And the word was divine

Ин. 1:1 В начале было Слово, и Слово было у Бога, и Слово было Бог — один из главных стихов приводимых в поддержку учения о Троице. Важно как и везде правильно читать Писание и использовать контекст.Что говорит следующий стих «Оно (Слово) было в начале у Бога», Бог и тот кто был«у Бога» это двое, не один, тот кто был у другого не может быть им самим. Правильный стих в поддержку Троицы- «До начала всего был Бог, который назвал себя Словом», но в оригинале написан совсем другой текст.

В греческом койне — общепринятом греческом языке — был определенный артикль, но не было неопределенного артикля. Поэтому,если перед существительным, представляющим именную часть составного сказуемого (был Богом), не стоит определенный артикль, это существительное в зависимости от контекста может быть неопределенным,то есть выражать его принадлежность к ряду ему подобных.

В журнале («Journal of Biblical Literature») говорится,что выражения «в которых глаголу предшествует именная часть составного сказуемого без артикля, как правило имеют качественную характеристику».Как отмечается в журнале, это указывает на то, что ло́гос можно назвать богоподобным. Об Иоанна 1:1 там говорится:«То, что именная часть составного сказуемого имеет качественную характеристику, настолько очевидно,что существительное [тео́с] нельзя рассматривать как определенное, то есть выражающее его единичность».

Очень похожая ситуация и в русском языке, такое сказуемое в русском называется «составное именное сказуемое».

Вот примеры: Он (подлежащие) — был болен (сказуемое глагол+существительное), без потери значения может выражено по другому — Он был больной (глагол+прилагательное). Он был сердит и Он был сердитый.

Таким образом, в Иоанна 1:1 подчеркивается качество Слова, что оно было «божественным»,«богоподобным», «богом», но не Всемогущим Богом. Это согласуется с тем, что говорится в других частях Библии, показывающих,что Иисус, который здесь выступает в роли представителя Бога и называется«Словом», был послушным подчиненным,которого послал на землю Вышестоящий,Всемогущий Бог.

Есть множество других библейских стихов с такой же грамматической структурой, и практически все переводчики на другие языки переводят именную часть составного сказуемого так, чтобы она имела качественную характеристику. Например,в Марка 6:49, где написано, как ученики увидели Иисуса, идущего по воде, говорится:«Подумали, что это призрак» (перевод Кассиана). В греческом койне перед словом«призрак» нет неопределенного артикля.Но, чтобы согласовать перевод этого стиха с контекстом, почти все переводчики на другие языки переводят именную часть составного сказуемого так, чтобы она имела качественную характеристику.Подобным образом, так как в Иоанна 1:1 говорится, что Слово было у Бога, оно не могло быть Богом, а было «богом» или«божественным».

«Он был человекоубийца от начала и не устоял в истине, ибо нет в нем истины. Когда говорит он ложь, говорит свое, ибо он (есть) лжец и отец лжи». (Иоанна 8:44), в обоих случаях, «лжец» и «человекоубийца» переведены с маленькой буквы, как качественная характеристика, перед этими словами так же нет определенного артикля и являются именной частью сказуемого.
Богослов и ученый Джозеф Генри Тейер, работавший над созданием перевода Библии «AmericanStandard Version», сказал: «Логос был божественным,а не самим Божественным Существом».Иезуит Джон Макензи писал: «Иоан. 1:1 необходимо точно переводить… „слово было божественным существом“»(«Dictionary of the Bible»).

Древнегреческом (общегреческом языке, койне), который имел четкие правила употребления определенного артикля. По словам библеиста Арчибальда Робертсона, если перед подлежащим и именной частью составного сказуемого стоят артикли,эти члены предложения «абсолютно идентичны, тождественны и взаимозаменяемы».В доказательство он приводит Матфея13:38, где говорится: «Поле [греческое о агро́с] — это мир [греческое о ко́смос]».Словам «поле» и «мир» предшествует артикль о. Правила грамматики гласят,что мир и поле — это одно и то же.

