thayer

Joseph Henry Thayer, John 1:1c and the Trinity Brochure(WTB&TS)

The following has been taken from a website that attempts to discredit the WTB&TS use of a comment by Joseph Henry Thayer on John 1:1 in it's brochure "Should You Believe in the Trinity"(1989) We will not provide a link to that page for obvious reasons, but if you, the visitor, have already come across it, or might do so in the future, this page has been created to show that that page contains a deceptive error that should not go unnoticed and revealed as such. The said page begins:

"Thayer, Joseph Henry: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament

How the quote appears in "Should you believe in the Trinity", Watchtower, Jw's booklet.

"In the same way, since John 1:1 shows that the Word was with God, he could not be God but was "a god," or "divine." Joseph Henry Thayer, a theologian and scholar who worked on the American Standard Version, stated simply: "The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself." ("Joseph Henry Thayer's personal copy of Griesbach's Greek New Testament text, 1809, with Thayer's handwritten comments on John 1:1 interleaved." Watchtower organization's own words as to the source)

What they fail to tell you about the quote

Upon fighting with the Watchtower where they got this quote here is the source, "Joseph Henry Thayer's personal copy of Griesbach's Greek New Testament text, 1809, with Thayer's handwritten comments on John 1:1 interleaved." (Watchtower organization's own words)

What they fail to tell you what Thayer said in his published world class Lexicon on John 1:1

"theos certainly refers to Christ in the following NT passages: John 1:1b (with "o theos" 1:1a, which refers to God the Father; on "theos" with and without the article, according to whether it means God or the Logos, see Philo, Somn. 1, 229f; JGGriffiths, ET 62, '50f, 314-16; BMMetzger, ET 63, '51f, 125f), 18b. [Greek] my Lord and my God! (nominative with article = vocative; see beginning of this entry.-On the resurrection as proof of divinity" (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Joseph Henry Thayer, "Theos")"

End of quoting website.

A Response:

Did you, the reader, notice the terrible mistake that the editor of the webpage has made?

In the last paragraph the editor quotes from A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature and cites it as the work of Joseph Henry Thayer as his "published world class Lexicon" under the Greek word "Theos," which means "God/god."

Unfortunately, for the writer of the above page, which page uses very strong language against the WTB&TS use of Thayer, this Greek-English Lexicon is not his work!

It is the work of two lexicographers William F. Arndt and F.Wilbur Gingrich.

Also, the impression that the writer of the above has with Arndt and Gingrich's Lexicon is that because theos definitely "refers" to Christ in John 1:1; 20:28 that contradicts Thayer's 'note' that "The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself."
Jehovah's Witnesses have never denied that the noun theos is applied or "refers" to the Word, God's Son! But we do deny that the above two passages that call him "theos" has the sense that he is the Almighty God. Anyone aquainted with the literature of the Jehovah's Witnesses, including the NWT Reference Edition(1984), would be aware of this.
This 'sense' of the word "theos" by the apostle John here (in John 1:1c) also appears to have been the way Thayer himself viewed it with reference to the Word. Hence the quoting of him was entirely correct.
The lexicon by Arndt and Gingrich does indeed show that the word "theos" is applied to the Word, God's Son, in certain places in the N.T. text. But that lexicon is not then showing that the use of the word with reference to him makes that one the God. That is a matter of dispute as Thayer's lexicon itself says under "theos":

"Whether Christ is called God[that is 'The God']must be determined from Jn. i.1; xx. 28; 1 Jn. v.20; Ro. ix.5; Tit. ii.13; Heb. i.8 sq., etc; the matter is still in dispute among theologians."-word in brackets ours.

Any unwary visitor/reader of the above webpage may easily be decieved into thinking that the writer of it has proved his criticism of the WTB&TS. He most definitely has not!

