Talk:John 1:1/Archive 1

Jesus is GOD
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)

I avoided all mention of religious groups as these were unnecessary to the topic at that point. I believe a discussion of theology related to translation is appropriate to the article. George 00:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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

This must be one of the most important verses in the bible. See Jesus Christ the Logos for example. I think it should stay, and see if we can expand it. -- Beardo 01:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this has too much of an anti-trinitarian view to it.Quaker24 20:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I really think this article is too baised against the Trinity, it needs to be redone, I called the person also editing this, they are Jehovah's Witness, but in this whole article he has reverted what I have written for a unitarian flavor, it needs to stop, this article should be split into two halfs, one in favor of the Trinity and one not in favor of the Trinity, this nonsense needs to stop! Quaker24 00:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I deleted a bunch of stuff on anti-trintarian quotes on John 1:1 because it had nothing to do with the verse but with the Trinity, this article has strayed too far from the verse to the Trinity. Please do not revert what I have done. Quaker24 21:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I would apprieciate it if someone would leave what I have put about the Archangel Gabriel instead of changing it to the angel Gabriel only because regardless if someone believes if Gabriel is an Archangel or not, this is what he is known as in English, this is the English section of Wikipedia, so therefore he should be called the Archangel Gabriel. The article for the angel Garbiel is titled Archangel so that is what he should be called in this article so to avoid any confusion for some people, unless we change a lot of wikipedia for this one article. Quaker24 01:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Some say, as above, that John 1:1 may be the most important verse in the Bible. One single breath of air, however, ONLY takes on special significance if it is a man's last. --Thejamesg 07:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
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)

I cleaned up the introduction and the Translation Debates section quite a bit. I also tried to adjust the 'tone' of phrases seemingly too biased. I think that the article still needs more cleanup, however. --Thejamesg 07:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

A few things that are in major need of attention: These are just from a rough skimming of the article; more specific improvement can possibly be made after these problems are addressed. The first section is also in need of attention from an expert on the subject, and I have added a template to that effect. BenC7 11:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, the undue weight and space given to the JW position;
 * The argumentative tone of the first several sections; they read more like an essay trying to convince the reader of the 'correctness' of the JW position;
 * The use of informal tone, including but not limited to the use of capital letters, weasel words (see WP:WEASEL), and the word "we";
 * The lack of references; and
 * The extremely long, biased and wordy first section.

Deletion of revisions
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)


 * 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)

Dear BenC7, do you really not see the relevance of the information? What is blinding you? Let me state it, AGAIN, very clearly: it is being put here because the reader, in learning about John 1:1, and its relationship to the Trinity doctrine, has a right to know that the doctrine did not begin with this verse. That is however what some individuals would like others to believe. Are you one of them?

The information about the origin of the Trinity that another user included (and I edited) does not in itself argue against the validity of the Trinity. The purpose, as was stated, is for the reader to place the two RELATED (by way of the existing debate) events in proper historical perspective, since they ARE related. Should we likewise not mention that John 1:1 had an origin? Be consistent.

By your deleting this information you are implying that John 1:1 is NOT related to the Trinity debate. That is misleading. You are also deliberately clouding the reader's proper perspective of the history behind these two topics that are very intertwined. It is not your place to do that. Nothing that was said in my comments tells the reader to believe, or not to believe, the Trinity. Therefore, there is no 'argument' included. Your accusations are false. The information is true, and appropriate.

If you wish to debate the validity of the information, that is another matter. I invited you to enlighten the rest of us with any contrary knowledge you may possess. However, I know that is not the case. History speaks for itself.

Again, deleting this information keeps the reader from understanding where John 1:1 falls within the debate over the Trinity. (It falls, chronologically, before the debate started.) Is there a debate over the Trinity? Yes. Does John 1:1 have a part in the debate? Yes. Therefore, why do you delete information about the relationship of the two? I believe it is because you don't like these facts. (Can you dispute that they are indeed facts?  No.)

I also take issue with the fact that you ignored the proper Wikipedia manners of placing others' work that you choose to delete on the 'Discussion' page for ther rest of us to see what you decided to get rid of. You seem to want to control the reader's opinions. Your actions are consistent with a propagandist. Is that what you are using Wikipedia for?

