Fist was the word and the word was

Although
the borderline between various linguistic units is not always sharp
and clear, we shall try to define every new term on its first
appearance at once simply and unambiguously, if not always very
rigorously. The approximate definition of the term word
has already been given in the opening page of the book.

The
important point to remember about
definitions
is that they should indicate the most essential characteristic
features of the notion expressed by the term under discussion, the
features by which this notion is distinguished from other similar
notions. For instance, in defining the word one must distinguish it
from other linguistic units, such as the phoneme, the morpheme, or
the word-group. In contrast with a definition, a description
aims at enumerating all the essential features of a notion.

To
make things easier we shall begin by a preliminary description,
illustrating it with some examples.

The
word
may be described as the basic unit of language. Uniting meaning and
form, it is composed of one or more morphemes, each consisting of one
or more spoken sounds or their written representation. Morphemes as
we have already said are also meaningful units but they cannot be
used independently, they are always parts of words whereas words can
be used as a complete utterance (e. g. Listen!).
The
combinations of morphemes within words are subject to certain linking
conditions. When a derivational affix is added a new word is formed,
thus, listen
and
listener
are
different words. In fulfilling different grammatical functions words
may take functional affixes: listen
and
listened
are
different forms of the same word. Different forms of the same word
can be also built analytically with the help of auxiliaries. E.g.:
The
world should listen then as I am listening now (Shelley).

When
used in sentences together with other words they are syntactically
organised. Their freedom of entering into syntactic constructions is
limited by many factors, rules and constraints (e. g.: They
told me this story but
not *They
spoke me this story).

The
definition of every basic notion is a very hard task: the definition
of a word is one of the most difficult in linguistics because the

27

simplest
word has many different aspects. It has a sound form because it is a
certain arrangement of phonemes; it has its morphological structure,
being also a certain arrangement of morphemes; when used in actual
speech, it may occur in different word forms, different syntactic
functions and signal various meanings. Being the central element of
any language system, the word is a sort of focus for the problems of
phonology, lexicology, syntax, morphology and also for some other
sciences that have to deal with language and speech, such as
philosophy and psychology, and probably quite a few other branches of
knowledge. All attempts to characterise the word are necessarily
specific for each domain of science and are therefore considered
one-sided by the representatives of all the other domains and
criticised for incompleteness. The variants of definitions were so
numerous that some authors (A. Rossetti, D.N. Shmelev) collecting
them produced works of impressive scope and bulk.

A
few examples will suffice to show that any definition is conditioned
by the aims and interests of its author.

Thomas
Hobbes (1588-1679),
one
of the great English philosophers, revealed a materialistic approach
to the problem of nomination when he wrote that words are not mere
sounds but names of matter. Three centuries later the great Russian
physiologist I.P. Pavlov (1849-1936)
examined
the word in connection with his studies of the second signal system,
and defined it as a universal signal that can substitute any other
signal from the environment in evoking a response in a human
organism. One of the latest developments of science and engineering
is machine translation. It also deals with words and requires a
rigorous definition for them. It runs as follows: a word is a
sequence of graphemes which can occur between spaces, or the
representation of such a sequence on morphemic level.

Within
the scope of linguistics the word has been defined syntactically,
semantically, phonologically and by combining various approaches.

It
has been syntactically defined for instance as “the minimum
sentence” by H. Sweet and much later by L. Bloomfield as “a
minimum free form”. This last definition, although structural in
orientation, may be said to be, to a certain degree, equivalent to
Sweet’s, as practically it amounts to the same thing: free forms
are later defined as “forms which occur as sentences”.

E.
Sapir takes into consideration the syntactic and semantic aspects
when he calls the word “one of the smallest completely satisfying
bits of isolated ‘meaning’, into which the sentence resolves
itself”. Sapir also points out one more, very important
characteristic of the word, its indivisibility:
“It cannot be cut into without a disturbance of meaning, one or two
other or both of the several parts remaining as a helpless waif on
our hands”. The essence of indivisibility will be clear from a
comparison of the article a
and
the prefix a-
in
a
lion and
alive.
A lion is
a word-group because we can separate its elements and insert other
words between them: a
living lion, a dead lion. Alive is
a word: it is indivisible, i.e. structurally impermeable: nothing can
be inserted between its elements. The morpheme a-
is
not free, is not a word. The

28

situation
becomes more complicated if we cannot be guided by solid spelling.’
“The Oxford English Dictionary», for instance, does not
include the
reciprocal pronouns each
other and
one
another under
separate headings, although
they should certainly be analysed as word-units, not as word-groups
since they have become indivisible: we now say with
each other and
with
one another instead
of the older forms one
with another or
each
with the other.¹

Altogether
is
one word according to its spelling, but how is one to treat all
right, which
is rather a similar combination?

