Which bible is god word

«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

Which Bible Is God’s Word? Paperback – January 1, 2007

Purchase options and add-ons

UPDATED 2007

Expanded 50%

New Research

THE BOOK answers
How do the new versions change the gospel and destroy basic Christian doctrines such as the deity of Christ and the Trinity?

How do new versions support New Age, Catholic, and liberal views? What man, who laid the ground-work for the NASB, has renounced it ? What NIV stylist admits she is a lesbian?

What is wrong with the New King James (NKJV), KJ21, and others which claim to merely update the KJV?

Why isn t it safe to define words using Bible softnd Hebrew lexicons, like Strong s Concordance?

WHICH BIBLE IS GODS WORD?

2007 UPDATE

by Gail Riplinger

THE BESTSELLING BOOK, Which Bible Is God s Word, has now been EXPANDED by 50% and thoroughly UPDATED in this new 2007 edition. Over 200,000 copies of the original book have been sold.

It was originally published in 1994 as a transcript of a series of nationally broadcast radio interviews done by Noah Hutchings with author, Gail Riplinger. In these programs listeners questions about modern versions of the Bible were answered and the King James Bible was held up as THE Holy Bible for the English speaking world.

The programs were broadcast on over 80 radio stations worldwide. The original is also available as an audio book from AV Publications’ web site (avpublications.com).

The original book was used as a textbook by one of the nation s largest Christian Colleges. It was also translated into Korean.

Much updated information has been added in this edition.

It includes a discussion of Greek and Hebrew lexicons and printed editions, as well as an expose´ of James Strong, editor of Strong s Concordance. His participation in the corrupt Westcott and Hort Revised Version of 1881 and the American Standard Version of 1901 is documented, as well as his introduction of corrupt RV/ASV words into his Greek and Hebrew lexicon.

This new edition discusses the newest corrupt bible versions such as the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB), Today s New International Version (TNIV) and the English Standard Version (ESV). It also includes an expanded discussion of the Amplified Bible.

New important insights are included about the NASB and its rejection by S. Franklin Logsdon, former Moody Memorial Church pastor who said he laid the groundwork for the NASB.

The updated edition also points out how the NKJV matches the Koran and how its publisher is now printing scintillating book covers.

A detailed history of the word servant, and its new version corruption slave, is now included.

Also included are insights into the common error which calls agap , God-like love and phil , brotherly love.
Wycliffe and Coverdale s views about inspired translations are included.

Questions and answers have been detailed and expanded by fifty-percent. Footnotes and a compre-hensive index are added to answer questions quickly

In this article I’ll be exposing what the name of God is from within the scriptures. I will also look at the name of his son, who is commonly called Jesus. I will use scriptures to determine the real name of Jesus also.

The name of God, gets very little attention, in todays Christian circles. When we read the scriptures, the first commandment is to have no other God before me…

So this highlights the importance of knowing which god we are serving. When we read on we see in the third commandment that it also says not to take Gods name in Vain.

This clearly let us know, that God has a name. The question is what is God’s name?

Above is an image of some of the book of Psalms in the Dead Sea Scrolls, found in the Qumran cave #11. Look at how many times the Name of the Most High appears. You can check out more images here

It’s clear to see that the name of God, is not God. The proof of this is evident clearly, because we see this title used in many other religions…

By a simple process of elimination, this lets us know that the term “god” is a identifier, of what or who is being worshipped in each religion. This even includes god within the bible scriptures.

Throughout this article I will be using the terms the “Most High” or the phrase “The name of God” when talking about the Hebrew God in the biblical scriptures.

This term “Most High” can be found in many place within the bible (Genesis 14:18,19) and makes it clear who I’m talking about i.e. the creator of heaven and earth, not his son or an angel.

The Meaning Of The Word “God” Explained

Let’s begin, with what the word god means. If we were to use the Hebrew context of god. It would be  translated as:

If you have never considered what the word “god” meant, this explanation has now, hopefully made things clearer to you…

So let’s look at an example of a title, which is not a name. Let’s say, you were told:

not to have any other “horses” before me.

The word “horse” in this command would be a title of the animal which is a horse. This would not be the name of the horse. There are clearly many different horses in the world, but they’re not the same and they don’t all have the same name.