Sir, you DID NOT answer any of my questions. You ignored them. Do you not have anything to say for yourself? It is interesting that you have never contributed a thing to this article, other than rephrasing the work done by others so that their work takes on your desired hue. What are you doing in here anyway? Your many 'rewordings' on other articles lead me to believe that your actions have nothing to do with the betterment of Wikipedia information, but that you have a grudge against Jehovah's Witnesses (perhaps you once were one), and you like deleting and changing anything you perceive as supportive of that group. Play your childish games elsewhere!

'''Please do not remove valid, historically related information simply because you do not like what the facts may or may not imply. That is not your place.''' If you would like to create your own picture of this topic, please do so on your own website. Do not delete others' good reporting on this subject. --Thejamesg 05:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

RfC
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)


 * 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)

A Request Comment
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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Cleanup (rewrite)
To add yet again to previous-as it stands right now, almost all of the content I see here is WP:NOR, poorly written, weasel worded, and very POV. I would advocate stubbing this (and I mean stubbing, basically down to a quoting of the verse) and starting over from proper sources with some agreement on how to handle conflicting viewpoints. (Remember that Trinitarianism is the majority view and be mindful of undue weight.) If you would like to stay with it as is, I've started some cleanup, but it needs a lot more. Seraphimblade 08:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would be in favour of stub & restart. BenC7 09:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, this is undue weight for one verse to bear. I would suggest deletion, and re-direct to Prologue of John or something similar, to deal with the entire prologue.  On the entire prologue, there is enough notability to carry an entire article, and also include a small section on controversies surrounding the interpretation of John 1:1 by Unitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses.  Pastordavid 18:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd support a delete and redirect, per Pastordavid. I've been watching this page for a while, and it's not getting any better. Staecker 19:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

When first looking at this article a month ago, it seemed to be made up of a patchwork of 'soundbites' loosely thrown together in what seemed to be a logical and moderately acceptable framework of an outline. The writing needed cleanup... yes, but the ideas being expressed were, in general, valid, if not all properly presented. It was obvious that more could be said, and in better ways. It was definitely a work-in-progress.

That nothing said so far in the article is worthy of being retained is presuming too much, I believe. For example, if ideas need to be expressed in a more neutral way, then that is what should be done. Express them... in a more neutral way. They should not just be thrown out. I disagree with anyone that believes that the enforcement of the NPOV policy is a little button on their keyboard called "Delete". I personally tried my bit at moving some of other people's things around that I thought fit better somewhere else, and reworded some of their statements to give them a little more sophistication and logical flow, all the while retaining the author's idea, not interpolating my own. That makes sense to me. I think Wikipedia agrees on the NPOV page:

Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete: The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem? In many cases, yes. Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly. There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people on board who know about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of the biased material will not be induced to change it, we have sometimes taken to removing the text to the talk page itself (but not deleting it entirely). But the latter should be done more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased.

Additionally, I can't imagine any way that multiple writers of an article, over a period of months, could avoid giving undue weight to one side or another at any given time. Whenever a weight is added to a scale, the scale moves, until the next weight is added, and then it moves again. I get the impression from some of those commenting that if they don't like the movement of the scale provoked by a certain weight, they would rather remove it than wait for a balancing counter-weight. I believe the value of an idea should be determined on its own merits, not whether or not there is at present a balancing counter to that idea. If an article needs more weight somewhere, invite others to add it. Again, I think Wikipedia agrees on their "Neutral point of view/FAQ" page:

If there is anything possibly contentious about the policy [NPOV] along these lines, it is the implication that it is possible to characterize disputes fairly, so that all the major participants will be able to look at the resulting text, agreeing that their views are presented sympathetically and as completely as possible (within the context of the discussion). It is an empirical question, not a philosophical one, whether this is possible; and that such a thing is indeed possible is evident simply by observing that such texts are being written daily by the most capable academics, encyclopedists, textbook writers, and journalists.

Also, if references are needed, invite users to provide them. (There is a vast amount of knowledge out there.) To delete without offering this opportunity is inappropriate. (Also, large deletions are supposed to be moved to the talk page, not sent to oblivion.) Common sense would dictate that just about everything stated in this article is verifiable. So, common courtesy would dictate that editors should be invited to do so.

