Testament calls “the son of perdition,” “who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship” (2 Thess. 2.4), and “whose coming is after the working of Satan” (2 Thess. 2.9)!
Here’s an excerpt from chapter 10 (p. 225) of my book, “The Little Book of Revelation”:
The Bible affirms that ‘there were giants on
the earth in those days’! (Gen. 6:4, ‘New
King James’). These figures, which are
beyond human description, represent the
gods that have come down upon the earth
in the form of ‘Christ’ and ‘antichrist,’ to
whom scripture devotes a brief but
noteworthy depiction: ‘the mighty men who
were of old, men of renown’ (Gen 6:4).
Interestingly enough, in the apocryphal ancient text known as the Gospel of Peter, Jesus is said to be resurrected as a *Giant*! This is also alluded to in Rev 1.7:
Behold, He [Christ] is coming with the
clouds, and every eye will see Him.
From an eschatological perspective, the *giant Jesus* coming out of the tomb, in the Gospel of Peter (vv. 38-40), seems to be a *prophecy* which indicates that he will take the form of a *giant* at the end of days! A 6-foot man in the sky obviously cannot be seen by anyone, whereas a *giant* Jesus can be observed from many miles away, thus lending credence to the apocalyptic description in Rev. 1.7. Of all the end-time depictions of Christ, this is probably the most accurate portrayal because it seems to parallel many Biblical passages. For instance, it seems to fit with the *giant* Pauline Christ who will ultimately destroy the Antichrist “with the breath of his mouth” (2 Thess. 2.8). It’s also congruent with another Old Testament verse in which the Lord appears as a *colossal figure* who flies “Like birds” in order to “protect and deliver” Jerusalem (Isa. 31.5). Elsewhere, only a great figure of *immense proportion* can annihilate a giant dragon called Leviathan (Isa. 27.1 cf. Job 41.1; Ps 74.14). That’s precisely why we are told that “There were giants in the earth in those days” (Gen. 6.4). Which days? All the *prophecies* seem to converge on the end of days.
The exodus account is no different. If we compare the series of judgments that Moses inflicted upon “Egypt” to the final judgments in the Book of Revelation, we’ll notice that both descriptions appear to exhibit identical events taking place (see e.g. Ex. 10.1–20 [cf. Rev. 9.3]; Ex. 9.13–35 [cf. Rev. 16.21]; Ex. 9.1-7 [cf. Rev 6.8]; Ex. 7.14–24 [cf. Rev. 8.8; 16.3-4]; Ex. 7.25–8.15 [cf. Rev. 16.13]; Ex. 9.8–12 [cf. Rev. 16.2]; Ex. 10.21–29 [cf. Rev. 16.10])!
Why does Lk 17.30 compare Noah’s flood to the coming of Christ during the day of the Lord? Probably because these earlier Biblical narratives were trying to convey the same apocalyptic messages that we find in the New Testament. Moreover, the *giant* resurrected Jesus in the Gospel of Peter is the only version that seems to accurately portray the image of a towering figure on a white horse who “judges and makes war” (Rev. 19.11), and who can actually be seen from the earth (Rev. 1.7). By comparison, an average human being cannot possibly be seen “coming with the clouds of heaven” (cf. Dan. 7.13-14).
Similarly, the Antichrist also seems to be depicted as a *giant* who is incarnated on earth at the end of days! Case in point. In Revelation 9, the king of the locusts is likened to “a star that had fallen from heaven” to earth in the last days and who turns out to be a powerful figure that holds “the key to the … bottomless pit.” Later on in the chapter, he’s identified as the king of the locusts, “the angel of the bottomless pit” whose “name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek … Apollyon,” meaning “destroyer” (i.e. Antichrist)!
Similar to Genesis 6, there are many prophecies in the New Testament that allude to the future incarnation of Antichrist on earth. For example, the author of Luke 10.18 writes:
I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.
This same event——when the sons of god will come down to earth——is *prophesied* to take place at *the end of days* in Revelation 12.9:
And the great dragon was thrown down, the
serpent of old who is called the devil and
Satan, who deceives the whole world; he
was thrown down to the earth, and his
angels were thrown down with him.
Revelation 12.9 is a remarkably similar account of *the sons of god* that we find in Genesis 6! What is more, the future Antichrist will eventually be resurrected from the dead (see Rev 13.3, 14). And it appears that he, too, will be resurrected as a *giant,* causing people to marvel. Rev. 13.3-4 says:
I saw one of his heads as if it had been
fatally wounded, and his fatal wound was
healed. And the whole earth was amazed
and followed after the beast; they
worshiped the dragon because he gave his
authority to the beast; and they worshiped
the beast, saying, ‘Who is like the beast,
and who is able to wage war with him?’