This is important, because when we look at other religions they confirm what the scriptures have said about other Gods because we see names of gods such as:

Allah (The Arab God), Buddha (The Indian Hindu God), Zeus (The Greek and Norse God) and many others…

Just like these gods, the Most High in the bible scriptures has a name. I’ll be discussing what the original name of the Most High is in the original Hebrew language…

So let’s look at the actual name of the biblical god…

Here Moses asks the Most High his name so he can give it to the children of Israel when they ask, who sent him.

The Name Of God In English

Exodus 3:13-14

13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?

14 And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you.

Here we see that the Most High’s name is

I am that I am, or I will be that I will be.

When Moses goes back to the children of Israel, he tells them that the name of the Most High is:

I am, or I will be

A deeper look at this name tells us that the Most Highs name is an expression of his ultimate Power i.e. The ability to create and do as he pleases, as would be expected by the creator of the heavens and earth.

So without any complication or confusion, we know that the Most High’s name is:

I am, or I will be…

Which is an expression of who the Most High is…

But more importantly this is his actual name. I could close the book right here and you would have the evidence to prove the Most High’s name in English…

But I’m sure that you’ve seen other words thrown around in the Hebrew language, which is the original language the Most High gave his name in. More specifically Paleo Hebrew.

It only makes sense, that we call the Most High the name he actually gave us, because I am, or I will be are translations that could never do the Most High’s name true justice.

Scriptures tell us, when words are translated into another language from the original Hebrew, they lose their power.

Ecclesiasticus 1:1

1 The Prologue of the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach.

Whereas many and great things have been delivered unto us by the law and the prophets, and by others that have followed their steps, for the which things Israel ought to be commended for learning and wisdom;

and whereof not only the readers must needs become skilful themselves, but also they that desire to learn be able to profit them which are without, both by speaking and writing:

my grandfather Jesus, when he had much given himself to the reading of the law, and the prophets, and other books of our fathers, and had gotten therein good judgment, was drawn on also himself to write something pertaining to learning and wisdom; to the intent that those which are desirous to learn, and are addicted to these things, might profit much more in living according to the law.

Wherefore let me intreat you to read it with favour and attention, and to pardon us, wherein we may seem to come short of some words, which we have laboured to interpret.

For the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them: and not only these things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language.

For in the eight and thirtieth year coming into Egypt, when Euergetes was king, and continuing there some time, I found a book of no small learning:

therefore I thought it most necessary for me to bestow some diligence and travail to interpret it; using great watchfulness and skill in that space to bring the book to an end, and set it forth for them also, which in a strange country are willing to learn, being prepared before in manners to live after the law. All wisdom cometh from the Lord, and is with him for ever.

As you can see above we are told the translation of scriptures from Hebrew to other languages, cause meaning to be lost.

So, with that, I shall be discussing the Most High’s name next…

The Name Of God In Hebrew

Some of the common names used in English which are said to be direct interpretations of the name of God taken from the Hebrew language are:

• Jehovah,
• Yahweh and YHWH

Jehovah’s Meaning And Origin

The church organisation that commonly uses the word Jehovah are the Jehovah Witnesses. They claim that this is the name of God in the Bible.

The Jehovah’s Witness do explain in their literature that the word god or Lord are titles which I have explained above.

But they then go on to say that the name of God, which they say is Jehovah appears in the scriptures thousands of times. The question is, is this true?

The Letter J’s Appearance Into English

At this point it’s important to talk about the letter j. I need to start by letting you know that the letter “j” is a new letter to the English language.

This letter has only been in the English language since the 16th century. In the 13th Century it was a variant of “i” and used at the end of Roman Numerals, such as iij three & viij eight .

The letter has developed, from the letter “i” and uppercase “I”. In other languages this letter “j” is not pronounce with the same sound as the “J” in the English language.

The sound of the “J” in English is a new sound which was not previously around before the 16th century.

This is important, because due to this, the word Jehovah could not have been the Most High’s name up until the 16th century.

It’s also important to understand that in the Hebrew language, there are no “J” sounds. This cancels out any kind of notion that this word Jehovah is Hebrew, or is found in the original Hebrew language within bible scriptures.

