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".

[edit] Difficulties

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]

[edit] Theology

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"

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• 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]

[edit] Translation

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".

[edit] Difficulties

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]

[edit] Theology

The two competing beliefs which cause great controversy over this scripture center on are whether Jesus is God or God's agent.

 

[edit] Grammar

 [edit] The Logos

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.

[edit] Christology

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 ()" 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.

[edit] See also

For a comparison with the opening verse of the Hebrew Bible, see Genesis 1:1.

[edit] References