Но что, если перед подлежащим стоит определенный артикль, а перед именной частью составного сказуемого его нет,как в Иоанна 1:1? Ссылаясь на этот стих,ученый Джеймс Хьюетт пишет: «В такой конструкции подлежащее и сказуемое неидентичны и между ними нельзя поставить знак равенства или как-то по-другому их приравнять». Для сравнения Хьюетт приводит 1 Иоанна 1:5: «Бог — свет» (Богесть свет). Здесь в греческом тексте«Бог» — это о тео́с, то есть теос с определенным артиклем о. Но перед словом фос («свет») артикля нет. Хьюетт объясняет это так: «О Боге всегда можно сказать,что Он свет, но не всегда свет — это Бог». Похожие пример: 1 Иоанна 4:16 («Бог есть любовь»). В этих стихах перед подлежащим «Бог» стоит определенный артикль, а перед именной частью сказуемого «любовь» артикля нет. В данном случае подлежащее и именная часть составного сказуемого не взаимозаменяемы. Поэтому перефразировка «любовь есть Бог» была бы неравнозначной.

Еще одно доказательство. Рассмотрим очень любопытный перевод Библии на язык, на котором говорили в первых веках нашей эры. Речь идет о саидском диалекте коптского языка. На коптском языке говорили в Египте на протяжении веков со времен служения Христа, а саидский диалект был его ранней литературной формой. Вот что говорится о самых ранних коптских переводах Библии в одном библейском словаре: «Поскольку [Септуагинта] и Н[овый] З[авет] были переведены на коптский язык в III веке н.э., коптский перевод опирается на греч[еские] манускр[ипты], которые значительно старше большинства из сохранившихся по сей день» (The Anchor BibleDictionary).

Библейский текст на саидском диалекте коптского языка представляет особый интерес по двум причинам. Во-первых, как было сказано выше, он отражает понимание священного текста, существовавшее до IV века н.э., в котором был официально утвержден догмат о Троице. Во-вторых, в коптском языке,как и во многих других языках, есть определенный и неопределенный артикли.Самыми ранними переводами христианских священных текстов были переводы на сирийский, латинский и коптский языки.В сирийском и латинском языках, как и вгреческом, нет артиклей. Однако в коптскоместь. Вот что, например, пишет ученый Томас Ламбдин в справочнике по саидскому диалекту коптского языка: «В коптском языке определенный и неопределенный артикли выполняют практически такую же функцию, как и артикли в английском»(Introduction to Sahidic Coptic).

Итак,коптский перевод содержит любопытное свидетельство того, как понимали в те времена Иоанна 1:1. Что же мы видим в переводе на саидский диалект коптского языка? В последней части Иоанна 1:1 перед словом «бог» стоит неопределенный артикль. Таким образом, если перевести это на русский язык, получится: «И Слово было богом», где слово «бог» пишется со строчной буквы. Очевидно, древние переводчики понимали, что в Иоанна 1:1 апостол не хотел отождествить Иисуса Христа со Всемогущим Богом, но хотел сказать, что Слово было богом в том смысле, что оно было божественногопроисхождения. (Папирус Честера Битти Р 813, подстрочный перевод).

SaulStreicher

«In the beginning was the Word» redirects here. For the part of Catholic liturgy, see Last Gospel.

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 verse has been a source of much debate among Bible scholars and translators.

«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).

This 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.^[6]

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.”

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.

Source text and translations[edit]

Language	John 1:1 text
Koine Greek	Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.[7][8]
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.[9]
Sahidic Coptic to English	In the beginning existed the Word, and the Word existed with the God, and a God was the Word.[10][11][12]
Latin Vulgate	In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum.

