And the word was god translation

«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

Евангелие от Иоанна

Новый русский перевод → English Standard Version

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

It is well known that the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation of the Bible translates the opening words of John’s Gospel as, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” In this post we consider whether that translation is correct, or the translation of mainstream Christian Bibles, “and the Word was God.”

Contents

1. The differences
2. Is there any basis for the translation, “and the Word was a God”?
3. However…
4. Why “the Word was with God” is the correct translation

The differences

Let’s begin by examining the differences between the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ version and the mainstream Christian versions of John 1:1.

You can see the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ translation of this verse here in both the 1984 version and the updated 2013 version of their New World Translation. The word ordering differs somewhat in these two versions, but crucially both end with the identical phrase, “and the Word was a god.”

Compare this with the verse in three mainstream Christian Bible versions, the English Standard Version (2001), the New International Version (2011), and the King James Version (1611, updated 1769). In each of them the translation is exactly identical (fairly unusual across these three versions!) and reads,

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
John 1:1, English Standard Version (ESV), New International Version (NIV), King James Version

“And the Word was God.”

The difference that’s made by the addition of that little indefinite article, ‘a god,’ reflects the difference in belief between Jehovah’s Witness and mainstream Christians about Jesus Christ, here referred to by John as “the Word.”

Mainstream Christians believe that Jesus Christ is both fully and completely Man, and, at the same time, fully and completely God. You could not be more God than Jesus is; you could not be more Man than Jesus is.

Jehovah’s Witnesses, on the other hand, believe that although Jesus Christ is a very exalted being born as a human — their 2013 translation even gives in a footnote the alternative, “was divine” — he was not fully and truly God (see, e.g., here). In their view only the Father is properly termed ‘God.’ Hence the translation, “and the Word was a god.”

Is there any basis for the translation, “and the Word was a God”?

The problem in translating this verse is that New Testament Greek has a definite article (“the”), but it does not have an indefinite article (“a”).

Also, unlike in English where we never refer to the Christian God as “the God,” New Testament Greek frequently does. It even frequently refers to Jesus as “the Jesus”!

Matthew 19:6
ὃ οὖν ὁ θεὸς συνέζευξεν ἄνθρωπος μὴ χωριζέτω.
ho oun ho theos sunezeuxen anthrōpos mē chōrizetō
what therefore the God has joined together man let not separate!

Matthew 17:18
καὶ ἐπετίμησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ τὸ δαιμόνιον
kai epetimēsen autō ho Iēsous, kai exēlthen ap’ autou to daimonion
and rebuked it the Jesus, and came out from him the demon

Now the standard way to translate a noun in New Testament Greek which isn’t preceded by the definite article, is with an indefinite article in English. Thus:

Matthew 19:5
ἕνεκα τούτου καταλείψει ἄνθρωπος τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὴν μητέρα καὶ κολληθήσεται τῇ γυναικὶ αὐτοῦ
heneka toutou kataleipsei anthrōpos ton patera kai tēn mētera kai kollēthēsetai tē gunaiki autou
for this reason shall leave [a] man the father and the mother and be joined to the wife of him

In this sentence the word anthrōpos, ‘man’, is not preceded by the Greek definite article, hence ‘a man.’

But the words for ‘father’ (patera), ‘mother’ (mētera) and ‘wife’ (gunaiki) are all preceded by the Greek definite article — ton patera, tēn mētera, tē gunaiki — hence ‘the father,’ ‘the mother,’ ‘the wife.’

With that in mind, let us turn to John 1:1.

John 1:1
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
En archē ēn ho logos, kai ho logos ēn pros ton theon, kai theos ēn ho logos.
In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and [a?] God was the Word.

Two things immediately jump out at us in the last clause:—

1. The order of the nouns is reversed compared to all our English translations: not “the Word was God,” but “God was the Word.”

1. The definite article is missing from the final occurrence of “God” (theos) — as in, “God was the Word” — whereas the definite article is present in the earlier occurrence of God (ton theon, “and the Word was with the God”).

The lack of a definite article on the final occurrence of “God” is what invites the Jehovah’s Witness’ translation, “and the Word was a god.”

However…

Although the absence of the definite article from a Greek noun often means we should translate with the English indefinite article — “a god,” and so on — this is by no means always the case.

In the New Testament Greek, the definite article is often omitted even though a specific instance of some noun is meant (which would often call for the definite article in English).