This means that the above page has done nothing to diminish the words of J.H.Thayer as appropriately used in the WTB&TS's brochure, which scholar had written about the Logos of John 1:1 that "The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself." Thayer's comments on who the Logos was is quoted on page 28 of the brochure "Should You Believe in the Trinity"(1989, WTB&TS) in a discussion of the translation of John 1:1. It was quite right and proper then to include such a comment that had been made by this Greek scholar.
Jehovah's Witnesses are in agreement with this. For did not Jesus say that only the Father is "the only true God"?-John 17:3. The "Logos," the Word, is not the "true God," "the Divine Being Himself," but is "his Son."- 1 Thess.1:9,10.

However, after this page has been in existence for some 2yrs the writer of the above quoted web page critical of the Trinity brochures quotation of Thayer changed it. Was it because he has visited this page and seen his mistakes we ask? However, we will now reproduce this 'reviewed' web page here and yet again show that the writer has made yet some quite serious errors! Here is how the webpage reads now[8/31/2003] His words will be in orange and our interjections will be in green:

Quoting web page in full:

"How the quote appears in "Should you believe in the Trinity", Watchtower, JW's booklet.

After a long and tedious effort to make the Watchtower disclose the source of the quote, they replied: "Joseph Henry Thayer's personal copy of Griesbach's Greek New Testament text, 1809, with Thayer's handwritten comments on John 1:1 interleaved." (Watchtower organization's own words)

"2. Whether Christ is called God must be determined from Jn. i. 1 ; xx. 28 ; I Jn. v. 20; Ro. ix. 5; Tit. ii. 13; Heb. i. 8 sq., etc.; the matter is still in dispute among theologians; cf. Grimm, Institutio theologiae dogmaticae, ed. 2, p. 228 sqq. [and the discussion (on Ro. ix. 5) by Professors Dwight and Abbot in Journ. Soc. Bib. Lit. etc. u. s., esp. pp. 42 sqq. 113 sqq.]. 3. spoken of the only and true GOD: with the article, Mt. iii. 9; Mk. xiii. 19; Lk. ii. 13; Acts ii. 11" (Joseph Henry Thayer: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, THEOS)

Actually Thayer should be spanked for making such irresponsible comments. No one disputes whether the term "THEOS" applies to Jesus. The question is the "theological meaning" of theos as it applies to Jesus.

Wrong! Firstly, these are not that of Thayer! They are of the Lutheran Lexicographer Grimm which Thayer is here translating into English!. Also, Grimm(not Thayer!) did not write "Whether Christ is called THEOS..." but "Whether Christ is called God..." That is whether "THEOS" means that Jesus is called "God" in those scripture texts cited. Why we might ask has the writer changed the words of the Lexicon he is looking at? Also, it is evident by doing so that he misrepresents 'Thayer' because the writer criticises 'Thayer' here yet goes on to write "[rather]The question is the "theological meaning" of theos at it applies to Jesus." Well, thats exactly what 'Thayer' here is saying! So, the words found here in 'Thayer' can not have been "irresponsible comments" because the dispute as to whether those same texts call Jesus "God" are still in dispute among scholars of today and this is what the writer of the web page agrees, albeit unknowingly with. So, the person who should have his bottom "spanked" is the writer of the webpage we are quoting who has already made some serious errors.

"Even Jehovah's Witnesses believe that THEOS is applied to Jesus because they openly call Jesus "a God" (Jn 1:1), "God" (Jn 20:28), "Mighty God". (Isa 9:6) So both trinitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses stand together in opposing Thayer's own comments."

Again, this writer is not citing nor quoting the "Jehovah's Witnesses" correctly. He claims that "Even they[Jehovah's Witnesses] openly call Jesus "a God."(Jn 1:1). Not so. "a god" not "a God" at John 1:1. And again we see that this writer is continuing to misunderstand 'Thayer'(really, Grimm)! Jehovah's Witnesses do not 'oppose "Thayers own comments"(really Grimm's)because those comments are stating that the term THEOS does not have to mean that Jesus is called "God." And so "Thayer" is showing that these scripture texts can be understood as calling Jesus Christ 'less' than "God,"[ho theos], not "God," but as "god," "divine"(Jn.1:1) or in the context still not "God" Himself(Jn 20:28). It, the Lexicon, is not denying that THEOS applies to Jesus but whether it means that Jesus is "God." And Jehovah's Witnesses agree that these texts do not mean that Jesus is "God."