I propose that there is a lot to say about John 1:1, and the uninformed reader can benefit greatly from a thorough discussion of all its facets from everyone's point of view. It definitely deserves its own article space. When I hear others say that they prefer to quell expression rather than make an effort to smooth out the quirks in its delivery, it honestly makes me doubt their intentions, I am sorry to say.

--Thejamesg 00:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I can speak for no one else, I just happened across the article from seeing it on RfC. So I've really no "motive" one way or the other, aside from seeing good articles. The problem with most of the writing is that it states unreferenced claims without any sourcing attempt, and would require substantial rewrite (even if the claims could be sourced) to present them in the sources' voice rather than in Wikipedia's. However, if some of the claims are sourceable, please do! What specifically do you see that would be better retained? Seraphimblade 00:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that anything that has a place under the subtopics I propose below under "Proposed Article Outline" might be able to stay, with the appropriate cleanup in presentation and backing.--Thejamesg 01:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Users have been invited to provide better text than what is currently written, hence the "this section is in need of attention from an expert" template. Also, the discussion is happening on the talk page. BenC7 00:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As BenC7 points out, editors came here in response to a call for experts and an RfC. If you do not want the opinions produced by that, then that is your choice. To respond ... At no point did I say that "POV equals delete."  I suggested taking the pertanent, NPOV, non-OR information, and moving it to a wider topic. Fit this controversy, which is rather small in the history of the interpretation of John 1:1-14, and set it into the context of the rest of the Prologue.  Why did I propose this?  (1) as a comprise to the two sides in disagreement (both would be voices in a broader article) and (2) to avoid giving undue weight not just to one or the other side of this disagreement, but to avoid giving undue weight to this one verse of the Bible.  And yes, undue weight can be avoided.  It happens by listening and conversing with other editors until a consensus is reached.  It happens on many articles, even (perhaps especially) the controversial ones.  -- Pastordavid 03:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your opinion and interest of the article. The statements against deletion were spurred by this: last week people started complaining about NPOV issues, and today, almost the entire article is deleted.  Case-in-point.--Thejamesg 07:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * (in response to Pastordavid) Might one infer from your name, that you might be just the needed expert? :)


 * (In response to Thejamesg) Unfortunately, sometimes whole sections of work are just too far gone to salvage. I even find that when editing my own writing, it's not intended to insult anyone-it just works out that way sometimes. Seraphimblade 08:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Seraphimblade, indeed, I do have just a wee bit of background in Greek, the NT, and especially Johannine literature. But, knowing how WP works, I do not presume that that background means that my suggestions are the best option for this article.  Pastordavid 21:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Article Outline
The intro clearly presents this article as being about the following: a debate on the translation of a Bible verse. Therefore, it should be an article about translation, not a forum for the debate itself. Both possible translations should be made understandable to the reader. Also, why it is hotly debated should be explained. This can be achieved without searing the reader with an additional argument over the Trinity. I believe some appropriate subtopics could cover:

1) the history of its translation (including examples);

2) its relevance to the Trinity debate (however, avoiding the Trinity debate!);

3) a guide to its translation (how a translator may arrive at each of both styles);

4) some commentary on the validity of each translation (with references to additional material);

5) an exhaustive listing of different Bibles' choice of translation (which would be a wonderful comparitive resource)