• 

  Codex Vaticanus (300–325), The end of Gospel of Luke and the beginning of Gospel of John

John 1:1 in English versions[edit]

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:

• 14th century: «and God was the word» – Wycliffe’s Bible (translated from the 4th-century Latin Vulgate)
• 1808: «and the Word was a god» – Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.
• 1822: «and the Word was a god» – The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.)
• 1829: «and the Word was a god» – The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829)
• 1863: «and the Word was a god» – A Literal Translation of the New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863)
• 1864: «the LOGOS was God» – A New Emphatic Version (right hand column)
• 1864: «and a god was the Word» – The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London (left hand column interlinear reading)
• 1867: «and the Son was of God» – The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible
• 1879: «and the Word was a god» – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979)
• 1885: «and the Word was a god» – Concise Commentary on The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885)
• 1911: «and [a] God was the word» – The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, by George William Horner.^[13]
• 1924: «the Logos was divine» – The Bible: James Moffatt Translation, by James Moffatt.^[14]
• 1935: «and the Word was divine» – The Bible: An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago.^[15]
• 1955: «so the Word was divine» – The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.^[16]
• 1956: «And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity» – The Wuest Expanded Translation^[17]
• 1958: «and the Word was a god» – The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed (J. L. Tomanec, 1958);
• 1962, 1979: «‘the word was God.’ Or, more literally, ‘God was the word.'» – The Four Gospels and the Revelation (R. Lattimore, 1979)
• 1966, 2001: «and he was the same as God» – The Good News Bible.
• 1970, 1989: «and what God was, the Word was» – The New English Bible and The Revised English Bible.
• 1975 «and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word» – Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany
• 1975: «and the Word was a god» – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975);
• 1978: «and godlike sort was the Logos» – Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin
• 1985: “So the Word was divine” — The Original New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield.^[18]
• 1993: «The Word was God, in readiness for God from day one.» — The Message, by Eugene H. Peterson.^[19]
• 1998: «and what God was the Word also was» – This translation follows Professor Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of John, ed. Daniel J. Harrington.^[20]
• 2017: “and the Logos was god” — The New Testament: A Translation, by David Bentley Hart.^[21]

Difficulties[edit]

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[edit]

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.

Colwell’s Rule[edit]

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 Word was divine[edit]

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[edit]

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.”^[29]

At the beginning of chapter 13 of against Praxeus, Tertullian uses various Scriptures to argue for “two Gods,” including:^[30]

“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’”.

Origen[edit]

In John 1:1c, logos has the article but theos does not. Literally, “god was the word”.^[31] 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.^[32] 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.»^[33] 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[edit]

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.»^[34]

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.»^[35]

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».^[36] 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.^[37]

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.^[38][39][40]

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.»^[41][42]

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.”^[43] However, Harner’s claim has been criticized.^[44]

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.^[45]

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 . . . ).’^[46]

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.”^[47]

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.

The Word as a god.[edit]

Some scholars oppose the translation …a god,^{[48][49][50][51]} while other scholars believe it is possible or even preferable.^[52][53][54]

The rendering as «a god» is justified by some non-Trinitarians by comparing it with Acts 28:6 which has a similar grammatical construction’^[55]

«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.»^{[Ac. 28:6 NIV]}.

«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)^[56]

«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)^[57]

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»,^[58] but the oldest Greek text in Papyrus Fouad 266 has written πρὸς יהוה τὸν θεόν.^[58]

In the October 2011 Journal of Theological Studies, Brian J. Wright and Tim Ricchuiti^[59] 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.

In the Beginning[edit]

«In the beginning (archē) was the Word (logos)» may be compared with:

• Genesis 1:1: «In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.»^[60] The opening words of the Old Testament are also «In the beginning». Theologian Charles Ellicott wrote:

«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.^[61]

• Mark 1:1: «The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.»^[62]
• Luke 1:2: «According as they have delivered them unto us, who from the beginning (archē) were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word (logos).^[63][64]
• 1 John 1:1: «That which was from the beginning (archē), which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the word (logos) of life».^[65][66]

[edit]

• Chrysostom: «While all the other Evangelists begin with the Incarnation, John, passing over the Conception, Nativity, education, and growth, speaks immediately of the Eternal Generation, saying, In the beginning was the Word.»