So with reference to the noun ‘God’ and the proper name ‘Jesus’, take the following examples also from John’s Gospel:

John 9:3
ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς· οὔτε οὗτος ἥμαρτεν οὔτε οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ
apekrithē Iēsous, oute houtos hēmarten oute hoi goneis autou
answered Jesus, neither this [man] sinned nor the parents of him

John 3:2
οὗτος ἦλθεν πρὸς αὐτὸν νυκτὸς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ῥαββί, οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἐλήλυθας διδάσκαλος·
houtos ēlthen pros auton nuktos kai eipen autō, Rhabbi, oidamen hoti apo theou elēluthas didaskalos.
this [man] came to him by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that from God you have come a teacher.”

In the first example, the word ‘Jesus’ (Iēsous) is not preceded by the definite article; yet clearly only one particular Jesus is meant. To translate this as, “A Jesus answered,” is impossible.

In the second example, the word ‘God’ (theou) is not preceded by the definite article; again, clearly it would be incorrect to translate this as, “we know that you have come from a god.”

So just because the definite article is absent from a noun, it doesn’t necessarily imply we should translate as “a god,” etc.

We see this going on even in John 1:1 itself, at the beginning of the verse:

John 1:1
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος …
En archē ēn ho logos …
In [the] beginning was the Word …

Here the word ‘beginning’ (archē) has no definite article preceding it; yet we would never translate this as “In a beginning”!

Why “the Word was with God” is the correct translation

Let us consider now some possibilities as to what John could have written, and what those alternatives would imply.

Suppose we had the word order as in our English versions. Also suppose John had used the definite article. Thus:

καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεός.
kai ho logos ēn ho theos.
and the Word was the God

What would this be implying? Since ‘God’ (theos) here is referring to the Father, and ‘Word’ (logos) is referring to the Son, the implication surely would be that the Word was the Father. In other words, it would imply that the Father and the Son were the same Person!

This is obviously wrong, because John has just written in the preceding clause, “and the Word was with God,” implying distinct Persons.

So that explains why John has not used the definite article in front of theos.

What if the word order was as in our English versions, but John didn’t use the definite article? Thus:

καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεός.
kai ho logos ēn theos.
and the Word was God

Having the word order this way without the article does invite the interpretation, “and the Word was a god” — even though contextual considerations rule this out:

• John was a Jew. One of the distinctive and absolutely non-negotiable beliefs of Judaism was the oneness of God. “Hear O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4). It is unthinkable that John should mean us to understand this as, “the Word was a god,” as though there were many gods!

• A little farther down, in John 1:18, John makes clear that the one referred to here as “the Word,” is himself God:

  “No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.” (italics mine)

So although contextually the translation “a god” is inadmissible, John, it seems to me, still avoids the word order we find in English in order not to give the suggestion of many gods.

Given the limitations of New Testament Greek, therefore — the lack of an indefinite article — and also given the fact that John writes in extremely simple Greek and has not recourse to later theological terms such as ‘Trinity’ (τριάς, trias in Greek), how can John convey the idea that the Son is truly God, without conveying the idea that the Son is the same Person as the Father, nor suggesting the idea that there are many gods?

By leaving out the definite article and reversing the word order to, “God was the Word” (theos ēn ho logos).

Thus, by careful wording, John shows that the Word (that’s the Son) has the nature of God, but is not the same Person as God (the Father).

This is why the translation, “and the Word was God,” is the correct one.

I would like to leave us, then, with a few words taken from the so-called Athanasian Creed, a universal statement of faith formulated in the fifth century A.D. and one which encapsulates this truth very well:

“So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
So are we forbidden by the catholic[1] religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.”

Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Greek texts of the New Testament are taken from the Nestle-Aland 27th edition New Testament text, a widely-respected and modern critical text (available here). The renderings into the Latin alphabet and the literal translations underneath are my own.

---

Note
etimasthe.com is something I do outside of full-time employment. Consequently I generally only post new material on here once or twice a week.

Please note that etimasthe is no longer on Twitter or Facebook. See announcement here.

---

[1] Meaning ‘universal’

101 Translations Of John 1:1: “…and the Word was God.”

Below is a list of 101 English translations of the New Testament verse of the Bible identified as John 1:1. The versions represent the work of scholars from a wide variety of religious groups.