I think the reader, uninformed about Greek and (possibly) English grammar, would appreciate being educated to be able to choose for himself which translation he would make of the verse, and hear why others would do so differently. I think that would be a beautiful purpose realized by this article.--Thejamesg 01:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So long as everything placed in could be reliably sourced, I'd see nothing wrong with framing the debate as you suggest. Seraphimblade 01:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not the purpose of the article to try to educate the reader about Greek syntax so that they can translate the verse themselves (point 3). If the reader wants to do so, they can go to an appropriate website or textbook to educate themselves on the details of Greek grammar. Here it is just appropriate to present what others (i.e., experts) say about things.
 * It is not the place of WP editors to comment on the validity of each translation (pt. 4). It is original research.
 * Presenting an exhaustive list (pt. 5) may be misleading, in that most of the Bibles that give a unitarian translation of the verse are rather obscure and not in wide circulation. This would go against the policy on undue weight. BenC7 02:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed on all those as well. Although, one could give a very brief overview of what the disagreement between translators is caused by (for example, if two characters appear very similar-that's off the top of my head, I'd have to do some research to see what the nature of the dispute really is.) As to the rest, careful framing of the debate is always necessary to avoid undue weight-significant minority viewpoints should be mentioned, but carefully noted as minority, and certainly a viewpoint held by 4% of researchers on the subject should not take up 80% of the article! (Again, these figures are off the top of my head, I'd have to look into it to get even a rough guess, but they serve to illustrate.) Also agreed on the exhaustive list, this is distracting and not really in keeping with WP:MOS-it would likely be enough to include a short "Alternate translations" section, provide some of the alternates as prose, and cite those translations which use that version as references. Seraphimblade 02:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the attempt to try to preserve an article on this verse, but what you have outlined sounds like a great deal of OR. There is not (to my knowledge) a great deal of literature devoted specifically to Jn 1:1, which is why I suggested including the entirety of the Prologue to John (about which there is an avalanche of outside literature and research).  As someone with years of Greek language under my belt, let me say that a "quick guide to translation", especially for a controversial passage, is not possible -- especially not without OR and POV.  But ... that's just my POV on this discussion, feel free to disagree.  -- Pastordavid 03:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Having looked around a bit, I think a move and redirect to Prologue to John might not be at all a bad idea-this could always be spun back off if enough sourcing could be found for this specific one. Seraphimblade 03:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I will also mention here for the reference of others that information on the translation of the verse is also discussed in Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses. The footnotes have some quite good information in them. BenC7 04:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If there is disagreement on the purpose of the article, then it is not possible to even discuss the details of the outline, nor where the article would properly fit. First things first. However, I'll quickly clarify on the latter two simply as a response, and then get back to what I think is step one.

Pt. 4 is about presenting validated, referenced commentary, not our own. I have read such for both sides of the translation debate.

Pt. 5 is about making clear who really says one thing, and who really says the other. I think the reader can decide for themselves what weight to give to obscurity/scholarship of any Bible. (Now I am going to get sensitive about the reason Pt. 5 was even proposed.) I believe that the introduction paints the picture that the Jehovah's Witness version almost stands alone in its translation. By the wording it could be also construed that they spearheaded this change, and thereafter scholars all got up in arms about it. Here's my complaint: in reality the "alternate" translation is centuries old (by men more learned than any of us), and persists to this day, and continues to appear (as late as 2005). So, is this an article about the verse, or about Jehovah's Witnesses (or more specifically, against Jehovah's Witnesses)? Before it was deleted, the "alternative" list contained some 20 or 30 bibles, many of renowned scholarship (not just my opinion). Why does the intro to this article have anything to do at all with some religion in particular? (Now I'll answer my own question.) The answer is: BenC7. He wrote it. And I'm sorry to say, but from what I see in his "contributions" to Wikipedia, he likes to bring in to any article he can some angle against JWs. In fact, he just pointed all of us again to some page about JW bashing, as if that is where we should go to understand about John 1:1. Let's leave the religious bias out, shall we? BenC7, if you are going to contribute something useful, do so. If not, read my comments farther up.

Now, back to the purpose (and again, BenC7 doesn't like the proposed one, as I feel, because there is no mention of JWs). My interest in the subject of John 1:1 is strictly the controversy in the translation from Greek to English. My profession is interpretation/translation. (I'm not saying I am an expert about anything. Just that these things interest me.)  As a reader, I have been interested in the how-to of both versions, and information does exist. My largest contribution dealt with one side of the how-to, since, I felt, the rest of the article focused on the other (although poorly). I believe that there are many others that want to know about the same thing. Why else would someone do a global search for "John 1:1"? Definitely not because they want to read about everything else in the first chapter of the book of John. They want to know about why their Bible says one thing, and someone else's says another. Well, there exists an explanation, and it has to do with translation, and I think that is the purpose of the article. And I don't think readers want to go sifting through footnotes to get it. This is a subject of interest, and a Wikipage can give them what they are looking for. Maybe the article should be titled "The Debate on Translating John 1:1". (Don't take that too seriously, I don't like that title.)

