| John 1:1 | |
|---|---|
← Luke 24 1:2 → | |
 First page of John's Gospel from the Coronation Gospels, c. 10th century. | |
| Book | Gospel of John |
| Christian Bible part | New Testament |
John 1:1 is the first verse in the opening chapter of the Gospel of John in the New Testament of the Christian Bible. The traditional and majority translation of this verse reads:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.[1][2][3][4]
"The Word," a translation of the Greek λόγος (logos), is widely interpreted as referring to Jesus, as indicated in other verses later in the same chapter.[5] For example, "the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us" (John 1:14; cf. 1:15, 17).
| Language | John 1:1 text |
|---|---|
| Koine Greek | Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.[6][7] |
| Greek transliteration | En arkhêi ên ho lógos, kaì ho lógos ên pròs tòn theón, kaì theòs ên ho lógos. |
| Syriac Peshitta | ܒ݁ܪܺܫܺܝܬ݂ ܐܺܝܬ݂ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܡܶܠܬ݂ܳܐ ܘܗܽܘ ܡܶܠܬ݂ܳܐ ܐܺܝܬ݂ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܠܘܳܬ݂ ܐܰܠܳܗܳܐ ܘܰܐܠܳܗܳܐ ܐܺܝܬ݂ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܗܽܘ ܡܶܠܬ݂ܳܐ ܀ |
| Syriac transliteration | brīšīṯ ʾiṯauhi hwā milṯā, whu milṯā ʾiṯauhi hwā luaṯ ʾalāhā; wʾalāhā iṯauhi hwā hu milṯā |
| Sahidic Coptic | ϨΝ ΤЄϨΟΥЄΙΤЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝϬΙΠϢΑϪЄ, ΑΥШ ΠϢΑϪЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝΝΑϨΡΜ ΠΝΟΥΤЄ. ΑΥШ ΝЄΥΝΟΥΤЄ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄ |
| Sahidic Coptic transliteration | Hn teHoueite neFSoop nCi pSaJe auw pSaJe neFSoop nnaHrm pnoute auw neunoute pe pSaJe.[8] |
| Sahidic Coptic to English | In the beginning existed the Word, and the Word existed with the God, and a God was the Word.[9][10][11] |
| Latin Vulgate | In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum. |
| Latin Vetus Latina example | in principio erat uerbum et uerbu uel sermo erat ap(ud) dm et ds erat uerbu[12]: man.27 |
The traditional rendering in English is:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Other variations of rendering, both in translation or paraphrase, John 1:1c also exist:
The text of John 1:1 has a sordid past and a myriad of interpretations. With the Greek alone, we can create empathic, orthodox, creed-like statements, or we can commit pure and unadulterated heresy. From the point of view of early church history, heresy develops when a misunderstanding arises concerning Greek articles, the predicate nominative, and grammatical word order. The early church heresy of Sabellianism understood John 1:1c to read, "and the Word was the God." The early church heresy of Arianism understood it to read, "and the word was a God."
— David A. Reed[22]
There are two issues affecting the translating of the verse, 1) theology and 2) proper application of grammatical rules. The commonly held theology that Jesus is God naturally leads one to believe that the proper way to render the verse is the one which is most popular.[23] The opposing theology that Jesus is subordinate to God as his Chief agent leads to the conclusion that "... a god" or "... divine" is the proper rendering.[24]
The Greek article is often translated the, which is the English definite article, but it can have a range of meanings that can be quite different from those found in English, and require context to interpret.[25] Ancient Greek does not have an indefinite article like the English word a, and nominatives without articles also have a range of meanings that require context to interpret.
In interpreting this verse, Colwell's rule should be taken into consideration, which says that a definite predicate which is before the verb "to be" usually does not have the definite article. Ernest Cadman Colwell writes:
The opening verse of John's Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite noun. Καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος [Kaì theòs ên ho lógos] looks much more like "And the Word was God" than "And the Word was divine" when viewed with reference to this rule. The absence of the article does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb, it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it. The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John, for this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas [Footnote: John 20,28]."[26]
Jason David BeDuhn (Professor of Religious Studies at Northern Arizona University) criticizes Colwell's Rule as methodologically unsound and "not a valid rule of Greek grammar."[27]
The main dispute with respect to this verse relates to John 1:1c ("the Word was God"). One minority translation is "the Word was divine." The following support this type of translation:
Tertullian in the early third century wrote:
Now if this one [the Word] is God according to John ("the Word was God"), then you have two: one who speaks that it may be, and another who carries it out. However, how you should accept this as "another" I have explained: as concerning person, not substance, and as distinction, not division. (Against Praxeus 12)[28]
In other words, the Persons are distinct but the substance is undivided. As Tertullian states in Against Praxeus 9 and 26, He is "so far God as He is of the same substance as God Himself ... and as a portion of the Whole ... as He Himself acknowledges: "My Father is greater than I."[28]
At the beginning of chapter 13 of against Praxeus, Tertullian uses various Scriptures to argue for "two Gods," including:[28]
"One God spoke and another created" (cf. John 1:3).