• Augustine: «The Greek word “logos” signifies both Word and Reason. But in this passage it is better to interpret it Word; as referring not only to the Father, but to the creation of things by the operative power of the Word; whereas Reason, though it produce nothing, is still rightly called Reason.»

• Augustine: «Words by their daily use, sound, and passage out of us, have become common things. But there is a word which remaineth inward, in the very man himself; distinct from the sound which proceedeth out of the mouth. There is a word, which is truly and spiritually that, which you understand by the sound, not being the actual sound. Now whoever can conceive the notion of word, as existing not only before its sound, but even before the idea of its sound is formed, may see enigmatically, and as it were in a glass, some similitude of that Word of Which it is said, In the beginning was the Word. For when we give expression to something which we know, the word used is necessarily derived from the knowledge thus retained in the memory, and must be of the same quality with that knowledge. For a word is a thought formed from a thing which we know; which word is spoken in the heart, being neither Greek nor Latin, nor of any language, though, when we want to communicate it to others, some sign is assumed by which to express it. […] Wherefore the word which sounds externally, is a sign of the word which lies hid within, to which the name of word more truly appertains. For that which is uttered by the mouth of our flesh, is the voice of the word; and is in fact called word, with reference to that from which it is taken, when it is developed externally.»

• Basil of Caesarea: «This Word is not a human word. For how was there a human word in the beginning, when man received his being last of all? There was not then any word of man in the beginning, nor yet of Angels; for every creature is within the limits of time, having its beginning of existence from the Creator. But what says the Gospel? It calls the Only-Begotten Himself the Word.»

• Chrysostom: «But why omitting the Father, does he proceed at once to speak of the Son? Because the Father was known to all; though not as the Father, yet as God; whereas the Only-Begotten was not known. As was meet then, he endeavours first of all to inculcate the knowledge of the Son on those who knew Him not; though neither in discoursing on Him, is he altogether silent on the Father. And inasmuch as he was about to teach that the Word was the Only-Begotten Son of God, that no one might think this a passible (παθητὴν) generation, he makes mention of the Word in the first place, in order to destroy the dangerous suspicion, and show that the Son was from God impassibly. And a second reason is, that He was to declare unto us the things of the Father. (John. 15:15) But he does not speak of the Word simply, but with the addition of the article, in order to distinguish It from other words. For Scripture calls God’s laws and commandments words; but this Word is a certain Substance, or Person, an Essence, coming forth impassibly from the Father Himself.»

• Basil of Caesarea: «Wherefore then Word? Because born impassibly, the Image of Him that begat, manifesting all the Father in Himself; abstracting from Him nothing, but existing perfect in Himself.»

• Augustine: «Now the Word of God is a Form, not a formation, but the Form of all forms, a Form unchangeable, removed from accident, from failure, from time, from space, surpassing all things, and existing in all things as a kind of foundation underneath, and summit above them.»

• Basil of Caesarea: «Yet has our outward word some similarity to the Divine Word. For our word declares the whole conception of the mind; since what we conceive in the mind we bring out in word. Indeed our heart is as it were the source, and the uttered word the stream which flows therefrom.»

• Chrysostom: «Observe the spiritual wisdom of the Evangelist. He knew that men honoured most what was most ancient, and that honouring what is before everything else, they conceived of it as God. On this account he mentions first the beginning, saying, In the beginning was the Word.»

• Augustine: «Or, In the beginning, as if it were said, before all things.»

• Basil of Caesarea: «The Holy Ghost foresaw that men would arise, who should envy the glory of the Only-Begotten, subverting their hearers by sophistry; as if because He were begotten, He was not; and before He was begotten, He was not. That none might presume then to babble such things, the Holy Ghost saith, In the beginning was the Word.»

• Hilary of Poitiers: «Years, centuries, ages, are passed over, place what beginning thou wilt in thy imagining, thou graspest it not in time, for He, from Whom it is derived, still was.»

