John 1:1

John 1:1 is the first verse in the opening chapter of the Gospel of John. In the Douay–Rheims, King James, New International, and other versions of the Bible, the verse reads:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.[1][2][3]

John 1:1
← Luke 24
1:2 →
John 1:1 in the page showing the first chapter of John in the King James Bible
BookGospel of John
Christian Bible partNew Testament
First page of John's Gospel from the Coronation Gospels, c. 10th century

John 1:1 opens the larger section sometimes described as the "Prologue to John" (John 1:1-18) which deals with Jesus, the "Word made flesh" who "dwelt among us" (John 1:14). The verse has been a source of much debate among Bible scholars and translators.

The phrase "the Word" (a translation of the Greek word "Logos") is widely interpreted as referring to Jesus, as indicated in other verses later in the same chapter.[4] This verse and others throughout Johannine literature connect the Christian understanding of Jesus to the philosophical idea of the Logos and the Hebrew Wisdom literature. They also set the stage for the later development of Trinitarian theology early in the post-biblical era.

According to Matthew Henry (1662–1714) in his commentary, Jesus is called the "Word" in this opening verse because he was the Son of God sent to earth to reveal his Father's mind to the world. He asserts that a plain reading of the verse written by John the Evangelist should be understood as proof that Jesus is God; that Jesus has the same essence as God and existed with God the Father from the very beginning, the Word was with God, and the Word was God.[5]

History
John 1:1 from the Ostromir Gospel, with John's Evangelist portrait, 1056 or 1057.

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.[6]

And a little later:

And that you may think more fully on this, accept also that in the Psalm two gods are mentioned: "Thy throne, God, is forever, a rod of right direction is the rod of thy kingdom; thou hast loved justice and hated iniquity, therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee." If he is speaking to a god, and the god is anointed by a god, then also here he affirms two gods... More is what you will find just the same in the Gospel: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God": One who was, and another in whose presence he was.[7]

Origen of Alexandria, a teacher in Greek grammar of the third century, wrote about the use of the definite article:

We next notice John's use of the article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Logos, but to the name of God he adds it sometimes only. He 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 [...] Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. [...] The true God, then, is "The God."[8]


Source text and translations
Koine GreekἘν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.[9][10]
Greek transliterationEn arkhêi ên ho lógos, kaì ho lógos ên pròs tòn theón, kaì theòs ên ho lógos.
Syriac Peshittaܒ݁ܪܺܫܺܝܬ݂ ܐܺܝܬ݂ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܡܶܠܬ݂ܳܐ ܘܗܽܘ ܡܶܠܬ݂ܳܐ ܐܺܝܬ݂ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܠܘܳܬ݂ ܐܰܠܳܗܳܐ ܘܰܐܠܳܗܳܐ ܐܺܝܬ݂ܰܘܗ݈ܝ ܗ݈ܘܳܐ ܗܽܘ ܡܶܠܬ݂ܳܐ ܀‎
Syriac transliterationbrīšīṯ ʾiṯawhi milṯā, whu milṯā ʾiṯauhi hwā luaṯ ʾalāhā; wʾalāhā iṯauhi hwā hu milṯā
Sahidic CopticϨΝ ΤЄϨΟΥЄΙΤЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝϬΙΠϢΑϪЄ, ΑΥШ ΠϢΑϪЄ ΝЄϤϢΟΟΠ ΝΝΑϨΡΜ ΠΝΟΥΤЄ. ΑΥШ ΝЄΥΝΟΥΤЄ ΠЄ ΠϢΑϪЄ
Sahidic Coptic transliterationHn teHoueite neFSoop nCi pSaJe auw pSaJe neFSoop nnaHrm pnoute auw neunoute pe pSaJe.[11]
Sahidic Coptic to EnglishIn the beginning existed the Word, and the Word existed with the God, and a God was the Word.[12][13][14]
Latin VulgateIn principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum.