"Thayer didn't offer his OWN opinion on the subject, only that there was a dispute. Yet even here no one disputes that "theos" is applied to Jesus in John 1:1. Did you hear that? NO ONE, not even Jehovah's Witnesses! (Some Unitarians will dispute some of the other passages though.)"

Yet again, this writer continues with the erroneous impression that the words in the Lexicon that bears his name are his! They are not! So, it is in vain that this writer has written so much about "Thayer"! These words are not his. But the Trinity brochure was quoting Thayer when he is reported to have written "The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself." And yet once more the writer repeats the same mistake. The dispute was not whether "theos" is or is not applied to Jesus Christ but whether when it is it means he is called "God."

"The Watchtower fails to tell you that Thayer is not a Trinitarian, but a Unitarian who believed Jesus was a creature."

Some challenge whether Thayer was Unitarian, saying, he was instead Congregationalist. We simply quote the "Publishers Introduction" to Thayer's famous lexicon: "A word of caution is necessary. Thayer was a Unitarian, and the errors of this sect occasionally come through in the explanatory notes. The reader should be alert for both subtle and blatant denials of such doctrines as the Trinity (Thayer regarded Christ as a mere man and the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force emanating from God), the inherent and total depravity of fallen human nature, the eternal punishment of the wicked, and Biblical inerrancy." (Joseph Henry Thayer: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Publishers Introduction, page VII)

The "Watchtower" did not "fail" in this way simply because Thayer was not a "unitarian" but a congregationist and in the context it was wholly un-necessary to state this just as it was not necessary to state that the author of the article in the JBL(whom the brochure quoted immediately before quoting Thayer)was a trinitarian! These matters have nothing whatsoever to do with how these scholars understood John 1:1c.
The writer appears to blindly accept a "Publishers Introduction" to the Lexicon as to Thayer being a unitarian. So, the writer is just accepting the error of the publisher and so he and that "publisher" are both mistaken! (He also fails to inform us what "Publisher" stated this!) Perhaps the writer should avail himself of the following: George Huntston Williams, The Harvard Divinity School, Boston, The Beacon Press, 1954, p. 147 and The Encyclopedia Americana, 1956, Vol. 26, p. 490.(courtesy of H.S)
Trinitarians at times have expressed similar thoughts themselves as to the meaning of THEOS at John 1:1c. So, what matters what Thayer's theology was anyway! It matters not for the Trinity brochure states quite simply: "Joseph Henry Thayer, a theologian and scholar who worked on the American Standard Version, stated simply: "The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself." Yes, whatever theological persuasion Thayer was, whether it was unitarian or trinitarian(or anything in between)this does not lessen him as a scholar who could understand the Greek of John 1:1c. In his day and even now, he is considered to be a respected scholar and theologian and it was for these reasons he was no doubt included on the translation team behind the American Standard Version. And it is for these reasons, namely, he being a well respected scholar, the Trinity brochure quoted him in its discussion of the meaning of the 3rd clause of John 1:1 where an anarthrous theos occurs sandwiched between two arthrous occurences of theos. This scholar could see that such a Greek construct in this context means that the theos in 1:1c makes the Word "divine" and not "God," not "the divine being himself" as many translations(such as the American Standard Version)erroneously translates. No wonder such persons as the writer we are quoting does not like it when a scholar supports a Jehovah's Witness understanding of a scripture. The writer of the web page that criticises so harshly the Trinity brochures' use of him is simply creating a 'red herring'!

No wonder nobody could find where Thayer said the quote in the Watchtower booklet! Now stop and think about this for a moment. We will grant that the book was Thayer's and even that the comment was in his own handwriting! (How could anyone really confirm this for sure?) But a marginal note may or may not represent what he personally believed! He may have written it there to express another's view as a reminder."- End of webpage quotation.