The time frame covered is approximately 700 years with the oldest translation coming from circa 1300 A.D. The translations are presented in alphabetical order based on the name of the Bible version from which they are taken. Please note that the Jehovah’s Witness Bible, The New World Translation, version of this verse on page 11 where its translators inserted the word “a” into the text, does not agree with these translations of the verse listed below. The actual, original Greek text below is followed with 101 English translations:

American Standard Version: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

American Translation (Beck), An: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Amplified Bible: “In the beginning (before all time) was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself. (Isa. 9:6.)”

Analytical-Literal Translation: “In the beginning was the Word [or, the Expression of [divine] Logic], and the Word was with [or, in communion with] God, and the Word was God [or, was as to His essence God].”

Aramaic New Covenant: “In the beginning the Word having been and the Word having been unto God and God having been the Word . . .”

Archbishop Newcome’s New Testament (Prior to changes by Belsham): “The Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Barclay New Testament: “When the world began, the Word was already there. The Word was with God, and the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God.”

Basic Bible: “From the first he was the Word, and the Word was in relation with God and was God.”

Bible in Basic English: “From the first he was the Word, and the Word was in relation with God and was God.”

Bible Reader, The: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Bishops Bible: “In the begynnyng was the worde, & the worde was with God: and that worde was God.”

Common English New Testament: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Complete Jewish Bible: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Concordant Literal New Testament: “In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word.”

Confraternity of Christian Doctrine Translation: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God; and the Word was God.”

Conservative Version, A: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Contemporary English Version: “In the beginning was the one who is called the Word. The Word was with God and was truly God.”

Coptic Version of the New Testament: “In (the) beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word…”

Coverdale Bible, The: “In the begynnynge was the worde, and the worde was with God, and God was ye worde.”

Darby Holy Bible: “In (the) beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Documents of the New Testament, The: “In the Beginning there existed the Divine Reason, and the Divine Reason was with God, and the Divine Reason was God.”

Douay-Rheims Bible: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Emphasized Bible by J.B. Rotherham, The: “//Originally// was /the Word, And //the Word// was /with God; And /the Word/ was //God//.”

Emphatic Diaglott, The: “In the beginning was the LOGOS, and the LOGOS was with God, and the LOGOS was God.”

English Majority Text Version: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

English Jubilee 2000 Bible: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God.”

English Version for the Deaf (a.k.a. Easy to Read Version): “Before the world began, the Word was there. The Word was there with God. The Word was God.”

Geneva Bible, The: “In the beginning was the Worde, and the Worde was with God and that Worde was God.”

Godbey Translation of the New Testament: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

God’s Word (a.k.a. Today’s Bible Translation): “In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Great Bible (Cranmer 1539): “In the begynnynge was the worde, and the worde was wyth God: and God was the worde.”

Holman Christian Standard Bible: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Holy Bible in Modern English, The: “The WORD existed in the beginning, and the WORD was with God, and the WORD was God.”

Inclusive Version, An: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Interlinear Bible (Greene): “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

International Standard Version: “In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

James Murdock’s Translation of the Syriac Peshitta: “In the beginning, was the Word; and the Word was with God; and the Word was God.”

Jerusalem Bible, The: “In the beginning was the Word: the Word was with God and the Word was God.”

John Wesley New Testament: “In the beginning existed the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.”

King James Version: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

K leist-Lilly New Testament: “When time began, the Word was there, and the Word was face to face with God, and the Word was God.”

Knox Translation: “At the beginning of time the Word already was; and God had the Word abiding with him, and the Word was God.”

Lamsa Bible: “The Word was in the beginning, and that very Word was with God, and God was that Word.”

Lattimore New Testament: “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.”

Letchworth Version in Modern English: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Living Bible: “Before anything else existed, there was Christ, with God. He has always been alive and is himself God.”

Living Oracles New Testament, The: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

McCord’s New Testament Translation of the Everlasting Gospel: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Message, The (a.k.a. New Testament in Contemporary English): “The Word was first, the Word present to God, God present to the Word. The Word was God…”

Modern Reader’s Bible: “IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD: AND THE WORD WAS WITH GOD: AND THE WORD WAS GOD.”

Modern Speech New Testament, The: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Montgomery New Testament (Helen Brett Montgomery): “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was face to face with God, and the Word was God.”

