John 1:1

This text was composed sometime between 70-110AD. Tertullian, in the early third century, used this verse in developing his views on the Trinity, although he noted that the majority of the believers in his day found issue with his doctrine. He 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. In the same text, he uses Psalm 45:6: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. 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." ==Source text and translations==

File:Papyrus 75a.gif |Papyrus 75 (175–225), the end of Gospel of Luke and the beginning of Gospel of John (chapter 1:1–16*) File:Codex Vaticanus end or Luke.jpg|Codex Vaticanus (300–325), The end of Gospel of Luke and the beginning of Gospel of John File:Codex Bezae 0202a.JPG|Codex Bezae (c. 400), John 1:1–16 File:Codex Alexandrinus J 1,1-7.PNG|Codex Alexandrinus (400-440), John 1:1–7. John 1:1 in English versions in the King James Bible. 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. • 1924: "the Logos was divine" – The Bible: James Moffatt Translation, by James Moffatt. • 1935: "and the Word was divine" – The Bible: An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago. • 1955: "so the Word was divine" – The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen. • 1956: "And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity" – The Wuest Expanded Translation • 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. • 1993: "The Word was God, in readiness for God from day one." — The Message, by Eugene H. Peterson. • 1998: "and what God was the Word also was" – This translation follows Professor Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of John, ed. Daniel J. Harrington. • 2017: "and the Logos was god" - The New Testament: A Translation, by David Bentley Hart. Difficulties 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 may lead one to believe that the proper way to render the verse is the traditional rendering. The opposing theology that Jesus is subordinate to God as his Chief agent may lead to the conclusion that "... a god" or "... divine" is the proper rendering. This highlights the importance of understanding and applying the proper grammatical rules to any translation to avoid bias. Augustine of Hippo discusses John 1:1–2 in connection with ambiguities caused by punctuation rather than vocabulary. In De doctrina christiana he contrasts the reading In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum. Hoc erat in principio apud Deum with what he calls a "heretical pointing", In principio erat verbum, et verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat. Verbum hoc erat in principio apud Deum, which leaves the wording unchanged but alters the pause so that the clause "and the Word was God" no longer appears as a single unit. Augustine interprets this alternative as motivated by an unwillingness to confess that the Word is God and maintains that, in light of the Church's "rule of faith" and its teaching on the equality of the Trinity, the verse should instead be read with the predicate in the form et Deus erat verbum followed by hoc erat in principio apud Deum. The Greek Article 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. Ancient Greek does not have an indefinite article like the English word a, and nominatives without articles can have a range of meanings that require context to interpret. In John 1:1c, "Theos" is a predicate nominative but has no article. Thus, it is called an anarthrous predicate, and makes translation more challenging. Colwell's Rule Some interpreters use ''Colwell's rule'' which says that a definite predicate which is before the verb "to be" usually does not have the definite article. This tentative formulation addresses whether a definite predicate nominative uses a definite article, but does not determine if a predicate nominative is definite. E. C. Colwell doesn't address in depth how to identify whether an anarthrous predicate is either definite, indefinite or qualitative, which needs to be determined from context. Ernest Cadman Colwell writes: Philip Harner assessed that many of the anarthrous predicates preceding linking verbs that E. C. Colwell had identified as definite were actually qualitative. Murray J. Harris says that when E. C. Colwell applied his rule to John 1:1c, he assumed that a predicate nominative could not simultaneously be definite and qualitative. The author of the Gospel of John could easily have resolved the uncertainty surrounding the predicate being definite, had that been his intention. This lends weight to the predicate having a qualitative nature, regardless of whether it is definite or indefinite. ==In the Beginning==

"In the beginning (archē) was the Word (logos)" may be compared with: • Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning God created heaven, and earth." 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. • Mark 1:1: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." • Luke 1:2: "According as they have delivered them unto us, who from the beginning (archē) were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word (logos). • 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". == The Word was divine ==

The main dispute with respect to this verse relates to John 1:1c ("Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος" read "Theos ēn ho Logos"). One translation is "the Word was divine." The following support this type of translation: Translations 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." 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."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". 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.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. 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 God." 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." However, Harner's claim has been criticized. Harner 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.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 . . . ).'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."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 Word as a god ==

Some scholars believe it is possible, or even preferable, to translate the third part of the verse as ... was a god. Other scholars oppose this translation. The rendering as "a god" is justified by some non-Trinitarians by comparing it with Acts 28:6 which has a similar grammatical construction: "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." "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) "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)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 , , , and among many other locations. Moreover, in the New Testament anarthrous theos was used to refer to God in locations including , , , and (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 the septuagint text, "supported by all MSS... reads πρὸς τὸν θεόν for the Hebrew עִם־ יְהֹוָ֔ה", but the oldest Greek text in Papyrus Fouad 266 has written πρὸς יהוה τὸν θεόν. 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 and . Moreover, the indefinite article is used to refer to God in and . ==Debate on Article ==

The verse has been a source of much debate among Bible scholars and translators. This verse 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. 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." Robert J. Wilkinson informs that Origen also "mentions the name Ιαω in his commentary on John 1:1, where in discussing divine names, he glosses ieremias as meteorismos Ιαω (exultation of Ιαω). This appears to be an entry from a list giving the meaning of Hebrew names in LXX". The main dispute with respect to this verse relates to how to translate the Greek word "theos" in John 1:1c. One translation given by some academic scholars 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. So, whether the predicate (theos) is translated as definite, indefinite or qualitative rests on the historical and cultural context of the author's original work. Consequently, this article raises the concern that uncertainty with respect to the grammar may result in translations based on the theology of the translator rather than the intention of the original author. A translation that presupposes either a theology that Jesus is God or that Jesus is subordinate to God, may naturally lead to a corresponding mistranslation. But a translation rooted on the intellectual milieu in which the text was originally written and used will more likely lead to the proper rendering. ==Commentary from the Church Fathers==

Thomas Aquinas assembled the following quotations regarding this verse from the early Fathers of the Church: • 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." ==References==