If there can be agreement on the proposed purpose, then (of course) the five points can be presented without any Own Research, and giving the proper weight to each side. (Proper weight doesn't mean no weight, as the article lies.) Of course, it will take some effort. So, what should the purpose be, in your opinion?

--Thejamesg 09:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You may want to see WP:COOL. I would also suggest the article on Ad hominem re your repeated (rather over-the-top) attacks on me. I gave reasons for why I thought the points presented were inappropriate. I didn't say anything about JWs. As for the "JW bashing" page I referred people to, JW editors have been heavily involved in editing the page, and people who read it and say, "this article is full of bias and POV", when asked for details, have come back and said, "Well, now that I look at it properly, it's not really". If you think that there are inaccuracies there, you can change them. BenC7 10:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You might be a great fellow, but in regards to my experience with your edits, I have so far only come accross two things, and I am bothered by them; and even more so in that I have also suffered as your target/victim/subject/focus (pick your own intensity). They are: 1) changing the angle of other people's longer edits with your own pointed precision insertions/modifications; 2) the deletion of substantial contributions (some referenced!) without acknowledgement on the discussion page.
 * I have already commented on the focus that I have seen you prefer. Your edits speak for themselves.  In regards to the deletions, I think it would have been thoughtful on your part (especially after I vocalized about it), for you to show people what you chose to delete.  But you still haven't.  That can give off an air of imperiousness.  If you want to know why that sort of thing gets people irritated, let me refer to the WP:COOL page which nicely explains something about human psyche:


 * 7. Try to avoid deleting things as a matter of principle. When you amend and edit, it is remarkable how you might see something useful in what you might be about to remove. Almost everyone – including you – has something useful to say. Deletion upsets people and makes them feel they have wasted their time; at the very least leave some indication of your rationale in an edit summary, if not in an entry on a Talk page or in a message to a user or users you think might be perturbed by your action.


 * I strongly believe in not altering the meaning of others' statements. If you disagree with what someone says, find a way to keep what they say, and provide information about any alternate views you want to bring out.  Don't change what they said in the first place.  Lastly, deleting altogether, without honorable mention, just looks like a last-ditch effort to keep your preferred slant on an article.  That is simply how it is truly taken by others.
 * I would love to see you adding substantial value to the article with longer, informative segments, and amendations intended to enhance rather than to destroy, as the quote above states. I feel there was a lot of good information in the article as it stood a week ago.  With some additional work (do not read "deletion") it could have been an enjoyable reading.  Now, however, it resembles a cleaved cow.--Thejamesg 22:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What would you think on moving the article to the suggested Prologue to John page, and featuring a section there on "Translation Differences of John 1:1?" (This article would still go there, if someone searched for John 1:1, we'd just use a redirect.) As to the JW's-if they're a major proponent of one version, I suppose we should mention that, but they probably more wouldn't require more then a mention in passing-"Groups including A, B, and C endorse translation X, while groups endorsing translation Y include D and E.(source cites.)" Seraphimblade 09:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no preference as to location. My interest is fulfilling the purpose.  And I think that is the first step.  I think the article is fine sitting right where it is, while it is being built.  Why muddy up another article too?  Once it is done, and it can be sized up, I think it will be easier to guage if it fits on some shelf somewhere.  (By the way, I can't find this Prologue to John everyone keeps mentioning.)  I really think that the purpose must be agreed upon first.--Thejamesg 09:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Prologue of John hasn't been created. That's why it's in red. I'm also not sure that it is necessary to create it, personally. If someone wants to, fine - but there needs to be more in it than information about the first verse. BenC7 10:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It was Pastordavid who made that suggestion, basically in consolidating information about the first several verses of John. I think we should wait to hear further from him. And in the meantime, let's make sure to keep the tigers out. :) Seraphimblade 10:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggested Prologue of John as a way out. If its not necessary, or acceptable to those involved, that's fine too.  FYI, the prologue is generally considered to be vv 1-14; and most commentaries have a specific section dealing with it (which is why I thought it would be a good sub-section to the Gospel of John, yet specific enough to include aspects of this debate).  FYI, from my experience with Johannine literature, the only reason that the translation of John 1:1 is an issue is the JW perspective (indeed, in most other discussions I have had with translators and biblical scholars, 1:1 is set in the context 1:1-14 (or sometimes 18)) - which is part of why I don't think there is enough content on 1:1 alone for an article.  IF a new article would help solve the conflict here, great.  If NOT, then lets find another way. And can we please assume good faith, even if we disagree on the best way forward. -- Pastordavid 16:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the idea myself-if nothing else, if we went to that format, and some verses did start getting together enough referenced information for their own articles, we could certainly spin them off at that point. In the meantime, this article (and John 1:2, John 1:3, etc.) could be set up as redirects until/unless those verses do become ready to spin off. (I suspect that probably some individual verses will never be ready to spin off, after all not every individual verse has a ton of study on it.) This would also be a good way to place it in its context. However, as Pastordavid said, that's not the only way to go forward either, and we certainly could keep the current bit with a lot of cleanup. (To that extent, I still think starting over would probably be the best.) Seraphimblade 21:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I usually try not to decide where to park until I get there. In other words, let's decide on a purpose for the article, and then we can park it. Please add your suggestions here:
 * Option A) Presenting and expounding the two different translation styles of the verse (all properly referenced, of course)