The Meaning Of Jehovah

This word Jehovah broken down should mean god, but the meaning of the word Yah, which is the “Je” in Jehovah is a bad transliteration, it’s supposed to mean “god”, and acts as a shortening meaning “He will”, from the full meaning of the most Highs name Yahua, i.e. “He will be” when translated into English…

so “Je” plus “hovah” should mean “I (he) (god)” “will be”, which is the Most High’s name we established above.

So…

“Je” should mean “god”, because when we use it to mean “he”, we are addressing the Most High, who is the greatest power, a god in English.

“hovah” should mean “will be”, or “am”…

The problem with this is when we look at the Hebrew words we find the word “hovah” in the Hebrew concordance

#Strongs 1943 hovah ho-vaw, it means:

ruin or mischief…

So if we have to put these two words together, Jehovah would mean:

• god of mischief (ruin)
• I am mischief (ruin) 
• I will be mischief (ruin)

Is it a coincidence? who knows, personally I don’t think it is, but one thing is for sure it’s not the Most High’s name. And we have no right to change his name.

Later when you read about the Name Yahweh, you will see How YHWH is alleged to be the origin of Jehovah

Now let’s look at another most commonly used word in English for god purporting to be from the Hebrew language…

The Origin Of The Yahweh (YHWH) As The Name Of God

The word Yahweh, is a common word used for the Most High in English.

It is translated from the 4 consonants YHWH, (these are from the 4 Hebrew letters that spell the Most High’s name found in many ancient manuscripts)

These consonants are commonly called the Tetragrammaton

The masoretes, who were a group of Hebrew speaking men put together a translation of the scriptures in Hebrew between the 6th and 10th century (They put together the Aleppo and Leningrad Codex’s).

It was these translators, that created the name Yahweh.

When we take a look at this name it actually carries on from the name Jehovah, so they’re in actual fact the same name.

The subtle difference is that “Yaweh” seeks to keep the Hebrew sound of the Hebrew letter Yod by using a “y”, instead of a “j”, which can be seen in the translation of the the Most Highs name “J”ehovah.

I’ve answered why these two words sound different, but you may be wondering why the two names for God both look so different?

Jehovah, is the latin- speaking Christian modernised version of the word Yahweh. This is because of what was explained previously i.e. the J’s appearance into the English-latin language in the 16th century.

The Masorete translators, took the vowel signs from the word adonai and put them in between the 4 consonants YHWH, replacing its original meaning…

The replacement of the original Hebrew word or the Most Highs name spelt Yod, Hay, Waw, Hay, is a major red flag…

The Masoretes claimed the reason for this corruption of the Most High’s original name is because the Name of the Most High is too sacred to say, according to the 3rd commandment.

Exodus 20:7

7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

We find no place in the bible scriptures that tells us we are not allowed to say the name of the Most High, only that we don’t use it, without respect for the name.

This can only tell us that this claim is a lie. When we look at the history of Israel, we see that long before the 6th to 10th century (This is when the Masoretes translated the Hebrew text). The original Israelite’s were run out of Israel i.e. the 1st century in 70AD.

The original Hebrew letters are the Yod, Hay, Waw, Hay. and they should be pronounced using the old Paleo Hebrew, which is how we find the Most High’s name in every ancient biblical text manuscript.

The Real Name Of God

Now we have looked at the major attempted translations of the most High’s name. Let’s look at what’s actually found in the biblical text, and ancient biblical texts.

The tetragrammaton, as the Masoretes have coined it is still a source that shows us the original letters for the Most Highs name.

These four letters, can be found in Ancient biblical texts (the dead sea scrolls and recovered Septuagint fragmented scripts), before the Masoretes even started translating their version of the Hebrew scriptures:

i.e. the Aleppo and Lennigrad codexes.

The first is found between 50BC to 50AD, an old manuscript of the septuagint translation which is the old testament of the biblical scriptures

This is called the “Nahal Hever Minor Prophets” as it consists of fragments of Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah and Zechariah found in the Nahal Hever cave, south of Qumran.

Below is another ancient biblical text fragment of the Septuagint which dates back to the First Century CE (AD). This fragment contains parts of Job 42.

You can see the hebrew letters for the Name of God around the greek text.

