John1-1Wikipedia+ From wiki Jn1:1 #References A few translations have rendered the
verse "...and the word was a god"--------------------------[4][5]
John 1:1 Wikipedia, the
free Encyclopedia does not tell you this
Many Bible Publishers
Translated- a-god or a-God—Long Before Colwell’s Birth. Compare
JOHN1onePLUS.htm
John1-1c- SahidicCopticGospelofJohn
Who Is Colwell and What was His Rule –Colwell's Rule on John 1:1-Open 5.htm-BestBiblesComingInTheFUTURE.htm-
2.Given the language of
the time,-Open John-20-28.htm
Wikipedia—accurately states N0 6 -7 wiki Jn1:1 #References and More
Read -From apostolic.net
& http://simplebibletruths.net/5.htm
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.Compare
5.htm about apostolic.net^ From
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.
Wikipedia N0 7 wiki Jn1:1 #References
1 Beduhn in
TRUTH IN TRANSLATION: ACCURACY AND BIAS IN ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF THE NEW
TESTIMENT chapter 11 states: "Translators of the KJV, NRSV, NIV, NAB, NASB,
AB, TEV 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."
A
major point of contention within the grammatical debate is the proper
application of Colwell's rule,
which states:
“In sentences in which the copula is expressed, a
definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does
not have the article when it precedes the verb.”
At
issue is whether Cowell's rule applies to John 1:1 and if it is a reliable
standard by which grammatical constructions of this type should be measured.[14]
John 10:35
has similar usage of Greek word theos (god), with and without ho (the) when
describing human rulers as "gods".
There
are two issues affecting the translating of the verse, theology and 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. [6]
The opposing theology that Jesus is subordinate to God as his Chief agent leads
to the conclusion that "...a god" is the proper rendering.[7]
Some scholars staunchly oppose the translation ...a god. [8]
[9][10]
While other scholars believe it is possible or even preferrable.[11][12][13]
The two
competing beliefs which cause great controversy over this scripture center on
are whether Jesus is God or God's agent.
1.
^ 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."
2.
^ The Greek English New Testament.
Christianity Today. 1975
3.
^ Ibid.
1.
^ The New Testament in an Improved Version
(1808)
2.
^ The New Testament in Greek and English
(A. Kneeland, 1822.) A Literal Translation Of The New Testament (H. Heinfetter,
1863) Concise Commentary On The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885) The Coptic Version
of the N.T. (G. W. Horner, 1911) Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979)
The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed (J. L. Tomanec, 1958)
The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J.
S. Thompson, 1829) Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975) The New World
Translation of the Holy Scriptures (Jehovah's Witnesses)
3.
^ From 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.
4.
^ Beduhn in TRUTH IN TRANSLATION:
ACCURACY AND BIAS IN ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF THE NEW TESTIMENT chapter 11 states:
"Translators of the KJV, NRSV, NIV, NAB, NASB, AB, TEV 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."
5.
^ Dr. J. R. Mantey: "It is neither
scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'
6.
^ 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."
7.
^ Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski of Zurich,
Switzerland: It is monstrous to translate the phrase 'the Word was a
god.'"
8.
^ Dr. Jason BeDuhn (of the 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.."
9.
^ 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.
10.
^ 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."
11.
^ In A
Summary of Colwell's Rule Prof. Rodney J. Decker says: John 1:1, The
relevance of Colwell’s rule to John 1:1 would be worth pursuing in greater
detail. Note that the rule does not help by determining definiteness! It has
often been misused by well-intentioned defenders of the deity of Christ.
12.
^ Edwin Moore: Neoplatonism in The
Internet Encyclopeida of Philosophy, available at [1].
13.
^ J.M. Dillion:
"Plato/Platonism," in The dictionary of New Testament Background, ed.
by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter, (Downers Grove: InterVarsety Press,
2000).
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_1:1"
Categories: All articles with
unsourced statements | Articles
with unsourced statements since April 2007 | Articles
with unsourced statements since February 2007 | Articles
with unsourced statements since May 2007 | New Testament verses
• Learn more about citing Wikipedia •
Jump to: navigation,
search
John
1:1 is the first verse in
the Gospel
of John. The King James Version of the verse reads, "In
the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God".
The phrase "the Word" (a translation of the Greek word
"Logos") refers to Jesus, as indicated in other verses later in the
same chapter.[1]
This verse, and the continuation of the ideas introduced in it throughout Johannine literature, connected the Christian
understanding of Jesus to the philosophical idea of the Logos and the Hebrew Wisdom
literature, and set the stage for later developments in Trinitarian
theology and Christology.
Contents[hide] |
|
Koine
Greek |
|
εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος[2] |
|
Greek
transliteration |
|
en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos |
|
Latin Vulgate |
|
In principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum. |
|
Literal English |
|
In beginning (or "original") was the word (or "saying"), and the word (or "saying") was with the god, and god was the word (or "saying").[3] |
The
proper rendering from the original Greek language used to write the Gospel of
John to English has been a source of serious debate in the area of Bible
translation.
The
most common rendering in English is:
"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with
God and the Word was God."
This
rendering is preferred among popular English translations today. However, this
is not universal in usage among scholarly translations. Translations by James
Moffatt, Hugh J. Schonfield and Edgar Goodspeed render it:
"...and the Word was divine."
Other
variations also exist. Today's English Version reads: "...and he was
the same as God."
The
Revised English Bible reads: "...and what God was, the Word was."
Wycliffe's
Bible reads: "In the bigynnyng was the word, and the word was at God,
and God was the word.
A few
translations have rendered the verse "...and the word was a god"[4][5]
John 10:35 has similar
usage of Greek word theos (god), with and without ho (the) when describing
human rulers as "gods".
There
are two issues affecting the translating of the verse, theology and
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. [6] The opposing theology that Jesus is subordinate
to God as his Chief agent leads to the conclusion that "...a god"
is the proper rendering.[7]
Some scholars staunchly oppose the translation ...a god. [8]
[9][10]
While other scholars believe it is possible or even preferrable.[11][12][13]
The
two competing beliefs which cause great controversy over this scripture center
on are whether Jesus is God or God's agent.
See
also: Jesus Christ the Logos
The
term Logos originated in Greek philosophy, where Heraclitus used it to mean the
fundamental structure of the universe. [citation needed] It also
appears to have a connection to Hebrew Wisdom literature. [citation needed]
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.
Main article: Christology
See
also: Jesus Christ the Logos
Of the
Gospels, John has the highest 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
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 Creed.
Many
have seen this as evidence that there was a syncretism between (Christian)
Christology and (secular)
Platonism.[citation needed] 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 80BCE-250 CE, and Neoplatonism 250 CE
through the Reformation[15][16].
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. 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" (v. 14). Similarly, some translations of the Gospel of John into
Chinese
have used the word "Tao (道)" to translate
the "Logos" in a provocative way.
Gordon
Clark famously 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.
For a
comparison with the opening verse of the Hebrew
Bible, see Genesis 1:1.