• Chrysostom: «As then when our ship is near shore, cities and port pass in survey before us, which on the open sea vanish, and leave nothing whereon to fix the eye; so the Evangelist here, taking us with him in his flight above the created world, leaves the eye to gaze in vacancy on an illimitable expanse. For the words, was in the beginning, are significative of eternal and infinite essence.»

• Council of Ephesus: «Wherefore in one place divine Scripture calls Him the Son, in another the Word, in another the Brightness of the Father; names severally meant to guard against blasphemy. For, forasmuch as thy son is of the same nature with thyself, the Scripture wishing to show that the Substance of the Father and the Son is one, sets forth the Son of the Father, born of the Father, the Only-Begotten. Next, since the terms birth and son, convey the idea of passibleness, therefore it calls the Son the Word, declaring by that name the impassibility of His Nativity. But inasmuch as a father with us is necessarily older than his son, lest thou shouldest think that this applied to the Divine nature as well, it calls the Only-Begotten the Brightness of the Father; for brightness, though arising from the sun, is not posterior to it. Understand then that Brightness, as revealing the coeternity of the Son with the Father; Word as proving the impassibility of His birth, and Son as conveying His consubstantiality.»

• Chrysostom: «But they say that In the beginning does not absolutely express eternity: for that the same is said of the heaven and the earth: In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. (Gen. 1:1) But are not made and was, altogether different? For in like manner as the word is, when spoken of man, signifies the present only, but when applied to God, that which always and eternally is; so too was, predicated of our nature, signifies the past, but predicated of God, eternity.»

• Origen: «The verb to be, has a double signification, sometimes expressing the motions which take place in time, as other verbs do; sometimes the substance of that one thing of which it is predicated, without reference to time. Hence it is also called a substantive verb.»

• Hilary of Poitiers: «Consider then the world, understand what is written of it. In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. Whatever therefore is created is made in the beginning, and thou wouldest contain in time, what, as being to be made, is contained in the beginning. But, lo, for me, an illiterate unlearned fisherman is independent of time, unconfined by ages, advanceth beyond all beginnings. For the Word was, what it is, and is not bounded by any time, nor commenced therein, seeing It was not made in the beginning, but was.»

• Alcuin: » To refute those who inferred from Christ’s Birth in time, that He had not been from everlasting, the Evangelist begins with the eternity of the Word, saying, In the beginning was the Word.»

• Chrysostom: «Because it is an especial attribute of God, to be eternal and without a beginning, he laid this down first: then, lest any one on hearing in the beginning was the Word, should suppose the Word Unbegotten, he instantly guarded against this; saying, And the Word was with God.»

• Hilary of Poitiers: «From the beginning, He is with God: and though independent of time, is not independent of an Author.»

• Basil of Caesarea: «Again he repeats this, was, because of men blasphemously saying, that there was a time when He was not. Where then was the Word? Illimitable things are not contained in space. Where was He then? With God. For neither is the Father bounded by place, nor the Son by aught circumscribing.»

• Origen: «It is worth while noting, that, whereas the Word is said to come [be made] to some, as to Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, with God it is not made, as though it were not with Him before. But, the Word having been always with Him, it is said, and the Word was with God: for from the beginning it was not separate from the Father.»

• Chrysostom: «He has not said, was in God, but was with God: exhibiting to us that eternity which He had in accordance with His Person.»

• Theophylact of Ohrid: «Sabellius is overthrown by this text. For he asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one Person, Who sometimes appeared as the Father, sometimes as the Son, sometimes as the Holy Ghost. But he is manifestly confounded by this text, and the Word was with God; for here the Evangelist declares that the Son is one Person, God the Father another.»

• Hilary of Poitiers: «But the title is absolute, and free from the offence of an extraneous subject. To Moses it is said, I have given thee for a god to Pharaoh: (Exod. 7:1) but is not the reason for the name added, when it is said, to Pharaoh? Moses is given for a god to Pharaoh, when he is feared, when he is entreated, when he punishes, when he heals. And it is one thing to be given for a God, another thing to be God. I remember too another application of the name in the Psalms, I have said, ye are gods. But there too it is implied that the title was but bestowed; and the introduction of, I said, makes it rather the phrase of the Speaker, than the name of the thing. But when I hear the Word was God, I not only hear the Word said to be, but perceive It proved to be, God.»