When
discussing the internal cohesion of the word the English linguist
John Lyons points out that it should be discussed in terms of two
criteria “positional
mobility”
and
“un­interrupt­abili­ty”.
To illustrate the first he segments into morphemes the following
sentence:

the
—
boy
—
s
—
walk
—
ed
—
slow
—
ly
—
up
—
the
—
hill

The
sentence may be regarded as a sequence of ten morphemes, which occur
in a particular order relative to one another. There are several
possible changes in this order which yield an acceptable English
sentence:

slow
—
ly
—
the
—
boy
—
s
—
walk
—
ed
—
up
—
the
—
hill
up —
the
—
hill
—
slow
—
ly
—
walk
—
ed
—
the
—
boy
—
s

Yet
under all the permutations certain groups of morphemes behave as
‘blocks’ —
they
occur always together, and in the same order relative to one another.
There is no possibility of the sequence s
—
the
—
boy,
ly —
slow,
ed —
walk.
“One
of the characteristics of the word is that it tends to be internally
stable (in terms of the order of the component morphemes), but
positionally mobile (permutable with other words in the same
sentence)”.²

A
purely semantic treatment will be found in Stephen Ullmann’s
explanation: with him connected discourse, if analysed from the
semantic point of view, “will fall into a certain number of
meaningful segments which are ultimately composed of meaningful
units. These meaningful units are called words.»³

The
semantic-phonological approach may be illustrated by A.H.Gardiner’s
definition: “A word is an articulate sound-symbol in its aspect of
denoting something which is spoken about.»⁴

The
eminent French linguist A. Meillet (1866-1936)
combines
the semantic, phonological and grammatical criteria and advances a
formula which underlies many subsequent definitions, both abroad and
in our country, including the one given in the beginning of this
book: “A word is defined by the association of a particular meaning
with a

¹Sapir
E. Language.
An Introduction to the Study of Speech. London, 1921,
P.
35.

² Lyons,
John. Introduction
to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Univ. Press, 1969.
P. 203.

³ Ullmann
St. The
Principles of Semantics. Glasgow, 1957.
P.
30.

⁴ Gardiner
A.H. The
Definition of the Word and the Sentence //
The
British Journal of Psychology. 1922.
XII.
P. 355
(quoted
from: Ullmann
St.,
Op.
cit., P. 51).

29

particular
group of sounds capable of a particular grammatical employment.»¹

This
definition does not permit us to distinguish words from phrases
because not only child,
but
a
pretty child as
well are combinations of a particular group of sounds with a
particular meaning capable of a particular grammatical employment.

We
can, nevertheless, accept this formula with some modifications,
adding that a word is the smallest significant unit of a given
language capable of functioning alone and characterised by positional
mobility
within
a sentence, morphological
uninterruptability
and semantic
integrity.²
All these criteria are necessary because they permit us to create a
basis for the oppositions between the word and the phrase, the word
and the phoneme, and the word and the morpheme: their common feature
is that they are all units of the language, their difference lies in
the fact that the phoneme is not significant, and a morpheme cannot
be used as a complete utterance.

Another
reason for this supplement is the widespread scepticism concerning
the subject. It has even become a debatable point whether a word is a
linguistic unit and not an arbitrary segment of speech. This opinion
is put forth by S. Potter, who writes that “unlike a phoneme or a
syllable, a word is not a linguistic unit at all.»³
He calls it a conventional and arbitrary segment of utterance, and
finally adopts the already mentioned
definition of L. Bloomfield. This position is, however, as
we have already mentioned, untenable, and in fact S. Potter himself
makes ample use of the word as a unit in his linguistic analysis.

The
weak point of all the above definitions is that they do not establish
the relationship between language and thought, which is formulated if
we treat the word as a dialectical unity of form and content, in
which the form is the spoken or written expression which calls up a
specific meaning, whereas the content is the meaning rendering the
emotion or the concept in the mind of the speaker which he intends to
convey to his listener.

Summing
up our review of different definitions, we come to the conclusion
that they are bound to be strongly dependent upon the line of
approach, the aim the scholar has in view. For a comprehensive word
theory, therefore, a description seems more appropriate than a
definition.

The
problem of creating a word theory based upon the materialistic
understanding of the relationship between word and thought on the one
hand, and language and society, on the other, has been one of the
most discussed for many years. The efforts of many eminent scholars
such as V.V. Vinogradov, A. I. Smirnitsky, O.S. Akhmanova, M.D.
Stepanova, A.A. Ufimtseva —
to
name but a few, resulted in throwing light

¹Meillet
A. Linguistique
historique et linguistique generate. Paris,
1926.
Vol.
I. P. 30.