John 1:1 in English versions

The traditional rendering in English is:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

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."[15]

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."[16]

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.[17]
  • 1924: "the Logos was divine" – The Bible: James Moffatt Translation, by James Moffatt.[18]
  • 1935: "and the Word was divine" – The Bible: An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago.[19]
  • 1955: "so the Word was divine" – The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.[20]
  • 1956: "And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity" – The Wuest Expanded Translation[21]
  • 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.[22]
  • 1993: "The Word was God, in readiness for God from day one." — The Message, by Eugene H. Peterson.[23]
  • 1998: "and what God was the Word also was" – This translation follows Professor Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of John, ed. Daniel J. Harrington.[24]
  • 2017: “and the Logos was god” - The New Testament: A Translation, by David Bentley Hart.[25]

Difficulties

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[26]

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.[27] 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.[28] Some scholars oppose the translation ...a god,[29][30][31][32] while other scholars believe it is possible or even preferable.[33][34][35]

Grammar

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.[36] Ancient Greek does not have an indefinite article like the English word a, and nominatives without articles also have a range of meanings that require context to interpret. In interpreting this verse, Colwell's rule should be taken into consideration, which says that a definite predicate which is before the verb "to be" usually does not have the definite article. Ernest Cadman Colwell writes:

The opening verse of John’s Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite noun. Καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος [Kaì theòs ên ho lógos] looks much more like "And the Word was God" than "And the Word was divine" when viewed with reference to this rule. The absence of the article does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb, it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it. The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John, for this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas [Footnote: John 20,28]."[37]

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".[38] He questions whether Colwell's rule helps in interpreting John 1:1. It has been said that Colwell's rule has been misapplied as its converse, as though it implied definiteness.[39]

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.[40][41][42]

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."[43][44]

James D. G. Dunn (Emeritus Lightfoot Professor at University of Durham) states:

Philo demonstrates that a distinction between ho theos and theos such as we find in John 1.1b-c, would be deliberate by the author and significant for the Greek reader. Not only so, Philo shows that he could happily call the Logos ‘God/god’ without infringing his monotheism (or even ‘the second God’ – Qu.Gen. II.62). Bearing in mind our findings with regard to the Logos in Philo, this cannot but be significant: the Logos for Philo is ‘God’ not as a being independent of ‘the God’ but as ‘the God’ in his knowability – the Logos standing for that limited apprehension of the one God which is all that the rational man, even the mystic may attain to.”[45]

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]

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.[47]

Jason David BeDuhn (Associate Professor and Chair, Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion, at Northern Arizona University) wrote that: "The form used in John 1:1b and 1:2 is the "accusative" thon theon, which is the form used when a noun is the object of a preposition such a pros ("with"or "near")."[48]

The rendering as "a god" is justified by some non-Trinitarians by comparing it with Acts 28:6 which has a similar grammatical construction'[49] "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]. 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",[50] but the oldest Greek text in Papyrus Fouad 266 has written πρὸς יהוה τὸν θεόν.[50]

In the October 2011 Journal of Theological Studies, Brian J. Wright and Tim Ricchuiti[51] 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.

Biblical parallels
Main article: In the beginning (phrase)

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

"The reference to the opening words of the Old Testament is obvious, and is the more striking when we remember that a Jew would constantly speak of and quote from the book of Genesis as "Berēshîth" ("in the beginning"). It is quite in harmony with the Hebrew tone of this Gospel to do so, and it can hardly be that St. John wrote his Berēshîth without having that of Moses present to his mind, and without being guided by its meaning.[53]

  • Mark 1:1: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."[54]
  • Luke 1:2: "According as they have delivered them unto us, who from the beginning (archē) were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word (logos).[55][56]
  • 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".[57][58]

"...was God (Theós)" may be compared with Acts 28:6:

  • "But they supposed that he would begin to swell up, and that he would suddenly fall down and die. But expecting long, and seeing that there came no harm to him, changing their minds, they said, that he was a god (theón)."[59]
  • "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)[60]
  • "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)[61]
  • "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)." (DNKJB)[62]