This in itself, is evidence that the name of the Most High was to remain as it is. Translating the name is a modern day invention which starting with the Masoretes.

Now we have proof of the four letters that make up the Most High’s name. It’s time to do the rightful translation and pronunciation…

Below you can see the 4 Hebrew letters (that are found above in Paleo Hebrew),

You can use the image above to sound out the name…

When we sound them out we get the Hebrew word for the Most High’s name which is;

“Yah-ow-ah”

when you spell it in English, it’s

“Yahuah” as you can see in the image above.

When transliterating a name, the point is, to keep the names sound. This will keep the names same meaning it had in the original language.

The way a word is spelt, should reflect how it sounds in the language that it’s been transliterated from.

Now we have the name of God, let’s move on to the name of Jesus…

The Real Name Of Jesus

The most commonly used name, for the son of God is Jesus. But when we look at the research which has been done above, we see that the “J” only came into effect in the 16th century.

So clearly this couldn’t be the name of the Christ (Messiah).

Another commonly used name, for the Messiah are variations of the hebrew word for Joshua such as:

Yeshua and Yehoshua, Yahushua

I’ll be looking at all of these names, using the biblical scriptures and then I will be presenting you with the name that the scriptures said the Christ (The Messiah) would be called.

The Origins Of “Yeshua”, “Yehoshua” And “Yahushua”

When we look into the names Yeshua, Yehoshua and Yahushua we are told that Yeshua is a short hand version of Joshua in the Hebrew.

The long hand name of Yeshua being Yehoshua or Yahushua…

These are definitely plausible explanations, but of course when a name is shortened, by definition it is not the original name. And the same is true here with the name of Christ (Messiah).

Isn’t it important, that he’s name stays the same? Changing his name, could be be seen as taking the name of the Messiah in Vain. Because it would definitely loses its authority as we’re not actually calling the original name.

When we delve further into this topic, we see that the name Yehoshua or Yahushua is found over 200 times, but Yeshua only 28 times?

From this fact alone it’s safe to say Yeshua is not the Messiah’s original long form name.

The two long form names we’re left with are practically the same names with slight differences in their spellings…

So let’s read what the scriptures say about the Messiah’s name.

When we read the scriptures, it tells us that Mary would have a baby, and that she is to call him Jesus, because he shall save his people Israel from their sins.

Matthew 1:21

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.

If you take the Messiahs name to be Yeshua, this will not fulfill the prophecy, of the Messiah’s name which is supposed to mean salvation, or the saving of his people.

The “shua”, in Yeshua means “to cry out” rather than salvation, so the is shortening of the name here could clearly be problematic.

You can find the meaning of “shua” below:

Hebrew concordance #7768, Shua, meaning

“to cry out (for help)”

Adding Y to Shua, gives you Y’shua, Yeshua, so it would mean God cry’s out?

When we look at “hoshua” in Yehoshua, this actually means “Salvation”, so this is an accurate starting point of name of the Messiah.

The pronunciation, maybe a point of contention, but using this name is clearly a less corrupted version of the Messiah’s name, if that’s at all possible (Because corruption is corruption!).

Yeshua is spelt with the following Hebrew letters:

Yod, Shan, Waw and Ayin

Yehoshua’s Spelling

The name for Joshua, written as Yehoshua, on other hand directly comes from the word salvation or to save as its root word.

The root word being “Yasha“, Hebrew concordance #3467, meaning to:

“to deliver, save, or rescue”

Hebrew concordance #1954

Hoshua, meaning

“salvation”

…it is found within the name Ye”hoshua” and is the name Hosea, which means salvation.

When you add the hebrew letter “Yod” to Hosea in the Hebrew we get the name of the Messiah.

Yehoshua is spelt:

Yod, Hay, Waw, Shan, Ayin as you can see below:

The Real Name Of Jesus Revealed

It should be pronounced “Yahusha“, when sounded out in the Paleo Hebrew just like the name of Most High is “Yahua“. You can see the letters in Hebrew above as well as the sounds.

Conclusion

Hopefully all of the information presented above has given you enough information to understand what the name of God is and the real name of Jesus. The name of God is Yahua and the real name of Jesus is Yahusha.