² It
might be objected that such words as articles, conjunctions and a few
other words
never occur as sentences, but they are not numerous and could be
collected into a
list of exceptions.

³ See:
Potter
S. Modern
Linguistics. London, 1957.
P.
78.

30

on this problem and achieved a
clear presentation of the word as a basic unit of the language. The
main points may now be summarised.

The
word
is the
fundamental
unit
of language.
It is a dialectical
unity
of form
and
content.
Its content or meaning is not identical to notion, but it may reflect
human notions, and in this sense may be considered as the form of
their existence. Concepts fixed in the meaning of words are formed as
generalised and approximately correct reflections of reality,
therefore in signifying them words reflect reality in their content.

The
acoustic aspect of the word serves to name objects of reality, not to
reflect them. In this sense the word may be regarded as a sign. This
sign, however, is not arbitrary but motivated by the whole process of
its development. That is to say, when a word first comes into
existence it is built out of the elements already available in the
language and according to the existing patterns.

Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]

• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #

This is a column I originally wrote for the St. Petersburg Times a few days ago, about what I called the fist pound explained ’round the world. ❋ Unknown (2008)

It was like sparring for an opening in fist-fighting. ❋ Unknown (2010)

June 1, 2009 at 7: 40 pm iron fist is one of best marvel has if it gets canned im going to pissed ectocooler ❋ Unknown (2009)

The clenched fist is an amazingly versatile social tool. ❋ Unknown (2010)

Olympic shooters fling arrows — shot from recurve bows with no sights — at targets 100 meters away and group them in fist-size wads. ❋ Unknown (2008)

Perhaps the fist is not a fist, but a waving hand; perhaps the voice is not a cry, but a call. ❋ Unknown (2008)

The fist is still there, but it wears that infamous velvet glove. ❋ Unknown (2008)

«But doctor look, I can barely make a fist, is it arthritis?» ❋ Unknown (2007)

And the line «I punched myself in the face with my fist» is an apt metaphor for Mrs. Gregoire’s self-destructive flip-flops and indecision on the Viaduct. ❋ Unknown (2007)

(Note, however, that fist is shaking, furiously, at Hypnos and his dratted family …) ❋ Unknown (2007)

You’ve accepted the moral authority of nationalism, as much as admitted that their fist is in your face, that the onus is on * you* to defend yourself from the old «unAmerican!» accusation … and before it’s even been voiced. ❋ Hal Duncan (2005)

The iron fist is beginning to show itself in the form of the impoverished Katrina evacuees detainment and patrols by our pivatezed Military (Black Water). ❋ Unknown (2005)

I actually saw customers in fist fights as they lunged for the blade steaks coming out of the meat room. ❋ Unknown (1994)

The phrase, therefore, seems to be meant of the immersion, or plunging of the hands only; and the word fist, is here to be understood also in common. ❋ 1602-1675 (1979)

«Because of this,» said I. «If fisticuffs are to decide the matter, the weakest man’s fist is stronger than the strongest woman’s, ‘et la raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleur.'» ❋ Unknown (1891)

And also from the old US dialect word fist, meaning a small aggressive dog. ❋ Unknown (2008)

When a Democratic fist is wrapped around the new ‘Sceptre of Power’ (you know, kinda like Dubya’s Light Sabre) will you afford them the same? ❋ Unknown (2007)

[My ass] got [nuked] by [my boyfriend’s] fist last night. ❋ Sam1udntknow (2016)

Hey [Richy], [please] fist [my anus]! ❋ Shelp (2003)

[Eg]. To fist, [or not] to fist, That is [the question]. ❋ GangstaRL (2005)

[Bruce] and [Dennis] like to fist each other in front of the movie [theater]. ❋ Joao Bufamarillo (2005)

I got a $[300] [speeding ticket] today. That sucks, man, what a fist.
So I got [the fist] when my boss caught me drinking at work. ❋ Binford (2003)

[OH MY GAWD]!!!! First me some more [you man] [whore]! ❋ Falken (2003)

1) i got so mad, i just [fisted] her!
2) its [pay day]! i totally got a fist of cash from [the bank]! ❋ YOUR MOM GOES TO COLLEGE (2005)

did you see those [lesbians] go [at it]? then she [fisted] her @$$hole!! ❋ Stu (2003)

You are deserving of the [full fist] for your attempt to [eat glass] while drinking vomit.
or
Your [weak effort] earns you no fist! ❋ S.s. (2004)

«He is [a massive] fist» — probably some form of [chav], gyspter, [grouper] etc. ❋ M_O_U_L_D (2004)

«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