# Is the KJV Crap?  ## Episode metadata - Episode title: Is the KJV Crap? - Show: Data Over Dogma - Owner / Host: Daniel McClellan and Daniel Beecher - Episode publish date: 2026-04-27 - Episode AI description: They challenge the King James Version's authority and trace its roots to earlier translations. Textual scholarship, manuscript finds, and translation choices are examined. Translation quirks spawn myths like biblical unicorns and conflated terms for the afterlife. Linguistic details in Greek reveal when 'god' might mean 'divine,' and how that reshapes readings of John and early theological debates. - Duration: 01:02:56 - Episode URL: [Open in Snipd](https://share.snipd.com/episode/c68afeed-5717-451e-87cb-eddc4f584bac) - Show URL: [Open in Snipd](https://share.snipd.com/show/8153b1cc-d781-49fd-92d5-a4bef70d1be5) - Export date: 2026-07-08T01:13:06 ## Snips ### [KJV Is A Revision Not A New Translation](https://share.snipd.com/snip/d6b9894c-57fe-4a63-9b0b-987ab77226ca) 🎧 05:18 - 11:42 (06:24) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/fb47700e-292a-4c82-b0b9-22937b237094" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - The King James Version is largely a conservative revision of earlier English Bibles rather than a wholly new translation. - Dan McClellan notes the KJV closely follows the Bishop's Bible and preserves many earlier renderings, explaining its outsized linguistic influence. #### 💬 Quote > It is a conservative revision of the Bishop's Bible, specifically 1602 edition of the Bishop's Bible. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan on the KJV's relationship to earlier English translations #### 📚 Transcript **Dan Beecher:** There are still lots of people out there who believe that it is the only English version that anyone should be looking at for anything. It is the inspired and true word of God. Every bit of it, inerrant in every way. Amen. Yes, the degree **Dan McClellan:** of KJV-onlyism out there puts Poe's law to the test time after time after time, because I'm like, you cannot, cannot possibly be serious. For instance, folks who, pastors who will insist that they will use the King James Version to correct the Greek. And I'm like, no, you can't be serious. Wait. **Dan Beecher:** You know what? It takes a bold move to correct source material with the thing that came after. Yeah, **Dan McClellan:** yeah, with the target translation. Yeah. But yeah, there's a large degree of that. But the King James Version, while it remains, it is one of the most popular translations. I think it still may be the best selling translation out there. It is not the most read translation out there. So it is kind of more of an icon than an actual translation that people like to read. Because it's a slog. I think the NIV might be the most read translation out there. But it is an influential translation, so much so that Robert Alter recently published his own translation of the Hebrew Bible. And along with it, he published somewhat of a companion volume called The Art of Bible. Oh. Translation. And he talked about how all Bible translations into English these days operate in the of the King James Version, and so you might as well. You need to lean into that, otherwise **Dan Beecher:** you're just spitting into the wind. Now, we've been saying the phrase King James version, but can I correct us a little bit? Because when it first was released, it was the Holy Bible containing the Old Testament and the New, newly translated out of the original tongues and with former translations diligently compared and revised by his majesty's special commandment. **Dan McClellan:** Yes. **Dan Beecher:** That was the original title. Why don't we go back to that? It's a little too wordy. Instead of the KJV, it's T-H Okay. **Dan McClellan:** Yeah. And it's also not entirely accurate because, I mean, the degree to which it is a new translation is very small. It is a conservative revision of the Bishop's Bible, specifically 1602 edition of the Bishop's Bible. In fact, they got several copies of the Bishop's Bible and sent them to the translators, and they literally scratched words out and wrote the replacements in the margins. Oh, wow. And then they were collected, and they had folks who were the editors who would basically just transcribe the resulting cobbled together translation. And there are scholars who have estimated the New Testament of the King James Version. And we can see how close it is to the Bishop's Bible. It's incredibly close to the Bishop's Bible, but it's even incredibly close to Tyndall's translation of the New Testament, which is several versions removed from the Bishop's Bible. They estimated 84% of the New Testament in the King James Version is word word, Tyndall's translation. Oh, wow. I did **Dan Beecher:** not realize that. This is why it is the KJV not the KJT. **Dan McClellan:** I mean, the titles are pretty—there's not a really strict set of rules for titles. But some people call it the KJB, the King James Bible. Oh, sure. And that way you just sidestep the claim that it's its own translation. But yeah, it's really just a revision of the Bishop's Bible. And so a lot of the things that we're going to talk about today as squirrely translations have actually existed for like a century before the King James Version was ever translated. But certainly it perpetuated, and in the history since the publication of the King James Bible, it has been responsible for making sure those things **Dan Beecher:** remain **Dan McClellan:** influential. **Dan Beecher:** Become cemented into the tradition **Dan McClellan:** or whatever, yeah. In fact, the King James Version has a lot to do with the language that we use. Because English was moving away from the King James Version until the first and second great awakenings, when suddenly it was like, bring back the King James Version. And then a lot of words that had fallen out of use suddenly popped back into use only because of the influence of the King James Version. So like the word warfare, we only use that word because the King James Version. And there's scholarship that looks at a list of words that were no longer used until the second great awakening in the 19th century. And suddenly people started using these words again, and they're still used to this day. And we got a lot of different examples of problematic passages in here, because while it was based on, this revision was based on the best available scholarship of the day for the most part, the scholarship has advanced significantly. Our resources have advanced. I **Dan Beecher:** would hope so. Yes. **Dan McClellan:** And probably the biggest thing is we have a lot more manuscripts that are available to us today. The science slash art of textual criticism has advanced significantly, and we can make much more informed decisions about what readings are most likely earlier, particularly because we have access to a lot more New Testament manuscripts, we have access to the Dead Sea Scrolls, all that kind of stuff. --- ### [Prefer Modern Textual Criticism Over Textus Receptus](https://share.snipd.com/snip/192b6553-a5a4-49ff-8fad-dcd2ddf1fd61) 🎧 11:17 - 11:56 (00:39) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/e8b73ba1-1206-49ec-b5ac-03ddba498907" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Use modern textual criticism and wider manuscript evidence rather than relying solely on the Textus Receptus when assessing original New Testament readings. - McClellan urges reliance on more manuscripts, Dead Sea Scrolls, and advanced scholarship to correct earlier translation artifacts. #### 💬 Quote > The science slash art of textual criticism has advanced significantly, and we can make much more informed decisions about what readings are most likely earlier. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan advocating modern textual criticism and manuscript evidence #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** Our resources have advanced. I **Dan Beecher:** would hope so. Yes. **Dan McClellan:** And probably the biggest thing is we have a lot more manuscripts that are available to us today. The science slash art of textual criticism has advanced significantly, and we can make much more informed decisions about what readings are most likely earlier, particularly because we have access to a lot more New Testament manuscripts, we have access to the Dead Sea Scrolls, all that kind of stuff. So of the things we'll talk about have to do with translations. Some of the things have to do with manuscripts and what sources are being used. Okay. So for instance, one of the first things, one of the biggest things, one the most influential things --- ### [How The Comma Johanneum Entered The KJV](https://share.snipd.com/snip/5581aed0-d641-49be-bd4b-636a6b928375) 🎧 12:01 - 15:38 (03:37) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/7e1f7ac8-8d3a-4685-9d25-1991189c142e" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - The Johannine Comma in 1 John 5:7 is absent from early Greek manuscripts and enters the KJV via the Textus Receptus' third edition. - Dan McClellan explains Erasmus included the clause only after a late, likely back-translated Greek manuscript surfaced, cementing it in the KJV. #### 💬 Quote > The only problem is it's not in any early Greek manuscripts. It's something that pops up in Latin manuscripts. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan on the absence of the Johannine Comma in early Greek manuscripts #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** Are you familiar with that phrase? I'm familiar with **Dan Beecher:** the Oxford comma. Okay. No, this is a different one. This is **Dan McClellan:** a different comma. Also known as the Johannine comma. Right. And comma here just means clause. Okay. And so it is 1 John 5, verses 7 and 8. And these two verses read, for there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. And so this is a Trinitarian proof text. The only problem is it's not in any early Greek manuscripts. It's something that pops up in Latin manuscripts. And so the King James Version, the source text that the translators went to when they were like, why did the bishop's Bible translate it this way? They would go back to a source text for the Greek New Testament. And the source text they went back to was what became known as the Textus Receptus, which is a version of the Greek New Testament that was originally cobbled together at the beginning of the 16th century by Desiderius Erasmus. And, uh, he, the, when he first started this project, he went to his library in Switzerland and was like, give me all your Greek new Testament manuscripts. And they were like, we got six of them. And then they added a seventh later on. Uh, but it was like two manuscripts that represented the majority of the new Testament. And then the other four to five represented smaller portions. And he basically just took them and collated them and said, okay, I like this reading over here, I like this reading over here. And between the second and the third edition, some people started asking him why he didn't include this verse. This is a clause that crosses two verses. And there's another part of one of the verses that's not a part of this. But they said, where's that phrase? And he was like, it's not in any of the Greek manuscripts. And he got leaned on by people who had a lot of power and influence. And he basically said, look, I'm not going to include this unless I have a Greek manuscript that has it, because it's not in any of the Greek manuscripts. And lo and behold, somebody shows up with a Greek manuscript that has it. I have it under my pillow. Yeah. And quite literally, it's dated to more or less within a couple of years of when it showed up at Erasmus' doorstep. And scholars who have looked at it have said, yeah, it looks like somebody just translated Latin back into Greek while transcribing this manuscript. But he said, okay, fine, I'll include it in the third edition. So the third edition of his Texas Receptus, which was really called the Novum Instrumentum, a new instrument, the third edition has the comma Johannaeum. And it just so happens that the edition that the King James translators relied on for their revision was the third edition. So the King James version, of course, included the Johannaein And that's one of the things that was stricken once we started doing more text-critical work in the 1700s and then more earnestly in the 1800s. --- ### [Erasmus Back-Translation Affected Revelation](https://share.snipd.com/snip/7d87bee5-77d6-4c6e-bbc9-b808d449fa17) 🎧 16:23 - 18:24 (02:00) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/c7987ad2-2cac-492e-95ea-eb0e4e52a0c0" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Erasmus' Textus Receptus included Revelation's ending after he back-translated Latin material because his Greek manuscripts lacked the final chapter. - This caused readings like 'book of life' to appear where earlier Greek reads 'tree of life', affecting the KJV. #### 💬 Quote > What he did was he took the Latin and he just translated the Latin back into Greek and just slapped that on the end of his product. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan explaining Erasmus' handling of Revelation's ending #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** Oh, sure. And this comes from the book of Revelation. Okay. Revelation 22, 19. And when Erasmus went and asked for all those manuscripts, what he got omitted the last chapter or so of the book of Revelation. He did not have a manuscript that included the end of the book of Revelation. So what he did was he took the Latin and he just translated the Latin back into Greek and just slapped that on the end of his product. Okay. So it's in Greek in the Textus Receptus, but it is Greek that was translated from a Latin manuscript. And part of the Revelation 22, 19, in the King James Version, it talks about the people's names being in the Book of Life, which in Latin would be Libro. And so the Erasmus' Texas Receptus has Book of Life, all fine and good except for the fact that the Latin is wrong. Or at least somebody was wrong in transmission because the Latin probably said L which meant tree because the greek manuscripts the greek manuscripts all say tree of life oh so uh so revelation 22 19 in the king james version refers to the book of life but it should refer to the tree of life having your name written in the tree life who writes in trees i mean guess people do. Revelation talks a little bit about this, about this tree that grows alongside the river. But yeah, an interesting little variation that we see based on the fact that Erasmus was like, where'd the last chapter go? I'll just translate it from Latin. That looks like the word book. --- ### [How Unicorns Appeared In The Bible](https://share.snipd.com/snip/eb6d5c60-3fea-4720-ac0a-42925e4a39ea) 🎧 20:39 - 29:59 (09:20) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/5117232a-3b89-47cf-8fa6-b32ffaa6e846" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - KJV's 'unicorn' translations trace to the Septuagint's monoceros and later Latin choices, not to a Hebrew mythical creature. - McClellan and Beecher show the Hebrew ra'em likely denotes an oryx/ox, while Greek and Latin renderings produced medieval unicorn imagery. #### 💬 Quote > Most scholars today would say it is a now extinct kind of ox called an oryx. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan on the Hebrew ra'em behind 'unicorn' translations #### 📚 Transcript **Dan Beecher:** Let's talk unicorns because there's something just delightful about a Bible. Frankly, I don't want to give this one up. I want there to be unicorns in the Bible. You're about to tell me that I can't have my unicorns and I'm about to be sad. But let's talk about where they come from and what it's **Dan McClellan:** trying to translate. You know, starting something new isn't just hard. It can be downright terrifying. So much work goes into this thing that you're not entirely sure will work out. And it can really be hard to make that leap of faith. And two of us know this. When we started this podcast, I was worried. What if I make a fool of myself? That's what I generally do. So, you know, the odds are good. Now, I know that I was right in believing in myself and in launching this podcast. We knew we had something on our hands, despite all the fears and hesitations. It also helps when you have a partner like Shopify on your side to help. Shopify is a one-stop shop for making **Dan Beecher:** sure that you can build your own business from the ground up and have everything that you need right at your fingertips. Get started with your own design studio. They have hundreds of ready-to templates. They help you build a beautiful online store that matches your brand's style. You can get the word out like you're having a marketing team behind you. Create email and social media campaigns super easy wherever your customers are scrolling or strolling. Best yet, Shopify is your commerce expert with world-class expertise in everything from managing inventory to international shipping to processing returns and beyond. It makes your whole life so much easier. It's time to turn those what-ifs into with Shopify today. **Dan McClellan:** Sign up for your $1 per month trial today at shopify.com/dogma. Go to shopify.com/dogma. That's shopify.com me, there's so many times when I wish that something would just take care of these little small messes that pop up on our carpet every day. But with Narwhal, things really are a lot easier. **Dan Beecher:** And thank you to Narwhal, by the way, for sponsoring today's show. If you've never had a robotic vacuum and mop system, Narwhal is exactly where you want to start. I absolutely love my Narwhal Flow 2. I have experimented in my life with robot vacuums before, and they have not been great, I'll be honest with you. The hair gets tangled up in them they just push dirt around on the floor this thing is the next generation of robot vacuums and mopping systems the flow 2 has the flow wash mopping system which is real-time water infusion infusion which means that they are squirting 16 angled nozzles, spraying fresh water continuously. It's got this beautiful, this reverse rolling mop, which I love because it leaves just a streak of clean behind, but dries really quickly. It's heated water, so it cleans deep. It's an amazing thing. But that's not all. The Gnar Mind system, it's an autonomous system. It has dual RGB cameras. It's got two cameras and it's watching everything. And it recognizes all of the objects and adjusts accordingly to your floor. Listen, I've got pets. They have toys. My floor never looks the same twice, but my narwhal understands what it's looking at, moves around what it needs to move around, understands what is a chair leg and what is a cable, you know, a phone cord or something and acts accordingly. It's just a genuinely remarkable tool. **Dan McClellan:** Yeah, the Narwhal Flow 2 has powerful suction with carpet-focused technology. It does a phenomenal job. It's got an all-in base station and that AI power management that protects long-term battery health. This is really the top of the line when it comes to robot vacuums. If **Dan Beecher:** you want to treat your home to spotless fresh floors, visit us.narwal Dan. That's us.narwal slash Dan. Yeah, **Dan McClellan:** so the King James Version has nine occurrences. I think six occurrences in the singular unicorn, three occurrences of the plural unicorns. And when we look in the, the first place we can go is the Septuagint, because that's the tradition that resulted in, that's one of the traditions that the King James translators referred to. In fact, when we go all the way back to, in fact, I pulled up Tyndall's Pentateuch because William Tyndall translated more than the New Testament. He also translated the entire Pentateuch, which was published in 1530. But in Deuteronomy 33, 17, we have a reference to this where it says, his horns as the horns of an unicorn. And unicorn has a Y instead of an I and an E on the end and all that kind of stuff. So the use of unicorn goes all the way back to Tyndale in English. And it's actually used in something related is used in the, in the Vulgates. I think they use rhinoceros in the, let me just pull up the Vulgate real quick to sure. But the Latin would be translating the Septuagint's monoceros. Is it monoceros or monoceros? Yeah, it's monoceros, which means one horn. Okay. **Dan Beecher:** And **Dan McClellan:** so the Septuagint is probably the foundation of this misunderstanding. I think once you get into the Latin Vulgate, you get the, this was probably Jerome's attempt to try to understand the Hebrew word by appealing to the Greek because the Hebrew has ra'em and that is kind of an unusual for a long time. People weren't exactly sure what it was. Most scholars today would say it is a now extinct kind of ox called an oryx. Oh, **Dan Beecher:** okay. **Dan McClellan:** But when you go—but they didn't know this anciently. I'm looking in the—yeah, rhinoceros is what the Vulgate has in Deuteronomy 33, 17. So it sounds like the Vulgate is like, a one horn, what's that? Well, we've got these things called rhinoceroses, rhinoceri, maybe that's what's going on. So the Vulgate is using that. The Greek is probably basing this translation on reports from Persia, from people who are exploring, and legends from even further east into, you know, like the Indus Valley or something like that. There's an idea that in Persia they knew about this animal that had one long horn. Not quite a unicorn, but some single-horned animal. And deeper into the Indus Valley into India, there were reports coming out of this creature that had a long horn that was, you know, its horn had healing properties and stuff like that. And that's where the mythical creature probably comes from. And so this is like fifth, fourth century BCE explorers writing in Greek are talking about these mythical creatures. And I think the Septuagint translator either was trying to reflect that idea or was just trying to reflect the idea of a rhinoceros. Okay. So when we get into English, they're like, what? They don't really know what's, either they don't know what's going on or unicorn originally had a broader semantic range and could include a rhinoceros. Sure. But very quickly, the idea was that this is a, this mythical creature. --- ### [Hyrax Shout Made Me Realize Lost Animal Knowledge](https://share.snipd.com/snip/ae3edd5d-c5de-4188-8b32-5e9d74a0a215) 🎧 32:26 - 33:26 (00:59) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/4062c9e7-9229-4f1d-9cbf-409c9c518ad6" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Dan McClellan recounts being startled by a hyrax at ruins in Israel, illustrating how local fauna can be unfamiliar to outsiders. - The hyrax's loud squeak and unexpected appearance made McClellan realize ancient readers knew animals we might not. #### 💬 Quote > And then this little rodent poked its head out and went and yelled at me. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan telling a travel anecdote about encountering a hyrax #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** And I heard this high-pitched squeak, almost like a yell. And I was like, what is that? And somebody was like, oh, it's a hyrax. And I was like, and what, pray tell, is a hyrax? And they were like, oh, it's kind of a rodent that hides out in rocky areas. And then I was looking at a pile of basalt rocks. And then this little rodent poked its head out and went and yelled at me. And I was like, oh, that's a hyrax. I heavily **Dan Beecher:** encourage everyone to look up hyraxes because they're, I wouldn't say cute. They look mad. They all look pretty mad. Yeah, they do. Yeah. And they sound mad. **Dan McClellan:** Like they sound like they're like, get out of here. Hey, what are you doing? Yeah, yeah. So I had no idea what a hyrax was until I started getting shouted at by one. And I had to have some knowledge dropped on me. --- ### [KJV Collapses Multiple Afterlife Concepts Into Hell](https://share.snipd.com/snip/3bf10d77-b8c3-47b0-a73a-54c65a84fa81) 🎧 34:32 - 38:45 (04:12) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/900c5a32-63e9-4340-918a-7d2f3a286a8c" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - The KJV flattens multiple distinct afterlife terms into a single English 'hell', obscuring Hebrew Sheol, Greek Hades, Gehenna, and Tartarus differences. - The hosts explain Sheol is a neutral realm of the dead, Gehenna is a Valey of Hinnom tradition of punishment, and Tartarus is a Greek mythological abyss. #### 💬 Quote > The main two are Hades and Gehenna... And then you've got one occurrence of the word Tartarus. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan describing different Greek terms translated as 'hell' #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** So you've got three different words. Well, one in Hebrew, Sheol, is translated hell in the King James Version. And this is just based on the assumption of univocality. Well, we're talking about the realm of the dead, and it's not particularly happy. That must mean hell. And the reality is that they did not have a concept of hell in the Hebrew Bible. Everybody went to the same place, good, bad. Nor heaven, **Dan Beecher:** just Sha'ol. **Dan McClellan:** Yeah, Sha'ol, which is just the realm of the dead. And it was a hazy, murky, not very exciting existence, and they didn't know an awful lot about it. So right off the bat, yeah, that's a mistranslation in the King James Version. And then you've got a few different words that are used in the New Testament. The main two are Hades and Gehenna. It's really Gehenna in Greek transliteration, but those are the two that are most commonly translated hell. And then you've got one occurrence of the word Tartarus. And in Greek, Gehenna is a Greek Jewish term. It comes from Gehenna, from the valley of the son of Hinnom. And this is this valley that comes around the south end of Jerusalem. And this is associated with child sacrifice in the pre-exilic period, the Tophet, which is where the pre-exilic kings were supposed to have offered their children as sacrifice, make them pass through the fire, all that stuff. That's supposed to be on the edge of the Valley of Hinnom. And in Greco-Roman period Jewish tradition, that location becomes associated with the bad place, just because there's fire, there's wickedness, there's killing, that is the bad place. And so that becomes kind of an eschatological location of divine punishment. And so in the New Testament, that's Gehenna. Hades is largely borrowed from Greek And Tartarus in Greek mythology is one of the two places you can go within Hades. Hades is kind of a more generic realm of the dead. And for certain groups, if you've been good, you go to the fields of Elysium. That is, you know, in Gladiator. That's what he says. You are in Elysium. And then the other place is Tartarus. That's if you've been bad. And you don't want to end up in Tartarus. But in borrowing that concept into the New Testament, Hades kind of has more of a negative tone. So it's kind of conceptually merging with the idea of Gehenna. But Tartarus is, I think it's used in one of the letters of Peter, and that's more directly referring to the lake of fire kind of bad part of Hades. **Dan Beecher:** It'd be, I'm trying to imagine what Christianity today would look like if those three words slash four words were each given a different translation or we're, you know what I mean? We're separated out as four distinct concepts. I think that's a, that's a big deal difference. **Dan McClellan:** Well, yeah, you can, you can in Mormonism for their degrees of glory if you really wanted to try to... Sure, man. But no, although it's not quite the hierarchy that Mormonism presents. But yeah, I think it would be fascinating if those different concepts were allowed to stay different. But that's kind of the pattern is everything gets kind of lumped together. You have the good side and the bad side. And all of the bad entities from the Hebrew Bible get just consolidated in Satan, whereas all the good, all the supernatural mediator figures from the Hebrew Bible get consolidated into Jesus. And all of the different concepts of postmortem divine punishment get consolidated into hell, whereas the idea of postmortem good stuff gets consolidated into heaven. --- ### [How 'Witch' Translation Distorts The Original](https://share.snipd.com/snip/d8a50c4f-6ef3-4a5d-9ed3-da834764a0ce) 🎧 39:22 - 42:46 (03:24) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/137f03ea-b847-44ee-8e5e-14edc3283569" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - The Hebrew kashaf and Greek pharmakos were rendered in English as 'witch', hiding gender and semantic nuance. - McClellan notes the Hebrew noun is feminine and Greek shifts to pharmakos (potion-maker), fueling mistranslations and later cultural myths. #### 💬 Quote > Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live appears in every single place it occurs in English, up to and including the King James Version. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan on the persistent English rendering of kashaf as 'witch' #### 📚 Transcript **Dan Beecher:** There's also the way the KJV talked about the word kashaf. I don't know how to say that, but a sorcerer, diviner, or as in the KJV, thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Oh **Dan McClellan:** yeah. Exodus 22, 18, right? Yeah. Yeah, so mehashifah is the word in Hebrew. But it's based on, it's a noun form based on the verbal roots, kashaf, to practice sorcery. Yeah, and this is wit. Like a lot of people say, oh, King James was anti-witch. And so he either told them to write this in or them change it to witch or something like that. I **Dan Beecher:** mean, you know, Shakespeare wrote Macbeth for King James, so obviously he had a witch thing. **Dan McClellan:** But it's just not true because it's in the Bishop's Bible, it's in the Geneva Bible, it's in the Great Bible, it's in the Matthew's Bible, it's in the Coverdale Bible, it's in the Tyndall translation. Like it is, thou shalt not suffer a witch to live every single place it occurs in English, up to and including the King James Version. But yeah, in Hebrew, it actually doesn't address the law to you in the second person. It just says, which would be a witch shall not live. Okay. So verb is actually third feminine singular. **Dan Beecher:** But is witch the right? I guess the problem that I have with the word witch in this case is that it's gendered. Yeah. And it's a feminine **Dan McClellan:** noun in the Hebrew. Oh, okay. Now, interestingly enough, the ancient Greek translation not only changed it to masculine, but changed it to plural. Oh. the word pharmakon or pharmakos, which is, could be magician, could be sorcerer, but fundamentally it refers to someone who mixes up potions. **Dan Beecher:** Thou shalt not suffer a pharmacist to live. **Dan McClellan:** I get it. I hear what you're saying. This is an anti-vaxxer. This is a COVID denier who prophesied thousands of years prior to the arrival of COVID-19 that this was all going to happen and that Fauci, because the original Greek could be rendered Fauci. Because it starts with an F. There you go. You just got to change, you got to, you know, elide the row and the mu, and then you got to kind of take the kappa and render it more of a ch. So anyway, yeah, for some weird reason, the Greek decided to just fiddle with it and make it, and pharmakos can refer to potions for good or potions for bad. So you see the usage of the word in reference to people who are using it to heal, but you more commonly see it as in reference to people who are using these potions for ill. --- ### [Missing Greek Article Signals Different Kind Of God](https://share.snipd.com/snip/5d6ad0a6-8884-45aa-9b55-2fbdab5bedea) 🎧 46:34 - 53:13 (06:38) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/e8f1d57f-438f-44a1-a04a-f663cc8a1329" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Some Greek authors intentionally omit the definite article with theos to mark 'divine' or 'deity' rather than 'the God' of Israel. - McClellan cites Philo who explains articles distinguish the true God from beings 'improperly so-called' gods or the Logos. #### 💬 Quote > The Holy Word... omitted the article when mentioning him who is improperly so-called, saying, who appeared to thee in the place not of the God, but simply of God. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan quoting Philo on article usage distinguishing 'the God' from 'god' #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** We're talking about a weird thing that a lot of folks have observed in some of the early Jewish and Christian discussions about God and the use of the Greek word theos. Because we know this word means God and ostensibly early Jewish and Christian authors are all monotheists and so there can only be one God. But we've got this weird thing where sometimes the word God might seem to be referring to somebody else. And in some places, some of these authors write the word God without the definite article. Now, if you don't know biblical Greek, even personal names, most of the time you include the definite article. So when you see in your English translation, and Jesus said to them in the Greek, it would be, and the Jesus said to them. The definite article is being used most of the time. Now there are certain syntactical circumstances where you actually don't use the definite article. But in some Greek texts, we have theos being used without the definite article in other instances where you would normally expect it. And a lot of folks who think that the Trinity is in the Bible are happy to imagine that this is still referring to the God of Israel. It's just identifying Jesus as the God of Israel, because obviously that's what the Trinity is, baby. That's what the Bible is saying. But we've got a handful of very interesting commentary from people from before and after the Gospel of John, which is where this is most debated, who actually directly address what they're doing. And I want to start with Philo. Philo of Alexandria was born at the end of the first century BCE, died around 50-60 CE, so was alive during the life of Jesus. And he wrote a lot of texts, way too much. But he— He was Jewish, right? Yes, he was an early Jewish philosopher. So he was incorporating a lot of Stoic and Middle Platonic philosophy into Judaism, kind of—it's a little bit syncretistic, but basically trying to show that Judaism fits within a Greek philosophical worldview. But he talks a lot about the logos, and this is translated word most of the time in English translations. The word of God, for instance, in Greek is logos, the U. And when he's talking about the Logos, he's largely borrowing this framework from Greco-Roman philosophy, because starting with Plato, but also including Stoicism, they had this concept of the Logos as God's rationality. And it could be the rationality that was inside God's head. So you have an idea that's inside your head, but then when you, once you speak it, it is expressed and it is now outside of you and it is separate from you. And so the logos can be, can be both things, but **Dan Beecher:** there's a part where- When you say that it's like rationality, then it makes sense to me that logos would be the root word of our logic. **Dan McClellan:** Yes. Yeah, that's exactly right. So we have Philo in a text called On Dreams. Like I said, he wrote about too many things, but he's examining a lot of different ways that God is influencing dreams and stuff that. But there's one part where he's talking about Genesis 31, 13. And this is where God, well, it says that it's the angel of the Lord, appears to Jacob. And then in verse 13 says, I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed the altar and all that kind of stuff. And Philo is quoting the Greek translation, which doesn't say that. It says, I am the God that anointed you or that appeared to you in