From the Biblos Interlinear Bible:[63]

hoideprosedokōnautonmelleinpimprasthaiēkatapipteinaphnōnekron
οἱδὲπροσεδόκωναὐτὸνμέλλεινπίμπρασθαιἢκαταπίπτεινἄφνωνεκρόν
-butthey were expectinghimto be goingto become inflamedorto fall downsuddenlydead
epipolydeautōnprosdokōntōnkaitheōrountōnmēdenatoponeisautonginomenon
ἐπὶπολὺδὲαὐτῶνπροσδοκώντωνκαὶθεωρούντωνμηδὲνἄτοπονεἰςαὐτὸνγινόμενον
after a whilegreathowevertheyexpectingandseeingnothingamisstohimhappening
metabalomenoielegonautoneinaitheon
μεταβαλόμενοιἔλεγοναὐτὸνεἶναιθεόν
having changed their opinionsaidhewasa god

From Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894:[64]

οιδεπροςεδοκωναyτονμελλεινπιμπραςθαιηκαταπιπτειναφνωνεκρον
hoideprosedokOnautonmelleinpimprasthaiEkatapipteinaphnOnekron
THEYETTHEY-TOWARD-SEEMEDhimTO-BE-beING-ABOUTTO-BE-beING-INFLAMEDORTO-BE-DOWN-FALLINGsuddenlyDEAD
επιπολυδεαyτωνπροςδοκωντωνκαιθεωρουντωνμηδενατοπονειςαυτονγινομενον
epipoludeautOnprosdokOntOnkaitheOrountOnmEdenatoponeisautonginomenon
ONmuchYETOF-themTOWARD-SEEMINGANDOF-beholdINGNO-YET-ONEUN-PLACEDINTOhimBECOMING
μεταβαλλομενοιελεγονθεοναyτωνειναι
metaballomenoielegontheonautoneinai
after-CASTINGTHEY-saidgodhimTO-BE

Logos
Main article: Logos (Christianity)

The Greek word λόγος or logos is a word with various meanings. It is often translated into English as "Word" but can also mean thought, speech, account, meaning, reason, proportion, principle, standard, or logic, among other things. It has varied use in the fields of philosophy, analytical psychology, rhetoric and religion.

Christology
Main article: Christology

Of the canonical gospels, John has the highest explicit Christology. Here Jesus is the only-begotten Son of God, the Way, the Truth, the Life, the True Vine, etc. In 1:1, John identifies Jesus as the Logos, that which made the existence of the created world possible.

In mainstream Christian understanding of John's Christology, the conception that Jesus Christ is the Logos has been important in establishing the doctrine of Jesus' divinity, as well as that of the Trinity, as set forth in the Chalcedonian Definition.

The debate about the nature of Christ from the first century through the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE must be understood in light of the pervasive world view of Platonic dualism. Platonism is normally divided into four periods: Old Academy (347-267 BCE), New Academy (267-80 BCE), Middle Platonism (80 BCE-250 CE), and Neoplatonism (250 CE through the Reformation).[65][66]

Some scholars of the Bible have suggested that John made creative use of double meaning in the word Logos to communicate to both Jews, who were familiar with the Wisdom tradition in Judaism, and Hellenic polytheism, especially followers of Philo, often called Hellenistic Judaism. Each of these two groups had its own history associated with the concept of the Logos, and each could understand John's use of the term from one or both of those contexts. Especially for the Hellenists, however, John turns the concept of the Logos on its head when he claimed "the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14).

Gordon Clark translated Logos as "Logic" in the opening verses of the Gospel: "In the beginning was the Logic, and the Logic was with God and the Logic was God." He meant to imply by this translation that the laws of logic were contained in the Bible itself and were therefore not a secular principle imposed on the Christian worldview.

Following Jesuit translations of the 18th century, most modern Bible translations into Chinese use the word "Tao"[67] in John 1:1 to translate "Logos", following the use as "Idea" in Taoism.[68]

Alternative views

In Unitarianism there are other interpretations of John 1:1. In the commentaries on John 1 by Lelio Sozzini (Zurich, c.1559)[69] and his nephew Fausto Sozzini (Lyons, c.1562)[70] the "word" being "made flesh" is taken as a reference to the virgin birth, and not to the personal pre-existence of Christ. The passages in the New Testament referring to the Logos were explained by Fausto Sozzini as relating to the foreknown work of Christ as the author of the new creation, not as relating to the "old" Genesis creation.[71] Fausto Sozzini aimed to "completely de-Platonize" the reading of John 1:1-15.[72]

gollark: Yeeees.
gollark: The Recording Industry Association of America i.e. several dodecahedra.
gollark: (see full thread)
gollark: This is hilarious: https://twitter.com/lrvick/status/1320293667429560321
gollark: However, you are probably not blocked.