• Basil of Caesarea: «Thus cutting off the cavils of blasphemers, and those who ask what the Word is, he replies, and the Word was God.»

• Theophylact of Ohrid: » Or combine it thus. From the Word being with God, it follows plainly that there are two Persons. But these two are of one Nature; and therefore it proceeds, In the Word was God: to show that Father and Son are of One Nature, being of One Godhead.»

• Origen: «We must add too, that the Word illuminates the Prophets with Divine wisdom, in that He cometh to them; but that with God He ever is, because He is God. For which reason he placed and the Word was with God, before and the Word was God.»

• Chrysostom: «Not asserting, as Plato does, one to be intelligence, the other soul; for the Divine Nature is very different from this. […] But you say, the Father is called God with the addition of the article, the Son without it. What say you then, when the Apostle. writes, The great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; (Tit. 2:13) and again, Who is over all, God; (Rom. 9:5) and Grace be unto you and peace from God our Father; (Rom. 1:7) without the article? Besides, too, it were superfluous here, to affix what had been affixed just before. So that it does not follow, though the article is not affixed to the Son, that He is therefore an inferior God.

References[edit]

External links[edit]

• Another God in the Gospel of John? A Linguistic Analysis of John 1:1 and 1:18

John 1:1 is probably the most debated Scripture in the Bible. Some Christians don’t believe Jesus is God (i.e. THE God) and describe him before his human birth as something from divine (including a divine “plan”) to simply “a” god. The controversy seems to arise out of the fact that the final clause in John 1:1 does not have the article before the word “God.” What these groups and other modern critics don’t seem to understand is, if the article were there, it would be a contradiction or an apparent error in the text. Notice:

John 1:1 Moffatt NT THE Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine.

John 1:1 NWT In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

John 1:1 JMNT Within a beginning there was The Word (The Thought; The Collection of Thoughts; The Idea; The Reason; The Discourse; The Communication; The Verbal Expression). And the Word (the thought; the expression) was (and continued being) facing, directed and moving toward (or: with) God. And the Word (the thought; the idea; the reason; the expression) continued being God. [or: Originally the Word was existing and continued to be, and the Word was being projected toward God. And the Word, It was existing being God (idiomatically: And the Word was just what God was; And the Expression was an extension of Deity).]

John 1:1 KJV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

If the article were placed before the final clause above, saying “the Word was the God…” it would mean he was beside himself in the second clause, namely, “the Word (the God) was with or beside the God. This is an impossibility. John chose his words well, and they reveal the only way to say the Word is God and mean he is/was the same essence as God; or put another way: “what God was, the Word was.

Often those who disagree will point to Proverbs 8 and the story of the Wisdom personification to support their understanding that the Word was simply a “divine” angel (or plan etc.) or a “god.” Many go on to point to the Greek grammar and how the verse should be translated. The problem is other grammarians could be quoted to contradict the authorities quoted by those who seek to show Jesus is something less than God. Is there an answer for all this? Can a layman, for example, prove that Jesus is God or not, or are we left on our own to stumble through the truth, making choices as to the veracity and expertise of the so-called greats or experts in the fields of theology and Greek grammar?

Let me repeat, the crux of this controversy arises out of the fact that the article does not appear before the final clause of John 1:1. Are we able to draw any conclusions from the word of God itself? Is the Scripture alone able to show us what is true? I believe so, and the answer lies in consistency.

In the next seventeen verses following John 1:1, there are no less than four references to the God with whom the Word existed in the beginning. They are 1:6, 12, 13 and 18. Each one of these references to the God is not only without the article in the Greek manuscript from which the critics derive their argument, but in every case where the word God appears it is unanimously agreed the word refers to the God! The argument of the critics and certain groups of Christians is not consistent. What rule of grammar would be used in these verses to warrant their obvious reference to the God when the article is absent in the original Greek manuscript? Therefore, the presence or absence of the article in the original Greek manuscripts is not a conclusive argument that one may use to prove that Jesus is not THE God. Even the critics of the Deity of Jesus do not follow this rule in every case.