The invented names, such as Jesus, Yeshua, Yahweh and Jehovah should be avoided. Calling out to the father or his son using the wrong name is clearly vanity.

Which is direct breaking the third commandment (Exodus 20:7).

The letter “j”, is a 16th century invention, and has no place being used when mentioning father’s (Yahua) or son’s (Yahusha) names.

The Hebrew language has no letter that sounds like the letter “J”, which further proves that it should never be used to translate any Hebrew words.

If you looked at the ancient fragments and Dead Sea Scrolls above, you will see that the name of the Most High is written within them liberally. Today that name is translated as the “Lord” or “god” both of those words are titles, because any god could be called lord or god.

This is a practice, that takes away from the strength of the biblical scriptures.

When we look at other major faiths in the world we can clearly see their gods have names.

For instance we have Allah for the Arabs, Krishna for the Asians, Buddha for the Asians, Horus (the all seeing eye) for the Egyptians. Baphomet for the Elites and occultists, Zeus, Thor and others for the Greeks. The list goes on and on…

It’s time that we claimed the name of God, for those of us that follow the biblical scriptures and believe that the Messiah died and rose again…

For his people Israel and other nations that are called to believe, let’s celebrate the father and his sons names…

Shalom! And share this with someone that needs it….

The English word god comes from the Old English god, which itself is derived from the Proto-Germanic *ǥuđán. Its cognates in other Germanic languages include guþ, gudis (both Gothic), guð (Old Norse), god (Old Saxon, Old Frisian, and Old Dutch), and got (Old High German).

Earliest attestation of the Germanic word in the 6th-century Codex Argenteus (Mt 5:34)

EtymologyEdit

The Proto-Germanic meaning of *ǥuđán and its etymology is uncertain. It is generally agreed that it derives from a Proto-Indo-European neuter passive perfect participle *ǵʰu-tó-m. This form within (late) Proto-Indo-European itself was possibly ambiguous, and thought to derive from a root *ǵʰeu̯- «to pour, libate» (the idea survives in the Dutch word, ‘Giet’, meaning, to pour) (Sanskrit huta, see hotṛ), or from a root *ǵʰau̯- (*ǵʰeu̯h₂—) «to call, to invoke» (Sanskrit hūta). Sanskrit hutá = «having been sacrificed», from the verb root hu = «sacrifice», but a slight shift in translation gives the meaning «one to whom sacrifices are made.»

Depending on which possibility is preferred, the pre-Christian meaning of the Germanic term may either have been (in the «pouring» case) «libation» or «that which is libated upon, idol» — or, as Watkins^[1] opines in the light of Greek χυτη γαια «poured earth» meaning «tumulus», «the Germanic form may have referred in the first instance to the spirit immanent in a burial mound» — or (in the «invoke» case) «invocation, prayer» (compare the meanings of Sanskrit brahman) or «that which is invoked».

GautEdit

A significant number of scholars have connected this root with the names of three related Germanic tribes: the Geats, the Goths and the Gutar. These names may be derived from an eponymous chieftain Gaut, who was subsequently deified.^{[citation needed]} He also sometimes appears in early Medieval sagas as a name of Odin or one of his descendants, a former king of the Geats (Gaut(i)), an ancestor of the Gutar (Guti), of the Goths (Gothus) and of the royal line of Wessex (Geats) and as a previous hero of the Goths (Gapt).

WōdanazEdit

Some variant forms of the name Odin such as the Lombardic Godan may point in the direction that the Lombardic form actually comes from Proto-Germanic *ǥuđánaz. Wōdanaz or Wōđinaz is the reconstructed Proto-Germanic name of a god of Germanic paganism, known as Odin in Norse mythology, Wōden in Old English, Wodan or Wotan in Old High German and Godan in the Lombardic language. Godan was shortened to God over time and was adopted/retained by the Germanic peoples of the British isles as the name of their deity, in lieu of the Latin word Deus used by the Latin speaking Christian church, after conversion to Christianity.