References
  1. John 1:1, Douay-Rheims
  2. John 1:1, KJV
  3. John 1:1, NIV
  4. See verses 14-17: "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John bore witness about him, and cried out, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.'")... For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."
  5. "Commentary on the Whole Bible Volume V (Matthew to John) by Matthew Henry". ccel.org. Retrieved 2015-11-09.
  6. Qui si ipse deus est secundum Ioannem - Deus erat sermo - habes duos, alium dicentem ut fiat, alium facientem. alium autem quomodo accipere debeas iam professus sum, personae non substantiae nomine, ad distinctionem non ad divisionem. Adversus Praxeas 12.
  7. Et ut adhuc amplius hoc putes, accipe et in psalmo duos deos dictos: Thronus tuus, deus, in aevum, <virga directionis> virga regni tui; dilexisti iustitiam et odisti iniquitatem, propterea unxit te deus, deus tuus. Si ad deum loquitur, et unctum deum a deo, affirmat et hic duos deos... Plus est quod in evangelio totidem invenies: In principio erat sermo et sermo erat apud deum et deus erat sermo: unus qui erat, et alius penes quem erat. Adversus Praxeas 13.
  8. Origen, Commentary on John, Book II, chap. 2
  9. The Greek English New Testament. Christianity Today. 1975
  10. Nestle Aland Novum Testamentum Graece Read NA28 online
  11. Sahidica 2.01. J. Warren Wells. 2007.January.28 http://www.biblical-data.org/coptic/Sahidic_NT.pdf
  12. The Trustees of the Chester Beatty Library, Dublin/CBL Cpt 813, ff. 147v-148r/www.cbl.ie. "Sahidic Coptic Translation of John 1:1". Republished by Watchtower. Retrieved 20 October 2018.
  13. The Coptic version of the New Testament in the southern dialect : otherwise called Sahidic and Thebaic ; with critical apparatus, literal English translation, register of fragments and estimate of the version. 3, The gospel of S. John, register of fragments, etc., facsimiles. 3. Horner, George, 1849-1930. [Raleigh, NC]: [Lulu Enterprises]. 2014. ISBN 9780557302406. OCLC 881290216.CS1 maint: others (link)
  14. "Translating Sahidic Coptic John 1:1 | Gospel Of John | Translations". Scribd. Retrieved 2018-10-21.
  15. Harris, Murray J., Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus, 1992, Baker Books, pub. SBN 0801021952, p. 69
  16. Eastern / Greek Orthodox Bible, New Testament, 2009, p231.
  17. Horner, George William (1911). The Coptic version of the New Testament in the Southern dialect : otherwise called Sahidic and Thebaic ; with critical apparatus, literal English translation, register of fragments and estimate of the version. Robarts - University of Toronto. Oxford : The Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0557302406.
  18. The Bible : James Moffatt translation : with concordance. Moffatt, James, 1870-1944. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Classics. 1994. ISBN 9780825432286. OCLC 149166602.CS1 maint: others (link)
  19. "John 1 In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine". studybible.info. Retrieved 2018-10-21.
  20. Schonfield, Hugh J. The Authentic New Testament. UK (1955), USA (1958): Panther, Signet. ISBN 9780451602152.CS1 maint: location (link)
  21. S. Wuest, Kenneth (1956). New Testament: An Expanded Translation. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. p. 209. ISBN 0-8028-1229-5.
  22. Zulfiqar Ali Shah (2012). Anthropomorphic Depictions of God: The Concept of God in Judaic, Christian and Islamic Traditions : Representing the Unrepresentable. International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT). p. 300. ISBN 9781565645752.
  23. For a complete list of 70 non traditional translations of John 1:1, see http://simplebibletruths.net/70-John-1-1-Truths.htm
  24. Mary L. Coloe, ed. (2013). Creation is Groaning: Biblical and Theological Perspectives (Reprinted ed.). Liturgical Press. p. 92. ISBN 9780814680650.
  25. Hart, David (2017). The New Testament: A Translation.
  26. David A. Reed. "How Semitic Was John? Rethinking the Hellenistic Background to John 1:1." Anglican Theological Review, Fall 2003, Vol. 85 Issue 4, p709