Contrariwise, the article is present in other references to Jesus. Among these are:

1. Matthew 1:23 Jesus’ name is Immanuel. The interpretation given is, “God with us.”

The article is present here and reveals that Jesus is the God with us.

2. John 20:28 After his resurrection, Jesus appeared to Thomas. At Jesus’ invitation to touch him, Thomas exclaimed: “My Lord and My God.”

The article is present and Thomas refers to Jesus as the God.

3. 1John 1:15 “…God is Light and in him is no darkness.” The article is present. That this represents Jesus is made plain from reading John 1:4-10. It is clearly stated here that the Light gave life to all men. John the Baptist bore witness to the Light; and the Light was about to come into the world (v.9) and is the true Light. Therefore, if the God is Light and Christ is the true Light, there should be no controversy in saying, “Jesus is the God!”

There is no question that the Scriptures teach us that there is only one God. However, does the fact that there is only one God exclude any plurality within that one Deity? I have shown in other studies that there is evidence of plurality within the Deity in the Old Testament. In fact the very physical image which God created of himself is both the male and female—two people dwelling in unity (Genesis 1:26-27; Genesis 2:23-24).

To conclude, it is evident that there is no foundation for the argument that the presence of the article in the Greek text is an indication that the God mentioned is worthy of worship, while the absence of the article means that the deity under consideration is not worthy of worship. If this were a valid argument, why is the article omitted in so many New Testament references to our Father God, while many other Scripture references do have the article showing us Jesus is God? The argument, that Jesus is a god or divine (i.e. an angel or a divine plan etc.), but not the God is not consistent and just doesn’t make sense.

A fellow on Facebook asked me if I thought John 1:1c could be rendered “and the Word was divine”. Here is my response, for any who may be interested:

Most exegetes would probably offer a qualified no, because θεος is a noun, not an adjective. [Name snipped] seems to question that approach, and she may be right in doing so, but since θεος is a noun and seems to be used as a noun by ancient Jews, I would use a noun in English translation.

The answer that may be best for you, though, may depend on your preferred approach to translation. If you prefer a more literal translation, then I would go with “a god” (although “the Word was God” is also grammatically possible and literal if one understands “God” to be a definite noun; but it introduces a paradox that I think would have inspired readers to demand clarification); if you prefer a thought-for-thought approach then “a divine being” would be a possible rendering; if you prefer a paraphrase, then “divine” may be acceptable, assuming that θεος is being used ontologically and not functionally there.

Interestingly, and perhaps unexpectedly to some, “the Word was a god” is actually more neutral than “the Word was divine.” This is because it allows for both a functional or an ontological understanding. It can mean that the Word has a divine nature, or it can mean the Word is “god” functionally, as one who does god-things.

Here are three statements that can mean essentially the same thing in English:

I’m a sinner

I’m a sinful person

I’m sinful

If one says “I’m a sinner” and has in mind how he inherited sinfulness from Adam, then that person is thinking in a sort of ontological category. This makes a distinction in meaning between the three statements virtually imperceptible.

The same goes for these three statements, then:

the Word was a god

the Word was a divine being

the Word was divine

Here again, if one is using “a god” ontologically, then a distinction between the three statements is virtually imperceptible. To put it more precisely, the distinction isn’t so much in terms of meaning as it is in terms of the means by which the meaning is conveyed. In the first clause “god” is being used descriptively; in the second “divine being” conveys the descriptive sense; in the third clause an adjective conveys the descriptive sense.

The bottom line, though, is that unless one knows for a fact that the Evangelist was thinking in ontological categories, then, in my judgement, one should go with the more neutral rendering, and, really, how can anyone know that the Evangelist wasn’t using θεος functionally, there? I would therefore go with “the Word was a god,” and let each interpreter decide whether this is an ontological or a functional application (or both).