the place of God, because Bethel means house of God. And so the Greek translators just thought, oh, this is a sentence, not a name. And so Philo's like, huh, this is weird. Let's consider whether there are two gods. And now I'm quoting from On Dreams, book one, starting in section 228. For we read, I am the God that appeared to thee, not in my place, but in the place of God, as though it were another's. What are we to say then? He that is truly God is one, but those that are improperly so called are more than one. Accordingly, the Holy Word in the present instance has indicated him who is truly God by means of the articles, saying, I am the God, definite article, the, while it omits the article when mentioning him who is improperly so-called, saying, who appeared to thee in the place not of the God, but simply of God. Here it gives the title of God to his chief logos, his chief word, not from any superstitious nicety in applying names, but with one aim before him to use words to express facts. And so what Philo is basically saying is that you have one entity that is truly, in essence, God, and then you have other entities that can just be referred to as God without actually being God. And when the scriptures are referring to those entities as God, even though they're not God, it omits the definite article. So they're not the God. They're not the **Dan Beecher:** God. They're just God. And that's somehow a lower place in the... **Dan McClellan:** Yeah. And a way to think of it is to understand God here in the qualitative sense. So it would be kind of like another word for God in English coming through different roots is deity. Right. And you could say there's the deity and then there's deity. Right. And so so-and is not the deity, so-and is just deity. And so it kind of means divine. Right. And Philo talks about this elsewhere. There's a part where he's talking about passage --- ### [John 1.1 Can Mean The Word Was Divine Not The God](https://share.snipd.com/snip/b346f462-d821-4b94-b4d3-798f8fa3f12a) 🎧 54:20 - 59:06 (04:46) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/b58d5453-4edc-442d-93a6-f11eef2ee82e" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - John 1:1's use of theos without the article aligns with Philo and could mean 'the Word was divine' rather than 'the Word was the God'. - McClellan and Beecher reference Philo, Justin Martyr, and Origen to show an early interpretive tradition treating the Logos as divine but distinct from 'the God'. #### 💬 Quote > And theos was the word. And that's traditionally translated, and the word was God, which would identify the word as the very God of Israel. But there's no definite article there. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan on the article-less theos in John 1:1 #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** theos being used without the definite article where we might expect the definite article if it's referring to the God of Israel. But yes, John 1.1 says in the beginning was the word, and the word was prostonteon, which means with God or toward God or next to God. And then it says, And theos was the word. And that's traditionally translated, and the word was God, which would identify the word as the very God of Israel. But there's no definite article there. And in this situation, the syntactical relationship indicates that the word theos is not being used to identify a specific God, but is used in the qualitative sense to mean deity or divine. And so the author could be appealing to something very close to what Philo is saying. And **Dan Beecher:** you're saying that the author of the Gospel of John came after Philo? Yes. The Gospel was written after, so could have been aware of Philo's writing? I **Dan McClellan:** think almost certainly aware of Philo's writing, because the Logos theology that we find in John resonates quite a lot with the Logos theology that we find in Philo. Okay, so when **Dan Beecher:** the author of John excludes that definite article, it's likely an intentional thing that's informed by Philo's ideas of how that definite article operates. In **Dan McClellan:** this particular instance, we wouldn't necessarily expect the definite article. So it's not definitive there. **Dan Beecher:** Okay. **Dan McClellan:** I think what the author is doing is it's using the word God with this understanding that there can be the God and then there can be entities that are improperly so-called or people who carry the label without being God. **Dan Beecher:** So you could say, and the word was with God and the word was divine or the word was also deity in some way, but not conflate them as the same thing. Right. It's not **Dan McClellan:** equating them. And there's another interesting occurrence in John 10, where a lot of people will point out that Jesus' Jewish opponents understood that he was identifying as the very God of Israel when he says, I and the Father are one, and they take up rocks to stone him. And in verse 33, and Jesus is like, ah, for which of my good works are you stoning me? And they say, we're not stoning you for your good works. We're stoning you because you being human, make yourself God. Now, if you look in an English translation, that's capital G God. It makes it sound like they're saying you're claiming to be the God of Israel. Right. But I don't think that's what's going on because in the Greek, there should be a definite article there and there's not. **Dan Beecher:** Okay. **Dan McClellan:** so I think, and there are a lot of later manuscripts that add the definite article because they're like, huh, why doesn't it have a definite? It should have a definite article, put a definite article in there. But without the article, if we keep Philo's statement in mind, the author of John could be representing the Jewish foes of Jesus as understanding Jesus to be claiming to be not necessarily the God of Israel, but at least divine. Right. Much like the logos. And I think there's some parallelism going on here too, because the word anthropos, which means human, also does not have a definite article. And so, I mean, the symmetry of the accusation is you are human, and that's a qualitative statement, and you're making yourself divine, also a qualitative statement. So it would be more parallel that way. And Jesus's response is, nuh at Psalm 82, where the scripture says, you are gods talking to humans. It's very clearly not saying you are the God of Israel, just that you're divinities, you're gods. And so Jesus's defense makes no sense, if we understand this passage, to be talking about the accusation that Jesus is claiming to be the very God of Israel. Right. And so there are a handful of instances in the Gospel of John where we have this use of theos without the definite article that, in light of Philo's statement, probably indicates an intentional reference to the Logos as divine, not as the very God of Israel. --- ### [Early Writers Saw Logos As Another God While Developing Trinity](https://share.snipd.com/snip/8734ecd1-6bf2-4087-be21-4edcb51adfdb) 🎧 59:08 - 01:05:52 (06:44) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/0ec96f5b-9548-4deb-ab3a-35de92a3123d" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Early Christian writers like Justin Martyr and Origen explicitly treated the Logos as 'another God' or 'God without the article', preserving a hierarchy or distinction. - McClellan notes Origen analyzes John's article choices and still develops proto-Trinitarian theology, showing theological evolution alongside grammatical awareness. #### 💬 Quote > Then he says... is called God, is distinct from God, the creator. Distinct, that is, in number, but not in mind. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan summarizing Justin Martyr on the Logos' relation to God #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** And then you might say, well, that was so much later than Philo. John's not doing that. But we find very similar statements or discussions in even later authors, as late as the 3rd century CE. But I want to stop first in Justin Martyr, who's writing around 150 CE, so right around the dead center of the 2nd century CE. And Justin is actually talking to—this is a text called Dialogue with Trifo, and it's this dialectic back and forth between Justin and a Jewish thinker. And Justin is just trying to prove Christianity true from the Jewish scriptures. But And have multiple references to Jesus as the Logos, the angel, and another God. And a little bit down, he says, then, if I could not prove to you from the scriptures that one of these three, and he's talking about Genesis 18, where the three entities appear to Abraham. If I could not prove to you from the scriptures that one of these three is God, and yet is termed an angel, because as stated above, he delivered the messages of God, the creator of all, to whomsoever God desires, and on and on and on. So he's talking about how there's a being that is not God that is referred to as God. **Dan Beecher:** Yeah. **Dan McClellan:** Then he says, let us return to the scriptures, and I shall try to convince you that he who is said to have appeared to Abraham, Jacob, and Moses is called God. Now, all these times Jesus has been referred to as God, Justin Martyr has omitted the definite article. And he says, and is called God, is distinct from God, the creator. Distinct, that is, in number, but not in mind. And the word in Greek, gnomi, which is translated here, mind, is like will, intent. It doesn't mean substance or essence. It just means in intent or in will. So Justin Martyr is doing the same thing that Philo explains, using the word God without the definite article to refer to the word of God, to the logos whom Justin understands to be Jesus. And then I think one of the most illuminating references comes from Origin of Alexandria. So this is a writer, a theologian, who's in Alexandria in the early third century CE and is talking about John 1.1. And he says, John has used the articles in one place and omitted them in another very precisely, and not as though he did not understand the precision of the Greek language. In the case of the word, he adds the article the, but in the case of the noun God, he inserts it in one place and omits it in another. And as the God and God differ in these places, so perhaps the word and word differ. And he goes on to talk about, for like three pages, about what it means for God and the Word to be referred to as the God versus just God and the Word versus just Word. So even as late as the this is like 220, 230 CE, this is almost 200 years after Philo is writing. We have multiple authors who are either mimicking what Philo is talking about or are quite explicitly addressing what John is talking about as reflecting Philo's idea that there's a distinction to be made here between hotheos, the God, and just theos, **Dan Beecher:** God. I guess one of the questions that that origin quote brings up for me is, was the author of the Gospel of John a good writer? Like, was he a careful and good writer? Because if so, then yeah, it stands to reason that these would be conscious choices that this writer is making. If they are expert in the language, then it makes sense to say that these were conscious decisions. **Dan McClellan:** Yeah, the author of the Gospel of John is generally treated as a competent writer. Certainly not the most flowery prose that has ever prosed, but is definitely not a clumsy or an uncareful writer. As we've talked about with Hugo Mendez. But in terms of the Greek, yeah, I think the author is considered competent. And I want to read one more portion from Origen. Oh, okay. He says, the God, therefore, is the true God. The others are gods formed according to him as images of the prototype. But again, the archetypal image of the many images is the word with the God who was in the beginning. By being with the God, he always continues to be God without the definite article. So very clearly, Origen has either noticed what Philo is doing and noticed that John is doing the same thing, or has just noticed this pattern in John, independent of Philo, and is arriving at a very similar conclusion. I happen to think he probably is aware of Philo and is saying, hey, that's a framework for understanding what the author of gospel of John is doing. But Origen was also probably the quintessential proto-Trinitarian who thought that Jesus was God. --- Created with [Snipd](https://www.snipd.com) | Highlight & Take Notes from Podcasts # Snips updated after 2026-04-05T10:16:17 ### [KJV Is A Revision Not A New Translation](https://share.snipd.com/snip/d6b9894c-57fe-4a63-9b0b-987ab77226ca) 🎧 05:18 - 11:42 (06:24) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/fb47700e-292a-4c82-b0b9-22937b237094" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - The King James Version is largely a conservative revision of earlier English Bibles rather than a wholly new translation. - Dan McClellan notes the KJV closely follows the Bishop's Bible and preserves many earlier renderings, explaining its outsized linguistic influence. #### 💬 Quote > It is a conservative revision of the Bishop's Bible, specifically 1602 edition of the Bishop's Bible. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan on the KJV's relationship to earlier English translations #### 📚 Transcript **Dan Beecher:** There are still lots of people out there who believe that it is the only English version that anyone should be looking at for anything. It is the inspired and true word of God. Every bit of it, inerrant in every way. Amen. Yes, the degree **Dan McClellan:** of KJV-onlyism out there puts Poe's law to the test time after time after time, because I'm like, you cannot, cannot possibly be serious. For instance, folks who, pastors who will insist that they will use the King James Version to correct the Greek. And I'm like, no, you can't be serious. Wait. **Dan Beecher:** You know what? It takes a bold move to correct source material with the thing that came after. Yeah, **Dan McClellan:** yeah, with the target translation. Yeah. But yeah, there's a large degree of that. But the King James Version, while it remains, it is one of the most popular translations. I think it still may be the best selling translation out there. It is not the most read translation out there. So it is kind of more of an icon than an actual translation that people like to read. Because it's a slog. I think the NIV might be the most read translation out there. But it is an influential translation, so much so that Robert Alter recently published his own translation of the Hebrew Bible. And along with it, he published somewhat of a companion volume called The Art of Bible. Oh. Translation. And he talked about how all Bible translations into English these days operate in the of the King James Version, and so you might as well. You need to lean into that, otherwise **Dan Beecher:** you're just spitting into the wind. Now, we've been saying the phrase King James version, but can I correct us a little bit? Because when it first was released, it was the Holy Bible containing the Old Testament and the New, newly translated out of the original tongues and with former translations diligently compared and revised by his majesty's special commandment. **Dan McClellan:** Yes. **Dan Beecher:** That was the original title. Why don't we go back to that? It's a little too wordy. Instead of the KJV, it's T-H Okay. **Dan McClellan:** Yeah. And it's also not entirely accurate because, I mean, the degree to which it is a new translation is very small. It is a conservative revision of the Bishop's Bible, specifically 1602 edition of the Bishop's Bible. In fact, they got several copies of the Bishop's Bible and sent them to the translators, and they literally scratched words out and wrote the replacements in the margins. Oh, wow. And then they were collected, and they had folks who were the editors who would basically just transcribe the resulting cobbled together translation. And there are scholars who have estimated the New Testament of the King James Version. And we can see how close it is to the Bishop's Bible. It's incredibly close to the Bishop's Bible, but it's even incredibly close to Tyndall's translation of the New Testament, which is several versions removed from the Bishop's Bible. They estimated 84% of the New Testament in the King James Version is word word, Tyndall's translation. Oh, wow. I did **Dan Beecher:** not realize that. This is why it is the KJV not the KJT. **Dan McClellan:** I mean, the titles are pretty—there's not a really strict set of rules for titles. But some people call it the KJB, the King James Bible. Oh, sure. And that way you just sidestep the claim that it's its own translation. But yeah, it's really just a revision of the Bishop's Bible. And so a lot of the things that we're going to talk about today as squirrely translations have actually existed for like a century before the King James Version was ever translated. But certainly it perpetuated, and in the history since the publication of the King James Bible, it has been responsible for making sure those things **Dan Beecher:** remain **Dan McClellan:** influential. **Dan Beecher:** Become cemented into the tradition **Dan McClellan:** or whatever, yeah. In fact, the King James Version has a lot to do with the language that we use. Because English was moving away from the King James Version until the first and second great awakenings, when suddenly it was like, bring back the King James Version. And then a lot of words that had fallen out of use suddenly popped back into use only because of the influence of the King James Version. So like the word warfare, we only use that word because the King James Version. And there's scholarship that looks at a list of words that were no longer used until the second great awakening in the 19th century. And suddenly people started using these words again, and they're still used to this day. And we got a lot of different examples of problematic passages in here, because while it was based on, this revision was based on the best available scholarship of the day for the most part, the scholarship has advanced significantly. Our resources have advanced. I **Dan Beecher:** would hope so. Yes. **Dan McClellan:** And probably the biggest thing is we have a lot more manuscripts that are available to us today. The science slash art of textual criticism has advanced significantly, and we can make much more informed decisions about what readings are most likely earlier, particularly because we have access to a lot more New Testament manuscripts, we have access to the Dead Sea Scrolls, all that kind of stuff. --- ### [Prefer Modern Textual Criticism Over Textus Receptus](https://share.snipd.com/snip/192b6553-a5a4-49ff-8fad-dcd2ddf1fd61) 🎧 11:17 - 11:56 (00:39) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/e8b73ba1-1206-49ec-b5ac-03ddba498907" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Use modern textual criticism and wider manuscript evidence rather than relying solely on the Textus Receptus when assessing original New Testament readings. - McClellan urges reliance on more manuscripts, Dead Sea Scrolls, and advanced scholarship to correct earlier translation artifacts. #### 💬 Quote > The science slash art of textual criticism has advanced significantly, and we can make much more informed decisions about what readings are most likely earlier. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan advocating modern textual criticism and manuscript evidence #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** Our resources have advanced. I **Dan Beecher:** would hope so. Yes. **Dan McClellan:** And probably the biggest thing is we have a lot more manuscripts that are available to us today. The science slash art of textual criticism has advanced significantly, and we can make much more informed decisions about what readings are most likely earlier, particularly because we have access to a lot more New Testament manuscripts, we have access to the Dead Sea Scrolls, all that kind of stuff. So of the things we'll talk about have to do with translations. Some of the things have to do with manuscripts and what sources are being used. Okay. So for instance, one of the first things, one of the biggest things, one the most influential things --- ### [How The Comma Johanneum Entered The KJV](https://share.snipd.com/snip/5581aed0-d641-49be-bd4b-636a6b928375) 🎧 12:01 - 15:38 (03:37) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/7e1f7ac8-8d3a-4685-9d25-1991189c142e" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - The Johannine Comma in 1 John 5:7 is absent from early Greek manuscripts and enters the KJV via the Textus Receptus' third edition. - Dan McClellan explains Erasmus included the clause only after a late, likely back-translated Greek manuscript surfaced, cementing it in the KJV. #### 💬 Quote > The only problem is it's not in any early Greek manuscripts. It's something that pops up in Latin manuscripts. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan on the absence of the Johannine Comma in early Greek manuscripts #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** Are you familiar with that phrase? I'm familiar with **Dan Beecher:** the Oxford comma. Okay. No, this is a different one. This is **Dan McClellan:** a different comma. Also known as the Johannine comma. Right. And comma here just means clause. Okay. And so it is 1 John 5, verses 7 and 8. And these two verses read, for there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. And so this is a Trinitarian proof text. The only problem is it's not in any early Greek manuscripts. It's something that pops up in Latin manuscripts. And so the King James Version, the source text that the translators went to when they were like, why did the bishop's Bible translate it this way? They would go back to a source text for the Greek New Testament. And the source text they went back to was what became known as the Textus Receptus, which is a version of the Greek New Testament that was originally cobbled together at the beginning of the 16th century by Desiderius Erasmus. And, uh, he, the, when he first started this project, he went to his library in Switzerland and was like, give me all your Greek new Testament manuscripts. And they were like, we got six of them. And then they added a seventh later on. Uh, but it was like two manuscripts that represented the majority of the new Testament. And then the other four to five represented smaller portions. And he basically just took them and collated them and said, okay, I like this reading over here, I like this reading over here. And between the second and the third edition, some people started asking him why he didn't include this verse. This is a clause that crosses two verses. And there's another part of one of the verses that's not a part of this. But they said, where's that phrase? And he was like, it's not in any of the Greek manuscripts. And he got leaned on by people who had a lot of power and influence. And he basically said, look, I'm not going to include this unless I have a Greek manuscript that has it, because it's not in any of the Greek manuscripts. And lo and behold, somebody shows up with a Greek manuscript that has it. I have it under my pillow. Yeah. And quite literally, it's dated to more or less within a couple of years of when it showed up at Erasmus' doorstep. And scholars who have looked at it have said, yeah, it looks like somebody just translated Latin back into Greek while transcribing this manuscript. But he said, okay, fine, I'll include it in the third edition. So the third edition of his Texas Receptus, which was really called the Novum Instrumentum, a new instrument, the third edition has the comma Johannaeum. And it just so happens that the edition that the King James translators relied on for their revision was the third edition. So the King James version, of course, included the Johannaein And that's one of the things that was stricken once we started doing more text-critical work in the 1700s and then more earnestly in the 1800s. --- ### [Erasmus Back-Translation Affected Revelation](https://share.snipd.com/snip/7d87bee5-77d6-4c6e-bbc9-b808d449fa17) 🎧 16:23 - 18:24 (02:00) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/c7987ad2-2cac-492e-95ea-eb0e4e52a0c0" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Erasmus' Textus Receptus included Revelation's ending after he back-translated Latin material because his Greek manuscripts lacked the final chapter. - This caused readings like 'book of life' to appear where earlier Greek reads 'tree of life', affecting the KJV. #### 💬 Quote > What he did was he took the Latin and he just translated the Latin back into Greek and just slapped that on the end of his product. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan explaining Erasmus' handling of Revelation's ending #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** Oh, sure. And this comes from the book of Revelation. Okay. Revelation 22, 19. And when Erasmus went and asked for all those manuscripts, what he got omitted the last chapter or so of the book of Revelation. He did not have a manuscript that included the end of the book of Revelation. So what he did was he took the Latin and he just translated the Latin back into Greek and just slapped that on the end of his product. Okay. So it's in Greek in the Textus Receptus, but it is Greek that was translated from a Latin manuscript. And part of the Revelation 22, 19, in the King James Version, it talks about the people's names being in the Book of Life, which in Latin would be Libro. And so the Erasmus' Texas Receptus has Book of Life, all fine and good except for the fact that the Latin is wrong. Or at least somebody was wrong in transmission because the Latin probably said L which meant tree because the greek manuscripts the greek manuscripts all say tree of life oh so uh so revelation 22 19 in the king james version refers to the book of life but it should refer to the tree of life having your name written in the tree life who writes in trees i mean guess people do. Revelation talks a little bit about this, about this tree that grows alongside the river. But yeah, an interesting little variation that we see based on the fact that Erasmus was like, where'd the last chapter go? I'll just translate it from Latin. That looks like the word book. --- ### [How Unicorns Appeared In The Bible](https://share.snipd.com/snip/eb6d5c60-3fea-4720-ac0a-42925e4a39ea) 🎧 20:39 - 29:59 (09:20) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/5117232a-3b89-47cf-8fa6-b32ffaa6e846" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - KJV's 'unicorn' translations trace to the Septuagint's monoceros and later Latin choices, not to a Hebrew mythical creature. - McClellan and Beecher show the Hebrew ra'em likely denotes an oryx/ox, while Greek and Latin renderings produced medieval unicorn imagery. #### 💬 Quote > Most scholars today would say it is a now extinct kind of ox called an oryx. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan on the Hebrew ra'em behind 'unicorn' translations #### 📚 Transcript **Dan Beecher:** Let's talk unicorns because there's something just delightful about a Bible. Frankly, I don't want to give this one up. I want there to be unicorns in the Bible. You're about to tell me that I can't have my unicorns and I'm about to be sad. But let's talk about where they come from and what it's **Dan McClellan:** trying to translate. You know, starting something new isn't just hard. It can be downright terrifying. So much work goes into this thing that you're not entirely sure will work out. And it can really be hard to make that leap of faith. And two of us know this. When we started this podcast, I was worried. What if I make a fool of myself? That's what I generally do. So, you know, the odds are good. Now, I know that I was right in believing in myself and in launching this podcast. We knew we had something on our hands, despite all the fears and hesitations. It also helps when you have a partner like Shopify on your side to help. Shopify is a one-stop shop for making **Dan Beecher:** sure that you can build your own business from the ground up and have everything that you need right at your fingertips. Get started with your own design studio. They have hundreds of ready-to templates. They help you build a beautiful online store that matches your brand's style. You can get the word out like you're having a marketing team behind you. Create email and social media campaigns super easy wherever your customers are scrolling or strolling. Best yet, Shopify is your commerce expert with world-class expertise in everything from managing inventory to international shipping to processing returns and beyond. It makes your whole life so much easier. It's time to turn those what-ifs into with Shopify today. **Dan McClellan:** Sign up for your $1 per month trial today at shopify.com/dogma. Go to shopify.com/dogma. That's shopify.com me, there's so many times when I wish that something would just take care of these little small messes that pop up on our carpet every day. But with Narwhal, things really are a lot easier. **Dan Beecher:** And thank you to Narwhal, by the way, for sponsoring today's show. If you've never had a robotic vacuum and mop system, Narwhal is exactly where you want to start. I absolutely love my Narwhal Flow 2. I have experimented in my life with robot vacuums before, and they have not been great, I'll be honest with you. The hair gets tangled up in them they just push dirt around on the floor this thing is the next generation of robot vacuums and mopping systems the flow 2 has the flow wash mopping system which is real-time water infusion infusion which means that they are squirting 16 angled nozzles, spraying fresh water continuously. It's got this beautiful, this reverse rolling mop, which I love because it leaves just a streak of clean behind, but dries really quickly. It's heated water, so it cleans deep. It's an amazing thing. But that's not all. The Gnar Mind system, it's an autonomous system. It has dual RGB cameras. It's got two cameras and it's watching everything. And it recognizes all of the objects and adjusts accordingly to your floor. Listen, I've got pets. They have toys. My floor never looks the same twice, but my narwhal understands what it's looking at, moves around what it needs to move around, understands what is a chair leg and what is a cable, you know, a phone cord or something and acts accordingly. It's just a genuinely remarkable tool. **Dan McClellan:** Yeah, the Narwhal Flow 2 has powerful suction with carpet-focused technology. It does a phenomenal job. It's got an all-in base station and that AI power management that protects long-term battery health. This is really the top of the line when it comes to robot vacuums. If **Dan Beecher:** you want to treat your home to spotless fresh floors, visit us.narwal Dan. That's us.narwal slash Dan. Yeah, **Dan McClellan:** so the King James Version has nine occurrences. I think six occurrences in the singular unicorn, three occurrences of the plural unicorns. And when we look in the, the first place we can go is the Septuagint, because that's the tradition that resulted in, that's one of the traditions that the King James translators referred to. In fact, when we go all the way back to, in fact, I pulled up Tyndall's Pentateuch because William Tyndall translated more than the New Testament. He also translated the entire Pentateuch, which was published in 1530. But in Deuteronomy 33, 17, we have a reference to this where it says, his horns as the horns of an unicorn. And unicorn has a Y instead of an I and an E on the end and all that kind of stuff. So the use of unicorn goes all the way back to Tyndale in English. And it's actually used in something related is used in the, in the Vulgates. I think they use rhinoceros in the, let me just pull up the Vulgate real quick to sure. But the Latin would be translating the Septuagint's monoceros. Is it monoceros or monoceros? Yeah, it's monoceros, which means one horn. Okay. **Dan Beecher:** And **Dan McClellan:** so the Septuagint is probably the foundation of this misunderstanding. I think once you get into the Latin Vulgate, you get the, this was probably Jerome's attempt to try to understand the Hebrew word by appealing to the Greek because the Hebrew has ra'em and that is kind of an unusual for a long time. People weren't exactly sure what it was. Most scholars today would say it is a now extinct kind of ox called an oryx. Oh, **Dan Beecher:** okay. **Dan McClellan:** But when you go—but they didn't know this anciently. I'm looking in the—yeah, rhinoceros is what the Vulgate has in Deuteronomy 33, 17. So it sounds like the Vulgate is like, a one horn, what's that? Well, we've got these things called rhinoceroses, rhinoceri, maybe that's what's going on. So the Vulgate is using that. The Greek is probably basing this translation on reports from Persia, from people who are exploring, and legends from even further east into, you know, like the Indus Valley or something like that. There's an idea that in Persia they knew about this animal that had one long horn. Not quite a unicorn, but some single-horned animal. And deeper into the Indus Valley into India, there were reports coming out of this creature that had a long horn that was, you know, its horn had healing properties and stuff like that. And that's where the mythical creature probably comes from. And so this is like fifth, fourth century BCE explorers writing in Greek are talking about these mythical creatures. And I think the Septuagint translator either was trying to reflect that idea or was just trying to reflect the idea of a rhinoceros. Okay. So when we get into English, they're like, what? They don't really know what's, either they don't know what's going on or unicorn originally had a broader semantic range and could include a rhinoceros. Sure. But very quickly, the idea was that this is a, this mythical creature. --- ### [Hyrax Shout Made Me Realize Lost Animal Knowledge](https://share.snipd.com/snip/ae3edd5d-c5de-4188-8b32-5e9d74a0a215) 🎧 32:26 - 33:26 (00:59) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/4062c9e7-9229-4f1d-9cbf-409c9c518ad6" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Dan McClellan recounts being startled by a hyrax at ruins in Israel, illustrating how local fauna can be unfamiliar to outsiders. - The hyrax's loud squeak and unexpected appearance made McClellan realize ancient readers knew animals we might not. #### 💬 Quote > And then this little rodent poked its head out and went and yelled at me. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan telling a travel anecdote about encountering a hyrax #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** And I heard this high-pitched squeak, almost like a yell. And I was like, what is that? And somebody was like, oh, it's a hyrax. And I was like, and what, pray tell, is a hyrax? And they were like, oh, it's kind of a rodent that hides out in rocky areas. And then I was looking at a pile of basalt rocks. And then this little rodent poked its head out and went and yelled at me. And I was like, oh, that's a hyrax. I heavily **Dan Beecher:** encourage everyone to look up hyraxes because they're, I wouldn't say cute. They look mad. They all look pretty mad. Yeah, they do. Yeah. And they sound mad. **Dan McClellan:** Like they sound like they're like, get out of here. Hey, what are you doing? Yeah, yeah. So I had no idea what a hyrax was until I started getting shouted at by one. And I had to have some knowledge dropped on me. --- ### [KJV Collapses Multiple Afterlife Concepts Into Hell](https://share.snipd.com/snip/3bf10d77-b8c3-47b0-a73a-54c65a84fa81) 🎧 34:32 - 38:45 (04:12) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/900c5a32-63e9-4340-918a-7d2f3a286a8c" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - The KJV flattens multiple distinct afterlife terms into a single English 'hell', obscuring Hebrew Sheol, Greek Hades, Gehenna, and Tartarus differences. - The hosts explain Sheol is a neutral realm of the dead, Gehenna is a Valey of Hinnom tradition of punishment, and Tartarus is a Greek mythological abyss. #### 💬 Quote > The main two are Hades and Gehenna... And then you've got one occurrence of the word Tartarus. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan describing different Greek terms translated as 'hell' #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** So you've got three different words. Well, one in Hebrew, Sheol, is translated hell in the King James Version. And this is just based on the assumption of univocality. Well, we're talking about the realm of the dead, and it's not particularly happy. That must mean hell. And the reality is that they did not have a concept of hell in the Hebrew Bible. Everybody went to the same place, good, bad. Nor heaven, **Dan Beecher:** just Sha'ol. **Dan McClellan:** Yeah, Sha'ol, which is just the realm of the dead. And it was a hazy, murky, not very exciting existence, and they didn't know an awful lot about it. So right off the bat, yeah, that's a mistranslation in the King James Version. And then you've got a few different words that are used in the New Testament. The main two are Hades and Gehenna. It's really Gehenna in Greek transliteration, but those are the two that are most commonly translated hell. And then you've got one occurrence of the word Tartarus. And in Greek, Gehenna is a Greek Jewish term. It comes from Gehenna, from the valley of the son of Hinnom. And this is this valley that comes around the south end of Jerusalem. And this is associated with child sacrifice in the pre-exilic period, the Tophet, which is where the pre-exilic kings were supposed to have offered their children as sacrifice, make them pass through the fire, all that stuff. That's supposed to be on the edge of the Valley of Hinnom. And in Greco-Roman period Jewish tradition, that location becomes associated with the bad place, just because there's fire, there's wickedness, there's killing, that is the bad place. And so that becomes kind of an eschatological location of divine punishment. And so in the New Testament, that's Gehenna. Hades is largely borrowed from Greek And Tartarus in Greek mythology is one of the two places you can go within Hades. Hades is kind of a more generic realm of the dead. And for certain groups, if you've been good, you go to the fields of Elysium. That is, you know, in Gladiator. That's what he says. You are in Elysium. And then the other place is Tartarus. That's if you've been bad. And you don't want to end up in Tartarus. But in borrowing that concept into the New Testament, Hades kind of has more of a negative tone. So it's kind of conceptually merging with the idea of Gehenna. But Tartarus is, I think it's used in one of the letters of Peter, and that's more directly referring to the lake of fire kind of bad part of Hades. **Dan Beecher:** It'd be, I'm trying to imagine what Christianity today would look like if those three words slash four words were each given a different translation or we're, you know what I mean? We're separated out as four distinct concepts. I think that's a, that's a big deal difference. **Dan McClellan:** Well, yeah, you can, you can in Mormonism for their degrees of glory if you really wanted to try to... Sure, man. But no, although it's not quite the hierarchy that Mormonism presents. But yeah, I think it would be fascinating if those different concepts were allowed to stay different. But that's kind of the pattern is everything gets kind of lumped together. You have the good side and the bad side. And all of the bad entities from the Hebrew Bible get just consolidated in Satan, whereas all the good, all the supernatural mediator figures from the Hebrew Bible get consolidated into Jesus. And all of the different concepts of postmortem divine punishment get consolidated into hell, whereas the idea of postmortem good stuff gets consolidated into heaven. --- ### [How 'Witch' Translation Distorts The Original](https://share.snipd.com/snip/d8a50c4f-6ef3-4a5d-9ed3-da834764a0ce) 🎧 39:22 - 42:46 (03:24) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/137f03ea-b847-44ee-8e5e-14edc3283569" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - The Hebrew kashaf and Greek pharmakos were rendered in English as 'witch', hiding gender and semantic nuance. - McClellan notes the Hebrew noun is feminine and Greek shifts to pharmakos (potion-maker), fueling mistranslations and later cultural myths. #### 💬 Quote > Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live appears in every single place it occurs in English, up to and including the King James Version. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan on the persistent English rendering of kashaf as 'witch' #### 📚 Transcript **Dan Beecher:** There's also the way the KJV talked about the word kashaf. I don't know how to say that, but a sorcerer, diviner, or as in the KJV, thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Oh **Dan McClellan:** yeah. Exodus 22, 18, right? Yeah. Yeah, so mehashifah is the word in Hebrew. But it's based on, it's a noun form based on the verbal roots, kashaf, to practice sorcery. Yeah, and this is wit. Like a lot of people say, oh, King James was anti-witch. And so he either told them to write this in or them change it to witch or something like that. I **Dan Beecher:** mean, you know, Shakespeare wrote Macbeth for King James, so obviously he had a witch thing. **Dan McClellan:** But it's just not true because it's in the Bishop's Bible, it's in the Geneva Bible, it's in the Great Bible, it's in the Matthew's Bible, it's in the Coverdale Bible, it's in the Tyndall translation. Like it is, thou shalt not suffer a witch to live every single place it occurs in English, up to and including the King James Version. But yeah, in Hebrew, it actually doesn't address the law to you in the second person. It just says, which would be a witch shall not live. Okay. So verb is actually third feminine singular. **Dan Beecher:** But is witch the right? I guess the problem that I have with the word witch in this case is that it's gendered. Yeah. And it's a feminine **Dan McClellan:** noun in the Hebrew. Oh, okay. Now, interestingly enough, the ancient Greek translation not only changed it to masculine, but changed it to plural. Oh. the word pharmakon or pharmakos, which is, could be magician, could be sorcerer, but fundamentally it refers to someone who mixes up potions. **Dan Beecher:** Thou shalt not suffer a pharmacist to live. **Dan McClellan:** I get it. I hear what you're saying. This is an anti-vaxxer. This is a COVID denier who prophesied thousands of years prior to the arrival of COVID-19 that this was all going to happen and that Fauci, because the original Greek could be rendered Fauci. Because it starts with an F. There you go. You just got to change, you got to, you know, elide the row and the mu, and then you got to kind of take the kappa and render it more of a ch. So anyway, yeah, for some weird reason, the Greek decided to just fiddle with it and make it, and pharmakos can refer to potions for good or potions for bad. So you see the usage of the word in reference to people who are using it to heal, but you more commonly see it as in reference to people who are using these potions for ill. --- ### [Missing Greek Article Signals Different Kind Of God](https://share.snipd.com/snip/5d6ad0a6-8884-45aa-9b55-2fbdab5bedea) 🎧 46:34 - 53:13 (06:38) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/e8f1d57f-438f-44a1-a04a-f663cc8a1329" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Some Greek authors intentionally omit the definite article with theos to mark 'divine' or 'deity' rather than 'the God' of Israel. - McClellan cites Philo who explains articles distinguish the true God from beings 'improperly so-called' gods or the Logos. #### 💬 Quote > The Holy Word... omitted the article when mentioning him who is improperly so-called, saying, who appeared to thee in the place not of the God, but simply of God. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan quoting Philo on article usage distinguishing 'the God' from 'god' #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** We're talking about a weird thing that a lot of folks have observed in some of the early Jewish and Christian discussions about God and the use of the Greek word theos. Because we know this word means God and ostensibly early Jewish and Christian authors are all monotheists and so there can only be one God. But we've got this weird thing where sometimes the word God might seem to be referring to somebody else. And in some places, some of these authors write the word God without the definite article. Now, if you don't know biblical Greek, even personal names, most of the time you include the definite article. So when you see in your English translation, and Jesus said to them in the Greek, it would be, and the Jesus said to them. The definite article is being used most of the time. Now there are certain syntactical circumstances where you actually don't use the definite article. But in some Greek texts, we have theos being used without the definite article in other instances where you would normally expect it. And a lot of folks who think that the Trinity is in the Bible are happy to imagine that this is still referring to the God of Israel. It's just identifying Jesus as the God of Israel, because obviously that's what the Trinity is, baby. That's what the Bible is saying. But we've got a handful of very interesting commentary from people from before and after the Gospel of John, which is where this is most debated, who actually directly address what they're doing. And I want to start with Philo. Philo of Alexandria was born at the end of the first century BCE, died around 50-60 CE, so was alive during the life of Jesus. And he wrote a lot of texts, way too much. But he— He was Jewish, right? Yes, he was an early Jewish philosopher. So he was incorporating a lot of Stoic and Middle Platonic philosophy into Judaism, kind of—it's a little bit syncretistic, but basically trying to show that Judaism fits within a Greek philosophical worldview. But he talks a lot about the logos, and this is translated word most of the time in English translations. The word of God, for instance, in Greek is logos, the U. And when he's talking about the Logos, he's largely borrowing this framework from Greco-Roman philosophy, because starting with Plato, but also including Stoicism, they had this concept of the Logos as God's rationality. And it could be the rationality that was inside God's head. So you have an idea that's inside your head, but then when you, once you speak it, it is expressed and it is now outside of you and it is separate from you. And so the logos can be, can be both things, but **Dan Beecher:** there's a part where- When you say that it's like rationality, then it makes sense to me that logos would be the root word of our logic. **Dan McClellan:** Yes. Yeah, that's exactly right. So we have Philo in a text called On Dreams. Like I said, he wrote about too many things, but he's examining a lot of different ways that God is influencing dreams and stuff that. But there's one part where he's talking about Genesis 31, 13. And this is where God, well, it says that it's the angel of the Lord, appears to Jacob. And then in verse 13 says, I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed the altar and all that kind of stuff. And Philo is quoting the Greek translation, which doesn't say that. It says, I am the God that anointed you or that appeared to you in the place of God, because Bethel means house of God. And so the Greek translators just thought, oh, this is a sentence, not a name. And so Philo's like, huh, this is weird. Let's consider whether there are two gods. And now I'm quoting from On Dreams, book one, starting in section 228. For we read, I am the God that appeared to thee, not in my place, but in the place of