  27. William Arnold III, Colwell's Rule and John 1:1 Archived 2007-04-04 at the Wayback Machine at apostolic.net: "You could only derive a Trinitarian interpretation from John 1:1 if you come to this passage with an already developed Trinitarian theology. If you approached it with a strict Monotheism (which is what I believe John held to) then this passage would definitely support such a view."
  28. Beduhn in Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament chapter 11 states: "Translators of the KJV, NRSV, NIV, NAB, New American Standard Bible, AB, Good News Bible and LB all approached the text at John 1:1 already believing certain things about the Word...and made sure that the translations came out in accordance with their beliefs.... Ironically, some of these same scholars are quick to charge the NW translation with "doctrinal bias" for translating the verse literally, free of KJV influence, following the sense of the Greek. It may very well be that the NW translators came to the task of translating John 1:1 with as much bias as the other translators did. It just so happens that their bias corresponds in this case to a more accurate translation of the Greek."
  29. Dr. J. R. Mantey: "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'"
  30. Dr. Bruce M. Metzger of Princeton (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature): "As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation. It overlooks entirely an established rule of Greek grammar which necessitates the rendering "...and the Word was God." http://www.bible-researcher.com/metzger.jw.html—see chapter IV point 1.
  31. Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski of Zurich, Switzerland: "It is monstrous to translate the phrase 'the Word was a god.'"
  32. https://books.google.com/books?id=xEvXKTG9Mf4C&pg=PA211&dq=%22new+world+translation%22+falsification&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uJc1UcSfEunqiAeTq4B4&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=new%20world%20translation&f=false Ben Witherington III, The Living Word of God, 2007, Baylor University Press, pp. 211-213.
  33. Dr. Jason BeDuhn (of Northern Arizona University) in regard to the Kingdom Interlinear's appendix that gives the reason why the NWT favoured a translation of John 1:1 as saying the Word was not "God" but "a god" said: "In fact the KIT [Appendix 2A, p.1139] explanation is perfectly correct according to the best scholarship done on this subject.."
  34. Murray J. Harris has written: "Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone, [QEOS HN hO LOGOS] could be rendered "the Word was a god,...." -Jesus As God, 1992, p. 60.
  35. C. H. Dodd says: "If a translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [QEOS EN hO LOGOS]; would be, "The Word was a god". As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted."
  36. "The Article". A section heading in Robert W. Funk, A Beginning-Intermediate Grammar of Hellenistic Greek. Volume I. Second Corrected Edition. Scholars Press.
  37. Ernest Cadman Colwell (1933). "A definite rule for the use of the article in the Greek New Testament" (PDF). Journal of Biblical Literature. 52: 12–21. doi:10.2307/3259477. JSTOR 3259477. Archived (PDF) from the original on February 21, 2016.
  38. Daniel B. Wallace (1997). Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. p. 269. ISBN 9780310218951.
  39. Wallace, ibid., p. 257
  40. Panayotis Coutsoumpos. Book Reviews Murray J. Harris. Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books House, 1992. Berrier Springs. MI 49103
  41. Murray J. Harris. (1992). Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books House.
  42. Murray J. Harris (2008). Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (Reprinted ed.). Wipf and Stock Publishers. ISBN 9781606081082.
  43. McKenzie, John L. (1965). Dictionary of the Bible. Milwaukee, WI: Bruce.
  44. John L. Mckenzie (1995). The Dictionary Of The Bible (reprinted ed.). Touchstone, New York: Simon and Schuster. p. 317. ISBN 9780684819136.
  45. James D. G. Dunn (1989). Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry Into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation (Second ed.). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