Then again, if Thayer did indeed write what the Trinity brochure claims then on what grounds is there to think that it did not express his "personal" beliefs! Still, he must have thought it important enough to write what he did, that is "The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself ." It does appear that he did not think that John 1:1c calls Jesus(as the "Word") "God" but as "divine."

So, the web page we have quoted in full takes nothing away from the Trinity brochure's quotation of Thayer. When one does "stop and think" we find that what it, the web page, does accomplish is the ineptitude of the writer who is critical of the brochures 'use' of Thayer.

9/5/2003: We emailed the writer, a Steve Rudd, and notified him of this page and in writing back to us he admitted he had been "sloppy." He then alleged that the NWT Defense site contained "gross factual errors." We asked him to cite just three for our attention. He did not offer any.

9/6/2003: We now see that the writer has corrected his page from where it once read "Actually Thayer should be spanked for making such irresponsible comments" it now reads "Actually Grimm should be spanked for making such irresponsible comments"(underlining ours)so we are pleased that we have been of help to him. Sadly however, the writer continues to mis-construe Thayer's Lexicon. It is not whether "THEOS" applies to Jesus Christ that is in "dispute" but the "dispute" is whether they mean "God." The writer has misunderstood these very simple comments by Grimm! The writer also continues to misrepresent how Jehovah's Witnesses "openly call Jesus "a God" (John 1.1)"! Untrue.

9/7/2003. Once again, the web page has been reviewed. Where it once read(yesterday) "No one disputes whether the term "THEOS" applies to Jesus. The question is the "theological meaning" of theos as it applies to Jesus" it now reads: "No one disputes whether the Greek word "THEOS" (and the corresponding English translation: GOD) applies to Jesus. The question is the "theological meaning" of theos/god as it applies to Jesus. " Note now the addition of the words in brackets. But the writer is still missing what the Lexicon is stating here. The "question" that the Lexicon raises is exactly what the writer believes the question should be! Namely, the "theological meaning" of the noun theos when it is applied to Jesus Christ. Does it mean "God"? And the Lexicon states that that meaning was in "dispute." How then can that be an "irresponsible comment" when it raises the question that the writer thinks it should! Confused? It seems Steve Rudd is! Of course, the "corresponding term" for theos is not always "God."(Why we might ask does Rudd write "GOD" in capitals???) "God" in English is like a proper name and refers to Almighty God, the one God of Christianity(leaving other religions out of it for the moment). But theos in the Greek NT does not always have that as its referent nor with that meaning but can refer to those who are in the 'class' of theos or it is used as an appelative. John 1:1c is where it was in "dispute" whether it meant "God," "divine" or "a god." The writer totally ignores this.

We also note, from our prompting, that Rudd now gives his readers the actual publisher that claims that Thayer was a unitarian. "(Joseph Henry Thayer: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Publishers Introduction, page VII, Baker Book House)" But this is just a claim of the publisher that Rudds seems to want to accept without any further research. Still, it matters not a jot whether he was trinitarian or a unitarian for as we have shown: "Yes, whatever theological persuasion Thayer was, whether is was unitarian or trinitarian(or anything in between)this does not lessen him as a scholar who could understand the Greek of John 1:1c. It is for this reason the Trinity brochure quoted him in its discussion of the meaning of the 3rd clause of John 1:1 where an anarthrous theos occurs sandwiched between two arthrous occurences of theos. Thayer could see that such a contruct in this context means that the theos in 1:1c makes the Word "divine" and not "God" as many translations(such as the American Standard Version)erroneously and misleadingly translates. No wonder such persons as the writer we are quoting does not like it when a scholar supports a Jehovah's Witness/NWT understanding of a scripture. The writer of the web page that criticises so harshly the Trinity brochures use of him is simply creating a 'red herring'!"

Another change is the following: "Even Jehovah's witnesses believe that THEOS/GOD is applied to Jesus because they openly call Jesus "A GOD" (Jn 1:1), "GOD" (Jn 20:28), "MIGHTY GOD". (Isa 9:6) If you don't believe us, this is exactly how the New World Translation renders the phrases, with various squabbles over whether it should be "A GOD" or "a god". (As if it makes any difference.) So both Trinitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses stand together in opposing Grimm's own comments."