Styalistic problems
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)


 * 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)

Tore this to shreds...
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)

Jehovah's Witnesses
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)

Straw Poll
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)

A) Re-write from the point it is at right now B) Prod for deletion or take to AfD
 * BenC7. Second preference would be (B), not far behind.
 * MSJapan. This is apparently notable as a verse, so enough could be said about it in its own article. I do not believe that the level of the so-called "theological debate" was valuable; the whole reason there are different religious sects is because of differing interpretations like this, so no matter what is said in a verse, someone is going to disagree with it.
 * Jonathan Tweet 00:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC). The topic is worth doing. It won't be easy to do right. It needs to address what Logos meant to educated Greek writers (e.g., Hercalitus's "way the universe is," etc.).

C) Make a section in an article with a broader focus
 * Seraphimblade 08:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC). A would work too if there's consensus for that. I don't think it necessarily needs to be deleted, I imagine sourcing can be found either for this verse or John 1 in general.

D) Restore deleted materials, and find sources

E) Other ideas?

redirect to Jesus Christ the Logos 76.215.192.21 01:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Move forward
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)


 * 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)

Lead Paragraph
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)
 * 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)

I phrased it in that manner because the question at hand is the translation from the Greek. Perhaps "the translation 'used' in the KJV..." would work better. But, if you want to leave out the word "translation" all together, I am fine with that as well. Edit away. And thanks for discussing before revising. Oops. Already changed, and now matches what you requested. I should have looked first. Pastordavid 20:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This sentence
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)

"This verse, and the continuation of the ideas introduced in it throughout Johannine literature, connected the Christian understanding of Jesus to the philosophical idea of the Logos and the Hebrew Wisdom literature, and set the stage for later developments in Trinitarian theology and Christology."

I'm not sure what the sentence is supposed to mean - "connected Jesus to the idea of the Logos" and "to the wisdom literature"? Also, a reference would also be needed for this information. I just think it is a little beyond most people, maybe suitable for a place later in the article rather than the lead. BenC7 01:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Archiving
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)


 * I don't think the page is long or old enough to warrant archiving, personally. BenC7 01:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That was easy enough, question asked and answered. Thanks. Pastordavid 03:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Classic POV speculative OR

 * The various renderings of the verse reveal the controversy over the meaning of the scripture. 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.


 * It is these differences in theology which have led to much controversy as to the correct rendering of the verse.

So do you have a reliable source for "info" on people's motives? A.J.A. 03:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out something I missed. I will rectify the situation. You should not be removing text if you think it needs sourced. Put a tag on it. George 11:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added the necessary reference. George 11:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, that's reliable source, which excludes anyone speculating about other people's motives. The issue isn't sources; the issue is that the text is unencyclopedic garbage. A.J.A. 03:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

In what way? George 04:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Aside from presenting speculation presented as fact rather than useful information? You assume "much controversy" actually exists; I guess "much" is a relative term. A.J.A. 04:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I agree with A.J.A. here. It is overreaching to argue that the controversy over correct rendering of the verse is motivated solely or even primarily by theological differences.  Without a doubt, there is a relationship between the controversy and the theological differences but it impugns the motives of scholars to argue that they are motivated solely or primarily by theological differences.  It is possible for a scholar to form an opinion regarding the "correct" rendering of the passage without having a theological bias.