Thus, Genesis 6, which talks about the giants, doesn’t appear to be historical, but rather prophetic! On the whole, the Bible is pointing to the messianic age——and specifically to the births of Christ and Antichrist——at the time of the end, just prior to the great and terrible day of the lord. Accordingly, Matthew 24.37 tells us that the days of Noah were *types* of the coming apocalypse:
For the coming of the Son of Man will be
just like the days of Noah.
It is also worth noting that Daniel 9.26 referred to the coming destruction as an eschatological flood:
And its end will come with a flood.
In stark contrast to what the authors on ancient civilizations are saying, the pivotal episode in human history concerning the final battle between the forces of light and the forces of darkness is in the future, not in the past. That’s precisely why the Great War between Christ and Antichrist will take place at the end of time! In the context of the end-times, Revelation 12.7 reads:
And there was war in heaven, Michael and
his angels waging war with the dragon. The
dragon and his angels waged war.
Conclusion
Authors on ancient civilizations typically talk about faraway planets, spaceships, and extraterrestrials. They usually don’t provide any credible references, aside from their literary fantasies and wild imaginations, and hence their claims appear to be unfounded. In addition, without any training whatsoever on biblical languages, textual criticism, or exegesis, they nevertheless offer outrageous interpretations based on a superficial reading of the Bible. Unbeknownst to them, many of the Old Testament stories are actually *types* that point to the *anti-types* (or fulfillments) in prophetic literature. Contrary to fundamentalists who read scripture literally, as if Noah’s flood literally happened, a close interpretation of the Bible reveals that the so-called “antediluvian” narrative of Genesis 6 is actually an apocalyptic oracle about the coming destruction during the day of the Lord in the end-times (2 Pet. 3.10)! We also know this because mainstream interdisciplinary science categorically rejects the notion of a global flood in earth’s history. According to Wikipedia:
Proponents of flood geology hold to a literal
reading of Genesis 6–9 and view its
passages as historically accurate; they use
the Bible’s internal chronology to place the
Genesis flood and the story of Noah’s Ark
within the last five thousand years.
Scientific analysis has refuted the key
tenets of flood geology. Flood geology
contradicts the scientific consensus in
geology, stratigraphy, geophysics, physics,
paleontology, biology, anthropology, and
archaeology. Modern geology, its sub-
disciplines and other scientific disciplines
utilize the scientific method. In contrast,
flood geology does not adhere to the
scientific method, making it a
pseudoscience.
——-
How Should We Translate John 1.1: “the Word was God,” or “God was the Word”?
By (native Greek speaker) Eli Kittim 🎓
John 1.1:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς
τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
John 1.1 is often broken down into 3 phrases:
Phrase 1: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος
Phrase 2: καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν
Phrase 3: καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
From the outset, before they even consider the process of biblical interpretation and exegesis, textual critics and Greek scholars set out to produce a faithful *translation* of the original Greek New Testament. Bear in mind that the processes of translation and interpretation are not the same. We expect the translation committees to translate (not to interpret) the text!
Therefore, a literal and accurate translation of the Greek language should correctly translate the last phrase of Jn 1.1 as “God was the word.” In other words, the third phrase of Jn 1.1 (καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος) should be translated exactly as it was written in the original Greek (for emphasis), not rearranged and reassembled (in the target language) as we would wish it would be. In the original Greek, the text doesn’t actually say that “the Word was God,” as most modern translations maintain:
That’s an interpretation!
Rather, the original Greek New Testament says that “God was the Word”! So, the *interpretative* rearrangement is forcing the critical reader to read it backwards, which neglects the emphasis of the word order in the original Greek. It’s as if we were told to read Hebrew backwards, from left to right. What is more, the third phrase of John 1.1 doesn’t actually say ὁ λόγος ἦν (the word was). It says θεὸς ἦν (God was). If the text wanted to emphasize that “the word was God,” the phrase would have been: καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεὸς. It would have been written as follows:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς
τὸν θεόν, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεὸς.
But that’s not what it says! To try to manipulate what the original Greek New Testament is actually emphasizing——by rearranging or *reinterpreting* it during the translation process——is equivalent to editing and, therefore, corrupting the “inspired” text.
Admittedly, the third phrase of Jn 1.1 is somewhat of a Gestalt configuration in which different *meanings* can arise depending on the angle from which it is viewed. One could make the *interpretative* argument that the original phrase “God was the Word” might be equivalent to or interchangeable with “the Word was God.” In other words, on an *exegetical* level, one could make the case that the phrase “the Word was God” might be the converse of “God was the Word.” I don’t deny that possibility on grammatical grounds. That is certainly worthy of exegetical consideration. But when we’re initially *translating* the text, we shouldn’t be interested in theories of exegesis. Rather, we should be entirely focused on producing a faithful translation, which precedes interpretation and subsequent theological ramifications.
