john 1:1

Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Tue Jan 11 13:12:51 EST 2000


(I was unable to determine who wrote the following.)

<< What is the translation of John 1:1 by the experts? >>

I would suggest three major translation possibilities. For those who take 
the Johannine LOGOS as referring to an individual being, John 1:1c could 
mean that (i) this LOGOS "was God"; or that (ii) this LOGOS  was merely 
like God (i.e. "was divine"). (iii) For those who take the Johannine LOGOS 
as an instrumental force (of some sort or another), the debate between "was 
God" versus "was divine" is more or less resolves itself in favor of "was 
divine" (even if one prefers the translation "was God").

In my opinion, none of these interpretations have anything to do with Greek 
grammar as such. Allow me to illustrate my point. Take the statement: 
"Achilles is a lion." What does it mean? If "Achilles" is merely the name 
of a large heavily-built cat with a tawny body and a tufted tail, then all 
this statement means is that "Achilles" is the name of a lion. But if 
"Achilles" in the above statement refers to a human person, then what does 
this statement mean? Could it mean that the person Achilles looks like "a 
large heavily-built cat with a tawny body and a tufted tail"? Most likely 
not, the most likely interpretation of the statement "Achilles is a lion" 
would be that the person Achilles is courageous, or fights as ferocious as 
a lion. The statement would then be merely a poetic metaphor. None of this 
analysis has much to do with grammar and/or syntax, but rather context and 
exegesis. The same is true, IMO, for understanding John 1:1. Greek grammar 
and/or syntax by itself cannot rule out any of the three possible suggested 
understandings of this passage.

IMO the best interpretation is that the Johannine LOGOS refers to (some 
sort of) an instrumental force. The traditional interpretation has been 
that the Johannine LOGOS refers to an individual being who should be 
identified as Jesus. But in my opinion, this is mistaken since John makes 
it clear that he does not identify Jesus as God's LOGOS. For example, the 
Johannine Jesus says: "I do know him [God] and I keep his word" (Jn 8:55). 
If for John, God's LOGOS was Jesus, how could the Johannine Jesus keep it? 
Another example, the Johannine Jesus says: "Whoever does not love me does 
not keep my words; and the word that you hear is not mine, but is from the 
Father who sent me" (Jn 14:24). Again, the Johannine Jesus speaks as if 
God's LOGOS is different from himself! The difference in interpretations of 
John 1:1c & 1:14 is rooted in the fact that some take God's LOGOS as an 
individual, while others (such as myself) take God's LOGOS in the Johannine 
prologue as an instrumental force. IMO my interpretation does better at 
interpreting John 1:1 & 14 in light of the whole of John's gospel.

-Steven Craig Miller
Alton, Illinois (USA)
scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Disclaimer: "I'm just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree), 
what do I know?"




More information about the B-Greek mailing list