God, as though it were another's. What are we to say then? He that is truly God is one, but those that are improperly so called are more than one. Accordingly, the Holy Word in the present instance has indicated him who is truly God by means of the articles, saying, I am the God, definite article, the, while it omits the article when mentioning him who is improperly so-called, saying, who appeared to thee in the place not of the God, but simply of God. Here it gives the title of God to his chief logos, his chief word, not from any superstitious nicety in applying names, but with one aim before him to use words to express facts. And so what Philo is basically saying is that you have one entity that is truly, in essence, God, and then you have other entities that can just be referred to as God without actually being God. And when the scriptures are referring to those entities as God, even though they're not God, it omits the definite article. So they're not the God. They're not the **Dan Beecher:** God. They're just God. And that's somehow a lower place in the... **Dan McClellan:** Yeah. And a way to think of it is to understand God here in the qualitative sense. So it would be kind of like another word for God in English coming through different roots is deity. Right. And you could say there's the deity and then there's deity. Right. And so so-and is not the deity, so-and is just deity. And so it kind of means divine. Right. And Philo talks about this elsewhere. There's a part where he's talking about passage --- ### [John 1.1 Can Mean The Word Was Divine Not The God](https://share.snipd.com/snip/b346f462-d821-4b94-b4d3-798f8fa3f12a) 🎧 54:20 - 59:06 (04:46) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/b58d5453-4edc-442d-93a6-f11eef2ee82e" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - John 1:1's use of theos without the article aligns with Philo and could mean 'the Word was divine' rather than 'the Word was the God'. - McClellan and Beecher reference Philo, Justin Martyr, and Origen to show an early interpretive tradition treating the Logos as divine but distinct from 'the God'. #### 💬 Quote > And theos was the word. And that's traditionally translated, and the word was God, which would identify the word as the very God of Israel. But there's no definite article there. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan on the article-less theos in John 1:1 #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** theos being used without the definite article where we might expect the definite article if it's referring to the God of Israel. But yes, John 1.1 says in the beginning was the word, and the word was prostonteon, which means with God or toward God or next to God. And then it says, And theos was the word. And that's traditionally translated, and the word was God, which would identify the word as the very God of Israel. But there's no definite article there. And in this situation, the syntactical relationship indicates that the word theos is not being used to identify a specific God, but is used in the qualitative sense to mean deity or divine. And so the author could be appealing to something very close to what Philo is saying. And **Dan Beecher:** you're saying that the author of the Gospel of John came after Philo? Yes. The Gospel was written after, so could have been aware of Philo's writing? I **Dan McClellan:** think almost certainly aware of Philo's writing, because the Logos theology that we find in John resonates quite a lot with the Logos theology that we find in Philo. Okay, so when **Dan Beecher:** the author of John excludes that definite article, it's likely an intentional thing that's informed by Philo's ideas of how that definite article operates. In **Dan McClellan:** this particular instance, we wouldn't necessarily expect the definite article. So it's not definitive there. **Dan Beecher:** Okay. **Dan McClellan:** I think what the author is doing is it's using the word God with this understanding that there can be the God and then there can be entities that are improperly so-called or people who carry the label without being God. **Dan Beecher:** So you could say, and the word was with God and the word was divine or the word was also deity in some way, but not conflate them as the same thing. Right. It's not **Dan McClellan:** equating them. And there's another interesting occurrence in John 10, where a lot of people will point out that Jesus' Jewish opponents understood that he was identifying as the very God of Israel when he says, I and the Father are one, and they take up rocks to stone him. And in verse 33, and Jesus is like, ah, for which of my good works are you stoning me? And they say, we're not stoning you for your good works. We're stoning you because you being human, make yourself God. Now, if you look in an English translation, that's capital G God. It makes it sound like they're saying you're claiming to be the God of Israel. Right. But I don't think that's what's going on because in the Greek, there should be a definite article there and there's not. **Dan Beecher:** Okay. **Dan McClellan:** so I think, and there are a lot of later manuscripts that add the definite article because they're like, huh, why doesn't it have a definite? It should have a definite article, put a definite article in there. But without the article, if we keep Philo's statement in mind, the author of John could be representing the Jewish foes of Jesus as understanding Jesus to be claiming to be not necessarily the God of Israel, but at least divine. Right. Much like the logos. And I think there's some parallelism going on here too, because the word anthropos, which means human, also does not have a definite article. And so, I mean, the symmetry of the accusation is you are human, and that's a qualitative statement, and you're making yourself divine, also a qualitative statement. So it would be more parallel that way. And Jesus's response is, nuh at Psalm 82, where the scripture says, you are gods talking to humans. It's very clearly not saying you are the God of Israel, just that you're divinities, you're gods. And so Jesus's defense makes no sense, if we understand this passage, to be talking about the accusation that Jesus is claiming to be the very God of Israel. Right. And so there are a handful of instances in the Gospel of John where we have this use of theos without the definite article that, in light of Philo's statement, probably indicates an intentional reference to the Logos as divine, not as the very God of Israel. --- ### [Early Writers Saw Logos As Another God While Developing Trinity](https://share.snipd.com/snip/8734ecd1-6bf2-4087-be21-4edcb51adfdb) 🎧 59:08 - 01:05:52 (06:44) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/0ec96f5b-9548-4deb-ab3a-35de92a3123d" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Early Christian writers like Justin Martyr and Origen explicitly treated the Logos as 'another God' or 'God without the article', preserving a hierarchy or distinction. - McClellan notes Origen analyzes John's article choices and still develops proto-Trinitarian theology, showing theological evolution alongside grammatical awareness. #### 💬 Quote > Then he says... is called God, is distinct from God, the creator. Distinct, that is, in number, but not in mind. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan summarizing Justin Martyr on the Logos' relation to God #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** And then you might say, well, that was so much later than Philo. John's not doing that. But we find very similar statements or discussions in even later authors, as late as the 3rd century CE. But I want to stop first in Justin Martyr, who's writing around 150 CE, so right around the dead center of the 2nd century CE. And Justin is actually talking to—this is a text called Dialogue with Trifo, and it's this dialectic back and forth between Justin and a Jewish thinker. And Justin is just trying to prove Christianity true from the Jewish scriptures. But And have multiple references to Jesus as the Logos, the angel, and another God. And a little bit down, he says, then, if I could not prove to you from the scriptures that one of these three, and he's talking about Genesis 18, where the three entities appear to Abraham. If I could not prove to you from the scriptures that one of these three is God, and yet is termed an angel, because as stated above, he delivered the messages of God, the creator of all, to whomsoever God desires, and on and on and on. So he's talking about how there's a being that is not God that is referred to as God. **Dan Beecher:** Yeah. **Dan McClellan:** Then he says, let us return to the scriptures, and I shall try to convince you that he who is said to have appeared to Abraham, Jacob, and Moses is called God. Now, all these times Jesus has been referred to as God, Justin Martyr has omitted the definite article. And he says, and is called God, is distinct from God, the creator. Distinct, that is, in number, but not in mind. And the word in Greek, gnomi, which is translated here, mind, is like will, intent. It doesn't mean substance or essence. It just means in intent or in will. So Justin Martyr is doing the same thing that Philo explains, using the word God without the definite article to refer to the word of God, to the logos whom Justin understands to be Jesus. And then I think one of the most illuminating references comes from Origin of Alexandria. So this is a writer, a theologian, who's in Alexandria in the early third century CE and is talking about John 1.1. And he says, John has used the articles in one place and omitted them in another very precisely, and not as though he did not understand the precision of the Greek language. In the case of the word, he adds the article the, but in the case of the noun God, he inserts it in one place and omits it in another. And as the God and God differ in these places, so perhaps the word and word differ. And he goes on to talk about, for like three pages, about what it means for God and the Word to be referred to as the God versus just God and the Word versus just Word. So even as late as the this is like 220, 230 CE, this is almost 200 years after Philo is writing. We have multiple authors who are either mimicking what Philo is talking about or are quite explicitly addressing what John is talking about as reflecting Philo's idea that there's a distinction to be made here between hotheos, the God, and just theos, **Dan Beecher:** God. I guess one of the questions that that origin quote brings up for me is, was the author of the Gospel of John a good writer? Like, was he a careful and good writer? Because if so, then yeah, it stands to reason that these would be conscious choices that this writer is making. If they are expert in the language, then it makes sense to say that these were conscious decisions. **Dan McClellan:** Yeah, the author of the Gospel of John is generally treated as a competent writer. Certainly not the most flowery prose that has ever prosed, but is definitely not a clumsy or an uncareful writer. As we've talked about with Hugo Mendez. But in terms of the Greek, yeah, I think the author is considered competent. And I want to read one more portion from Origen. Oh, okay. He says, the God, therefore, is the true God. The others are gods formed according to him as images of the prototype. But again, the archetypal image of the many images is the word with the God who was in the beginning. By being with the God, he always continues to be God without the definite article. So very clearly, Origen has either noticed what Philo is doing and noticed that John is doing the same thing, or has just noticed this pattern in John, independent of Philo, and is arriving at a very similar conclusion. I happen to think he probably is aware of Philo and is saying, hey, that's a framework for understanding what the author of gospel of John is doing. But Origen was also probably the quintessential proto-Trinitarian who thought that Jesus was God. ---