During the complex christianization of the Germanic tribes of Europe, there were many linguistic influences upon the Christian missionaries. One example post downfall of the western Roman Empire are the missionaries from Rome led by Augustine of Canterbury. Augustine’s mission to the Saxons in southern Britain was conducted at a time when the city of Rome was a part of a Lombardic kingdom. The translated Bibles which they brought on their mission were greatly influenced by the Germanic tribes they were in contact with, chief among them being the Lombards and Franks. The translation for the word deus of the Latin Bible was influenced by the then current usage by the tribes for their highest deity, namely Wodan by Angles, Saxons, and Franks of north-central and western Europe, and Godan by the Lombards of south-central Europe around Rome. There are many instances where the name Godan and Wodan are contracted to God and Wod.^[2] One instance is the wild hunt (a.k.a. Wodan’s wild hunt) where Wod is used.^[3][4]

The earliest uses of the word God in Germanic writing is often cited to be in the Gothic Bible or Wulfila Bible, which is the Christian Bible as translated by Ulfilas into the Gothic language spoken by the Eastern Germanic, or Gothic, tribes. The oldest parts of the Gothic Bible, contained in the Codex Argenteus, are estimated to be from the fourth century. During the fourth century, the Goths were converted to Christianity, largely through the efforts of Bishop Ulfilas, who translated the Bible into the Gothic language in Nicopolis ad Istrum in today’s northern Bulgaria. The words guda and guþ were used for God in the Gothic Bible.

Influence of ChristianityEdit

God entered English when the language still had a system of grammatical gender. The word and its cognates were initially neuter but underwent transition when their speakers converted to Christianity, «as a means of distinguishing the personal God of the Christians from the impersonal divine powers acknowledged by pagans.»^[5]: 15 However, traces of the neuter endured. While these words became syntactically masculine, so that determiners and adjectives connected to them took masculine endings, they sometimes remained morphologically neuter, which could be seen in their inflections: In the phrase, guþ meins, «my God,» from the Gothic Bible, for example, guþ inflects as if it were still a neuter because it lacks a final -s, but the possessive adjective meins takes the final -s that it would with other masculine nouns.^[5]: 15

God and its cognates likely had a general, predominantly plural or collective sense prior to conversion to Christianity. After conversion, the word was commonly used in the singular to refer to the Christian deity, and also took on characteristics of a name.^{[5]: 15–16 [6]}

TranslationsEdit

The word god was used to represent Greek theos and Latin deus in Bible translations, first in the Gothic translation of the New Testament by Ulfilas. For the etymology of deus, see *dyēus.

Greek «θεός » (theos) means god in English. It is often connected with Greek «θέω» (theō), «run»,^[7][8] and «θεωρέω» (theoreō), «to look at, to see, to observe»,^[9][10] Latin feriae «holidays», fanum «temple», and also Armenian di-k` «gods». Alternative suggestions (e.g. by De Saussure) connect *dhu̯es- «smoke, spirit», attested in Baltic and Germanic words for «spook» and ultimately cognate with Latin fumus «smoke.» The earliest attested form of the word is the Mycenaean Greek te-o^[11] (plural te-o-i^[12]), written in Linear B syllabic script.

CapitalizationEdit

KJV of 1611 (Psalms 23:1,2): Occurrence of «LORD» (and «God» in the heading)

The development of English orthography was dominated by Christian texts. Capitalized, «God» was first used to refer to the Abrahamic God and may now signify any monotheistic conception of God, including the translations of the Arabic Allāh, Persian Khuda, Indic Ishvara and the Maasai Ngai.

In the English language, capitalization is used for names by which a god is known, including ‘God’. Consequently, its capitalized form is not used for multiple gods or when referring to the generic idea of a deity.^[13][14]

Pronouns referring to a god are also often capitalized by adherents to a religion as an indication of reverence, and are traditionally in the masculine gender («He», «Him», «His» etc) unless specifically referring to a goddess.^[15][16]

See alsoEdit

• Anglo-Saxon paganism
• Allah (Arabic word)
• Bhagavan (Hindi word)
• El (deity) (Semitic word)
• Elohim
• Goddess
• Jumala (Finnish word)
• Khuda (Persian word)
• Names of God
• Tanri (Turkish word)
• Yahweh
• YHWH

ReferencesEdit

External linksEdit

Look up God in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

• Use of guþ n the Gothic Bible.
• Use of guda n the Gothic Bible.
• Gothic language and its relation to other Germanic languages such as Anglish (English) and Saxon