In *interpreting* the third phrase of Jn 1.1, many textual scholars typically reverse the word-order of the original Greek phrase (via a grammatical rule) so that we’re forced to read the words backwards. According to this rule, we can determine the *subject* of a phrase if a noun falls into one of the following categories: a) if it’s a proper name; b) if it’s preceded by an article; or c) if it’s a personal pronoun. However, in contradistinction to this grammatical rule, θεὸς can actually be the subject that precedes the verb ἦν (here, a form of "to be"), while λόγος can be the predicate nominative. On the other hand, in order to identify θεὸς as the predicate nominative and λόγος as the subject, one has to invoke what is known as the “Subset Proposition" rule, or the "Convertible Proposition" rule. In other words, this alteration involves a complex set of esoteric grammatical assumptions and decisions which essentially turn the text upside down.
By contrast, the straightforward way of reading the text seems to be the smoothest and the most natural. Not to mention that the phrase “God was the Word” is actually a faithful translation, whereas the phrase “the Word was God” is merely an *interpretation.* I’m not arguing that the phrase “the Word was God” is a wrong interpretation. I’m arguing that it’s a wrong translation! In the critical edition, we must always let the reader know what the text ACTUALLY says, not our INTERPRETATION of what we think it might mean. That can go in the commentary section. In translating a text——if the word-order of the original Greek doesn’t make any sense——translators are allowed to rearrange the words in order for it to make sense. But this exception to the rule doesn’t apply here because the original Greek makes perfect sense! Therefore, our decision to abandon our fidelity to the lexical details and grammatical structures of the Greek New Testament makes us no better than the scribes who corrupted it.
Moreover, the decision to change the *meaning* of the text (or to *reinterpret* it) is done for obvious theological reasons. Christian translators have a theological axe to grind. In order to validate and uphold the Trinity, they want to maintain the *distinction* between God the Father (the first person of the Trinity) and the Word of God (the second person of the Trinity). Hence why they deliberately *translate* the last part of Jn 1.1 backwards. Because if they were to translate it as the author intended it, namely, that “God was the word,” it might give the wrong impression that there’s no distinction between the Father and the Word. However, the third phrase of Jn 1.1 is not necessarily making a *modalistic* theological claim that there’s no distinction between the Father and the Word. Rather, since the second phrase (καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν) clearly distinguished the two persons of the Trinity, the third phrase establishes their *ontological* unity by affirming that God was not simply separate from the Word, but that God himself was, in fact, the Word per se! After all, the first and second persons of the Trinity share one homoousion (essence): “I and the Father are one” (Jn 10.30)!
At any rate, this *interpretation* has become so wide spread, to such an extent that it has become a dogmatic and systematic standard, not only overriding or supplanting the original *translation* but also prompting modern translations to follow suit. It’s a case of special pleading where an *interpretation* has supplanted a *translation*!
However, there are many credible Bible translations that *translate* the last phrase of Jn 1.1 as “God was the Word”:
Coverdale Bible of 1535
In the begynnynge was the worde, and the
worde was with God, and God was ye
worde.
Smith's Literal Translation
In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and God was the Word.
Literal Emphasis Translation
In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and God was the Word.
Catholic Public Domain Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and God was the Word.
Lamsa Bible
THE Word was in the beginning, and that
very Word was with God, and God was that
Word.
Aramaic New Covenant: In the beginning
the Word having been and the Word having
been unto God and God having been the
Word.
Concordant Literal New Testament: In the
beginning was the word, and the word was
toward God, and God was the word.
Coptic Version of the New Testament: In
(the) beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and God was the Word.
Great Bible (Cranmer 1539): In the
begynnynge was the worde, and the worde
was wyth God: and God was the worde.
New English Bible: When all things began,
the Word already was. The Word dwelt with
God, and what God was, the Word was.
Revised English Bible: In the beginning the
Word already was. The Word was in God’s
presence, and what God was, the Word
was.
Today’s English New Testament: In the
beginning was the Logos. And the Logos
was with God. And God was the Logos.
The Wyclif Translation (by John Wycliffe): In
the bigynnynge was the word and the word
was at god, and god was the word.
Latin Vulgate: in principio erat Verbum et
Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat
Verbum.
Vulgate translation: in the beginning was
the Word and the Word was with God and
God was the Word.
See also:
Was the Word “God” or “a god” in John 1.1?
https://at.tumblr.com/eli-kittim/was-the-word-god-or-a-god-in-john-11/0e69dfesk5oj