 * A better phrasing might be... "Some of the controversy over the correct rendering of the verse has been fueled by theological differences as to the divine and human natures of Jesus Christ."


 * The "weasel" word "some" avoids claiming that everyone who has ever expressed an opinion was solely or primarily motivated by theological polemics.


 * --Richard 06:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

An offer of informal mediation
Both A.J.A. and George m are familiar with me from discussions on Talk:Jehovah, Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions. I am a Trinitarian Christian (sort of Catholic, sort of Presbyterian) and definitely not a JW but I would like to think that I can take a fairly neutral and unbiased perspective on these JW/Trinitarian disputes.

I propose that we try to mediate this dispute but, if our efforts fail, one of you can always ask for a more formal mediation through the mediation cabal or even the mediation committee.

To start... can each of you summarize succinctly what you see to be the dispute? I understand that George m thinks his edits are sourced but A.J.A. does not? Can each of you explain the issue from your perspective?

--Richard 06:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem I see is this is not just a JW issue and the section is being changed to the title JW theology or similar. AJA is also removing references to the variety of renderings of the verse. I haven't actually seen an explantion just a claim of unreliable refernces or POV or OR. I added was well referenced and good references at that. The information should not be removed wholesale or reconstituted to cahnge its actul meaning. I may have to reach out to some atheist editors for this. Richard I think you may have too much stake in your beliefs. Please look at my original material that AJA is reverting. Yo took an inclusionist stance on JW's & blood but not here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by George m (talk • contribs)


 * George, I edited the article to fix obvious problems that I saw. If the current revision seems to lean towards the mainstream perspective, that is because that is the perspective that I am familiar with.  I did not intend for my recent edits to be "the final word" wrt the dispute between you and A.J.A.  Rather I saw my edits as "picking the low-hanging fruit" by making edits that seemed obvious and incontroversial.  I admit that a lot of what I brought in came from other Wikipedia articles which may also have a bias towards the mainstream stance.


 * Frankly, I did not edit back stuff that you inserted and A.J.A. removed or reverted because I was too lazy. Doing that would have required laborious study of the diff's and adding back stuff simply because you had once inserted it without my having a good knowledge of the material or A.J.A.'s reasons for reverting them.


 * I invite you to present and discuss the deleted material point by point here on this Talk Page. I hope A.J.A. will then provide an explanation of his objections so that we can discuss them and come to an amicable resolution.


 * Given the fact that A.J.A. is a bit quick on the trigger in reverting, I would request that you not re-insert any of the objectionable material right away. Let's try to start a dialogue here on this page first.


 * --Richard 19:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Richard. Sorry for the tirade but I was concerned I was going to have a fight on my hands instead of mediation. I see taht is not the case, I really should have known better.

Here is the text in dispute as it currently 19:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC) stands. Please explain any problems you have with it:

The proper rendering from the original Greek language used to write the Gospel of John to English has been a source of serious debate in the area of Bible translation.

The most common rendering in English is: "'In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.'"

This rendering is preferred among popular English translations today. However, this is not unversal in usage among scholarly translations. Translations by James Moffatt, Hugh J. Schonfield and Edgar Goodspeed render it:

"'...and the Word was divine.'" Other variations also exist. Todays English Version reads:"...and he was the same as God."

The Revised English Bible reads:"...and what God was, the Word was."

A few translations have rendered the verse "...and the word was a god"

Difficulties
There are two issues affecting the translating of the verse, theology and proper application of grammatical rules. The commonly 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. Some scholars staunchly oppose the translation ...a god. While other scholars believe it is possible or even preferrable.

Colwell's rule
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.

References

George 19:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

As I stated to Marvien on this point earlier we shold include a discussion of the mojor impact JW's have ahd on this subject simply because of their high profile nature. I also believe the discussion of definiteness and Colwells rule needs to be expanded. George 19:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)