"God, even Thy God, hath anointed Thee or made Thee His Christ" (cf. Psm 45).
"'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.' There was One 'who was,' and there was another 'with whom'".
In John 1:1c, logos has the article but theos does not. Literally, "god was the word".[29] Origen of Alexandria, a teacher in Greek grammar of the third century, discusses the presence or absence of the article in Commentary on John, Book II, chap, 2.[30] He states:
He (John) uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God. [...] God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, "That they may know Thee the only true God;" (cf. John 17:3) but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article).
Origen then continues to explain that the Son - the first-born of all creation – was the first to be "with God" (cf. John 1:1), attracted to Himself divinity from God, and gave that divinity to the other "gods:"
And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God [...] It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty.
As R.P.C. Hanson stated in discussing the Apologists, "There were many different types and grades of deity in popular thought and religion and even in philosophical thought."[31] Origen concludes that "the Word of God" is not "God ... of Himself" but because of "His being with the Father" (cf. John 1:1):
The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.
Translations by James Moffatt, Edgar J. Goodspeed and Hugh J. Schonfield render part of the verse as "...the Word [Logos] was divine".
Murray J. Harris writes,
[It] is clear that in the translation "the Word was God", the term God is being used to denote his nature or essence, and not his person. But in normal English usage "God" is a proper noun, referring to the person of the Father or corporately to the three persons of the Godhead. Moreover, "the Word was God" suggests that "the Word" and "God" are convertible terms, that the proposition is reciprocating. But the Word is neither the Father nor the Trinity ... The rendering cannot stand without explanation."[32]
An Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible commentary notes:
This second theos could also be translated 'divine' as the construction indicates "a qualitative sense for theos". The Word is not God in the sense that he is the same person as the theos mentioned in 1:1a; he is not God the Father (God absolutely as in common NT usage) or the Trinity. The point being made is that the Logos is of the same uncreated nature or essence as God the Father, with whom he eternally exists. This verse is echoed in the Nicene Creed: "God (qualitative or derivative) from God (personal, the Father), Light from Light, True God from True God... homoousion with the Father."[33]
Daniel B. Wallace (Professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary) argues that:
The use of the anarthrous theos (the lack of the definite article before the second theos) is due to its use as a qualitative noun, describing the nature or essence of the Word, sharing the essence of the Father, though they differed in person: he stresses: "The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most precise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father".[34] He questions whether Colwell's rule helps in interpreting John 1:1. It has been said[by whom?] that Colwell's rule has been misapplied as its converse, as though it implied definiteness.[35]
Murray J. Harris (Emeritus Professor of NT Exegesis and Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) discusses "grammatical, theological, historical, literary and other issues that affect the interpretation of θεὸς" and conclude that, among other uses, "is a christological title that is primarily ontological in nature" and adds that "the application of θεὸς to Jesus Christ asserts that Jesus is ... God-by-nature.[36][37][38]
John L. McKenzie (Catholic Biblical scholar) wrote that ho Theos is God the Father, and adds that John 1:1 should be translated "the word was with the God [=the Father], and the word was a divine being."[39][40]
In a 1973 Journal of Biblical Literature article, Philip B. Harner, Professor Emeritus of Religion at Heidelberg College, claimed that the traditional translation of John 1:1c ("and the Word was God") is incorrect. He endorses the New English Bible translation of John 1:1c, "and what God was, the Word was."[41] However, Harner's claim has been criticized.[42]
Philip B. Harner (Professor Emeritus of Religion at Heidelberg College) says:
Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God." This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.[43]
B. F. Westcott is quoted by C. F. D. Moule (Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge):
The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in 4:24. 'It is necessarily without the article (theós not ho theós) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person. It would be pure Sabellianism to say "the Word was ho theós". No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word. Compare the converse statement of the true humanity of Christ five 27 (hóti huiòs anthrópou estín . . . ).'[44]
James D. G. Dunn (Emeritus Lightfoot Professor at University of Durham) states:
Philo demonstrates that a distinction between ho theos and theos such as we find in John 1.1b-c, would be deliberate by the author and significant for the Greek reader. Not only so, Philo shows that he could happily call the Logos 'God/god' without infringing his monotheism (or even 'the second God' – Qu.Gen. II.62). Bearing in mind our findings with regard to the Logos in Philo, this cannot but be significant: the Logos for Philo is 'God' not as a being independent of 'the God' but as 'the God' in his knowability – the Logos standing for that limited apprehension of the one God which is all that the rational man, even the mystic may attain to."[45]
In summary, scholars and grammarians indicate that the grammatical structure of the Greek does not identify the Word as the Person of God but indicates a qualitative sense. The point being made is that the Logos is of the same nature or essence as God the Father. In that case, "the Word was God" may be misleading because, in normal English, "God" is a proper noun, referring to the person of the Father or corporately to the three persons of the Godhead.