Once again Steve Rudd continues, and on purpose it seems, to mis-represent the New World Translation. The NWT does not "openly call Jesus "A GOD." How can Rudd state that "A GOD is "exactly" how the NWT renders John 1:1c, when it reads "a god"? Once again, Rudd uses all capitals! Why we might ask? The reason is not too hard to fathom! To get around this Rudd has to argue that it is only 'squabbling' whether it should be "A GOD" or "a god." Well, as it is not "A GOD" but it reads in the NWT as "a god" one has to wonder why Rudd could not simply have reproduced it as it reads? Obviously, for Rudd to represent the NWT "exactly" at John 1:1c would take the force out of Rudd's arguement at this place. He asks: "As if it makes any difference"! Of course it does! "God" in English is like a proper name(a "who")and refers to the supreme God, while "a god" in the context of two ocurrences of "God" either side of it and it being "with" this "God" would indicate that this "god" is not the "God" he is said to be with! The rendering "a god" describes not who the Logos("Word") was but what the Logos was. Its all very simple but Rudd completely misses this! So he not only fails to grasp the Greek behind the translation but also fails to grasp the meaning of simple English usage!
So, when Rudd now writes "So both Trinitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses stand together in opposing Grimm's own comments " (note Rudd has changed it here, from "Thayer's" to "Grimm's) that is simply not true! A lie?

We also note this change: "We wonder what value there is in even quoting Thayer's handwritten note (if it is even his handwriting) since the official choice of translation used by Jehovah's Witnesses is different from what Thayer said. It was the Watchtower that chose not to translate Jn 1:1 "and the word was divine". But Jehovah's Witnesses will quote any translation of Jn 1:1 that might indicate Jesus was a creature, even it is a translation they disagree with."

Yes, the "translation" by the New World Translation might differ from the "choice of words" of Thayer's note but not the meaning. The fact is that Thayer did not 'translate' theos in John 1:1c as "divine." His "hand written" note was not a "translation" but a comment on the clause! The fact is Thayer did not simply note that here the Word was "divine"(Cp. Moffat's and Goodspeed's translations) but wrote ""The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself" and this means Thayer believed that the theos in the clause of John 1:1c did not indicate that the Word, the "Logos" was "God," not "the divine being himself" but as simply "divine." And with this the New World Translation's "a god" translation agree as the New World Translation here at John 1:1c and Thayer's note both concur that the "Logos" was "not the divine being himself."
Once again we see that Rudd who is so desirous of being critical of the Trinity brochure cannot understand nor analyse the data that is before his eyes! This might be a harsh thing to say but it seems true. If Rudd wishes to write such as he has and put his name to it publically then he cannot complain of that which we have written. Also, this is telling about the mindset of Rudd. If he is incapable of handling correctly the simple note that Thayer made is it likely that he can do likewise with any other quote that ocurrs in the Trinity brochure? Indeed, would you trust the writings of such a man? These are legitimate questions.

But this is not all. As a "final note" Rudd writes:

"And one final note. Even though Thayer was theologically close to Jehovah's Witnesses in their view of Jesus, his footnote really doesn't help them. Thayer's comment: "The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself." Is easily agreeable to any Trinitarian. Who is divine, but uncreated God? The Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are all uncreated God and are all equally divine, yet they differ from one another, or as Thayer put it: "The Logos [Jesus] was divine, not the divine Being himself [the Father mentioned in Jn 1:1b]."