New American Bible: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

New American Standard Version: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

New Berkeley Version in Modern English, The: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

New Century Version: “In the beginning there was the Word. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

New English Bible: “When all things began, the Word already was. The Word dwelt with God, and what God was, the Word was.”

New Evangelical Translation: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

New International Version: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

New Jerusalem Bible: “In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God and the Word was God.”

New King James: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

New Life Version: “The Word (Christ) was in the beginning. The Word was with God. The Word was God.”

New Living Translation: “In the beginning the Word already existed. He was with God, and he was God.”

New Millenium Bible, The: “The Word already existed before the world was created. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

New Revised Standard Version: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

New Testament: An Understandable Version, The: “The Word (already) existed in the beginning (of time). (Note: this is a reference to the preexistence of Jesus, See verse 14). And the Word was with God and the Word was (what) God (was).”

New Testament in Plain English: “In the beginning the Word of God was there. And the Word was face to face with God, and the Word was God.”

New World Translation (Jehovah’s Witnesses): “In (the) beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”

Noli New Testament: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was by God, and the Word was God.”

Norlie’s Simplified New Testament: “The Word was in the beginning; the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Orthodox Jewish Brit Chadasha, The: “Bereshis (In the Beginning) was the Dvar Hashem (YESHAYAH 55:11; BERESHIT 1:1), and the Dvar Hasem was agav (along with) Hashem (MISHLE 8:30; 30:4), and the Dvar Hashem was nothing less, by nature, than Elohim! (TEHILLIM 56:11(10); yn17:5; Rev. 19:13).”

People’s New Covenant, The: “In the original being the Word, or GOD-Idea existed; and the God-Idea existed in the at-one-ment with God; and the GOD-Idea was GOD-manifest.”

Phillips Revised Student Edition: “At the beginning God expressed himself. That personal expression, that word, was with God, and was God…”

Recovery Version: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible: “Originally was the Word, and the Word was with YAHVAH; and the Word was YAHVAH.”

Revised English Bible: “In the beginning the Word already was. The Word was in God’s presence, and what God was, the Word was.”

Revised Version: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Revised Standard Version: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Riverside New Testament: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Sacred Scriptures, Bethel Edition, The: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Yahweh, and the Word was Elohim.”

Scholars Version: “In the beginning there was the divine word and wisdom. The divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was.”

Scriptures (ISR), The: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Elohim, and the Word was Elohim.”

Shorter Bible, The: “In the beginning was the divine Wisdom, and the divine Wisdom was with God, and the divine Wisdom was God.”

Spencer New Testament: “In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with God, and the WORD was God.”

Swann New Testament: “In the beginning was the TRUTH, and the TRUTH was with God, and God was the TRUTH.”

Today’s English New Testament: “In the beginning was the Logos. And the Logos was with God. And God was the Logos.”

Today’s English Version (a.k.a Good News Bible): “Before the world was created, the Word already existed; he was with God, and he was the same as God.”

Twentieth Century New Testament, The: “At the Beginning the Word already was: The Word was with God; and the Word was God.”

Unvarnished New Testament, The: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward God, and God was what the Word was.”

Versified Rendering of the Complete Gospel Story: “CHRIST, the Living Word, existed ere creation’s work began. He was with God, and He was God…”

Webster Bible, The: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Westminster Version of the Sacred Scriptures: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Weymouth New Testament: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

The Wyclif Translation (by John Wycliffe): “In the bigynnynge was the word and the word was at god, and god was the word…”

William Tyndale Translation: “In the beginnynge was the worde, and the worde was with God: and the worde was God.”

Williams New Testament: “In the beginning the Word existed; and the Word was face to face with God; yea, the Word was God Himself.”

World English Bible: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Worldwide English (New Testament): “The Word already was, way back before anything began to be. The Word and God were together. The Word was God.”

Worrell New Testament: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Wuest Expanded Translation: “In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity.”

Young’s Literal Translation, Revised Edition: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God; and the Word was God…”

For more information see:

John 1:1 exposed in The Journal of Biblical Literature (4Jehovah.org)
How Can Jesus be with God and at the same time be God? (4Jehovah.org)
The Jehovah’s Witness Bible (The New World Translation) – List of Mistranslated Verses (4jehovah.org)
Are Jehovah’s Witnesses allowed to read and study the Bible by itself without Watchtower literature? (4jehovah.org)

© 2008 Michael J. Caba, Reprinted and posted on our website by permission.