Some scholars oppose the translation ...a god,[46][47][48][49] while other scholars believe it is possible or even preferable.[50][51][52]
The rendering as "a god" is justified by some non-Trinitarians by comparing it with Acts 28:6 which has a similar grammatical construction'[53]
"The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead; but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.".[54]
"Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god (theón)." (KJV)[55]
"But they were expecting that he was going to swell up or suddenly drop dead. So after they had waited a long time and had seen nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god (theón)." (NET)[56]
However, it was noted that the Hebrew words El, HaElohim and Yahweh (all referring to God) were rendered as anarthrous theos in the Septuagint at Nahum 1:2, Isaiah 37:16, 41:4, Jeremiah 23:23 and Ezekiel 45:9 among many other locations. Moreover, in the New Testament anarthrous theos was used to refer to God in locations including John 1:18a, Romans 8:33, 2 Corinthians 5:19, 6:16 and Hebrews 11:16 (although the last two references do have an adjective aspect to them). Therefore, anarthrous or arthrous constructions by themselves, without context, cannot determine how to render it into a target language. In Deuteronomy 31:27 the septuagint text, "supported by all MSS... reads πρὸς τὸν θεόν for the Hebrew עִם־ יְהֹוָ֔ה",[57] but the oldest Greek text in Papyrus Fouad 266 has written πρὸς יהוה τὸν θεόν.[57]
In the October 2011 Journal of Theological Studies, Brian J. Wright and Tim Ricchuiti[58] reason that the indefinite article in the Coptic translation, of John 1:1, has a qualitative meaning. Many such occurrences for qualitative nouns are identified in the Coptic New Testament, including 1 John 1:5 and 1 John 4:8. Moreover, the indefinite article is used to refer to God in Deuteronomy 4:31 and Malachi 2:10.
|
Main article: In the beginning (phrase) |
"In the beginning (archē) was the Word (logos)" may be compared with:
"The reference to the opening words of the Old Testament is obvious, and is the more striking when we remember that a Jew would constantly speak of and quote from the book of Genesis as "Berēshîth" ("in the beginning"). It is quite in harmony with the Hebrew tone of this Gospel to do so, and it can hardly be that St. John wrote his Berēshîth without having that of Moses present to his mind, and without being guided by its meaning.[60]
The verse has been a source of much debate among Bible scholars and translators.
This verse and other concepts in the Johannine literature set the stage for the Logos-Christology in which the Apologists of the second and third centuries connected the divine Word of John 1:1-5 to the Hebrew Wisdom literature and to the divine Logos of contemporary Greek philosophy.[66]
On the basis of John 1:1, Tertullian, early in the third century, argued for two Persons that are distinct but the substance is undivided, of the same substance.
In John 1:1c, logos has the article but theos does not. Origen of Alexandria, a teacher in Greek grammar of the third century, argued that John uses the article when theos refers to "the uncreated cause of all things." But the Logos is named theos without the article because He participates in the divinity of the Father because of "His being with the Father." Robert J. Wilkinson informs that Origen also "mentions the name Ιαω in his comentary on John 1:1, where in discussing divine names, he glosses ieremias as meteorismos Ιαω (exultation of Ιαω). This appears to be an entry from a list giving the meaning of Hebrew names in LXX".[67]
The main dispute with respect to this verse relates to John 1:1c ("the Word was God"). One minority translation is "the Word was divine." This is based on the argument that the grammatical structure of the Greek does not identify the Word as the Person of God but indicates a qualitative sense. The point being made is that the Logos is of the same uncreated nature or essence as God the Father. In that case, "the Word was God" may be misleading because, in normal English, "God" is a proper noun, referring to the person of the Father or corporately to the three persons of the Godhead.
With respect to John 1:1, Ernest Cadman Colwell writes:
The absence of the article does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb, it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it.
So, whether the predicate (theos) is definite, indefinite or qualitative depends on the context. Consequently, this article raises the concern that uncertainty with respect to the grammar may result in translations based on the theology of the translator. The commonly held theology that Jesus is God naturally leads to a corresponding translation. But a theology in which Jesus is subordinate to God leads to the conclusion that "... a god" or "... divine" is the proper rendering.