  46. C. F. D. Moule (1953). An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek. Cambridge: University Press. p. 116. ISBN 9780521057745.
  47. Philip B. Harner (March 1973). "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1". Journal of Biblical Literature. The Society of Biblical Literature. 92 (1): 75–87. doi:10.2307/3262756. JSTOR 3262756.
  48. Jason BeDuhn (2003). Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament. University Press of America. p. 133. ISBN 9780761825562.
  49. David Barron (an anti-Trinitarian Seventh-day Adventist) (2011). John 1:1 Non-Trinitarian - The Nature and Deity of Christ. Archived from the original on 2012-05-01. Retrieved 2011-10-05.
  50. Albert Pietersma (1984). Albert Pietersma and Claude Cox (ed.). KYRIOS OR TETRAGRAM: A RENEWED QUEST FOR THE ORIGINAL LXX (PDF). DE SEPTUAGINTA. Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on his sixty-fifth birthday. Mississauga: Benben Publications. p. 90.
  51. The Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Vol. 62, Pt 2, October 2011. https://www.academia.edu/862541/_From_God_%CE%B8%CE%B5%CF%8C%CF%82_to_God_Noute_A_New_Discussion_and_Proposal_Regarding_John_1.1_and_the_Sahidic_Coptic_Version_of_the_NT_JTS_62.2_2011_494_512
  52. Genesis 1:1
  53. Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers on John 1, accessed 22 January 2016
  54. Mark 1:1
  55. Luke 1:2
  56. David L. Jeffrey A Dictionary of biblical tradition in English literature 1992 Page 460 "...in his reference to 'eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word' (Luke 1:2) he is certainly speaking of the person as well as the words and actions of Jesus"
  57. 1 John 1:1
  58. Dwight Moody Smith First, Second, and Third John 1991 Page 48 "Of course, were it not for the Gospel, it would not be so obvious to us that "the word of life" in 1 John 1:1 is Jesus Christ. Strikingly, only in the prologue of each is the logos to be identified with Jesus."
  59. Acts 28:6
  60. Acts 28:6
  61. Acts 28:6
  62. Divine Name King James Bible http://www.dnkjb.net/1189chapters/NT44ACT28.htm
  63. "Acts 28:6 Interlinear: And they were expecting him to be about to be inflamed, or to fall down suddenly dead, and they, expecting it a long time, and seeing nothing uncommon happening to him, changing their minds, said he was a god".
  64. http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/act28.pdf
  65. Edwin Moore: Neoplatonism in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, available at .
  66. J.M. Dillion: "Plato/Platonism," in The dictionary of New Testament Background, ed. by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter, (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2000).
  67. The dictionary definition of 道 at Wiktionary
  68. Amy Golahny - Points of contact: crossing cultural boundaries 2004 Page 38 "By way of contrast, most eighteenth-century translations in China were theological works, and Jesuits turned instead to translating ... ultimately "to find God" for the Jesuits and "to fathom principles" of the Tao for the Chinese."
  69. Sozzini, Lelio; Brevis explicatio in primum Iohannis caput published posthumously in De falsa et vera unius Dei Patri, filii, et spiritus sancti 1568, Alba Iulia
  70. Sozzini, Fausto; Brevis explicatio in primum Iohannis caput Amsterdam 1565? also published Alba Iulia 1568, by Francis David in his Refutatio propositionum Melii but misattributed as a second version of the commentary by Lelio Sozzini.
  71. Robert Lawrence Ottley The Doctrine of the Incarnation 2009, Page 322 "The passages in the New Testament referring to the Logos were explained by Socinus to relate to the predestined work of the Redeemer as the author of the new moral creation."
  72. Wilhelm Schmidt-Biggemann, Anja Hallacker Apokalypse und Philologie: Wissensgeschichten und Weltentwürfe der 2007 Page 86 "Es ist klar, dass Sozzini unter diesen Bedingungen eine eigenständige Logos-Theologie nicht akzeptieren kann. Er versucht vielmehr, den Prolog des Johannesevangeliums vollständig zu entplatonisieren."
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.