Does the "footnote" not "help" the Witnesses understanding of what John wrote at John 1:1? Indeed it does! The fact is that for Trinitarians the "divine being himself" is the Trinity not just the Father. What we read in John 1:1, 2 is that there is one whom is the God("ho theos")and one "theos" who is not. It is clear that Thayer did not think that in John 1:1 the Logos was "God," or as he put it "not the divine being himself." It is also clear that for Thayer "God"(ho theos") was a "person" not 'three persons in one God." It would be ridiculous for anyone to suggest, as Rudd has, that what Thayer wrote meant that the Son(the "Logos") was not the "Father"! Who believes that John 1:1 means that the "Logos" was the "Father" so that Thayer would take the trouble to personally write in his copy of Griesbach's NT that the Logos was not! But there are scholars, and Thayer shows he to be one of them, who believes that John was not saying that the "Logos" was "God," that is, the "Logos" was not the supreme God, Almighty God whose name in English is Jehovah("the divine being himself")
And being "divine" would not make the Logos "God" or "equal" to God anymore than Jesus' followers will be when they receive natures that are "divine."-2 Peter 1:4. Nor will these ones no longer be creatures but become "un-created"! Websters New World Dictionary of the American Language(College Edition, The World Publishing Company, 1962 edition) defines the word "divine" as "of or like God or a god." Yes, it is clear that Thayer did not regard the Logos of John 1:1 as "God," not the "divine being himself," but "like God" or " a god." Nor did Thayer say anything about the Logos being "divine" as meaning"equally divine" with the Father, God, This is just Rudd putting a meaning into Thayer which meaning cannot be gained from his note! In fact Rudd gives Thayer's note a 'trinitarian twist' and so makes the note say almost the opposite of what it does mean!
And so the note that Thayer made in his own writing certainly does "help" the Jehovah's Witnesses both in their understanding and translation of John 1:1c.

Will Rudd change it again we wonder? Will it be tomorrow or the next day? Watch this space

8/9/2003. Yes, there has been a minor change. Where yesterday it read:

"...So both Trinitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses stand together in opposing Grimm's own comments" today it reads "So both Trinitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses stand together in opposing Grimm's own comments, because even JW's agree that Jn 1:1 call Jesus "a god."-italics ours

The obvious problem with this is that it does not support Rudd's contention that "Jehovah's Witnesses" 'oppose' the comment by the lexicographer Grimm when he writes that it is disputed whether certain texts(such as John 1:1)that apply the noun theos to Jesus mean that he is called "God." When the New World Translation translates the theos in John 1:1c as "a god" it is clearly not calling Jesus "God." We fail to see why Rudd cannot comprehend this! And of course, all the other failings in his writings on this and we have commented on remain.

So, all in all then the page and the several recent updatings of it contributes absolutely nothing to this issue and takes nothing away from the Trinity brochures use of Thayer where he wrote: "The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself." This scholar and theologian's note is correct about the meaning of John's words in 1:1 and that is why the brochure quoted him!

Addendum 9/10/2003: Steve Rudd sent us this email informing us he had a "top ten list" of Watchtower misquotings: "When a Jehovah's Witness reads this top ten list, they either conclude the Watchtower organization engages is satanic quoting practices, or become dishonest themselves! This list is so powerful and irrefutable, that Jehovah's Witnesses have no idea how to deal with it! Their usual response is to quietly withdraw back into the shadows of anonymity form which they came."

However, this email just shows the mindset of Rudd. This page on Rudd/Thayer/SYBTT has obviously compelled him to write more upon the quotations in the Trinity brochure in an attempt to defend himself. Has the "Watchtower organization engage[d] i[n] satanic quoting practices "? This page proves that what Rudd has written on Thayer and the Should You Believe in the Trinity brochure cannot be trusted at all. He has been found un-able to handle properly Thayer's note. He misquotes(!) and mis-represents how the New World Translation reads at John 1:1c. Why does he do this but to mislead his readers? He knows of the existence of our rebuttals here to his writings but has been found wanting in either making the needed changes or offering anything in rebuttal to ours. Perhaps he cannot do either but this only shows that Rudd is not after the truth but wishes to keep to an agenda that sacrifices truth to his prejudices. He make ad hominen attacks upon the Witness faith! He has also, in this latest email, further made obvious his prejudices toward anything that the Jehovah's Witnesses publish. He gives two options. But if anyone has been "engaged in [deceptive]... practices" or "dishonest" is it not Rudd himself and has been both? Hence, if anyone comes across any of Rudds' pages(including his "top ten list") then please be wary of taking too seriously him or his writings. He simply cannot be trusted!

index
Home