[B-Greek] Question on John 1:1

Eric Weiss papaweiss1 at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 24 21:50:10 EST 2004


> Dear list members,
>
> I'm beginning to engage in a conversation with a 
> friend of mine who is a Jehovah's Witness about our 
> differing beliefs.  One of those things is our 
> differing understanding about the Deity of Christ.
>
> My friend uses a New World Translation, which 
> renders John 1:1 as:
>
> "In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was 
> with God, and the Word was a god."
>
> If you as a list member could please help me to 
> understand the following:
>
> 1.) Is the translation "the Word was a god" 
> grammatically possible?

Yes.

> 2.) Moffatt, Goodspeed, and others have translated 
> this section as "the Word was divine".  Again, is 
> this translation possible?

Yes, and this is likely because they regard the
anarthrous (i.e., lacking the article - i.e., "the")
use of the noun "God" (theos in the Greek) to be
qualitative in nature. I.e., "The Word as to His
nature was what God was." The Greek reads: "In [the]
beginning was the word/logos, and the word/logos was
with the God, and God was the word/logos."

> 3.) Is there anything in the text that has led most 
> modern translations to prefer "the Word was God" 
> over the translations "the Word was a god" or "the 
> Word was divine"?

Given the choice of stressing the Word's qualities
(i.e., "the Word was divine") versus stressing the
Word's identity ("the Word was God"), I would hazard a
guess that most modern translations prefer to stress
His identity, perhaps because they felt that Jesus's
God-ness was more central to John's message than
Jesus's Godlike-ness, or perhaps because they didn't
want to stray too far from the rendering that most
people are used to from generations of using and
hearing the King James Bible and most other versions. 

The NET Bible (view it at http://www.bible.org or
http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm) reads: "John
1:1 In the beginning1 was the Word, and the Word was
with God,2 and the Word was fully God.3" and says the
following in its translator's notes (tn) and study
notes (sn) for footnote 3 (I've modified the
transliteration of the Greek so you can read it all in
English here):

3tn Or "and what God was the Word was." Colwell's Rule
is often invoked to support the translation of theos
as definite ("God") rather than indefinite ("a god")
here. However, Colwell's Rule merely *permits*, but
does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of
an equative verb be translated as definite rather than
indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell's Rule did not deal
with a third possibility, that the anarthrous
predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance
when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for
the term is reflected in the traditional rendering
"the word was God." From a technical standpoint,
though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect
to anarthrous theos in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69).
Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are
helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the
Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as
God the Father). However, in contemporary English "the
Word was divine" (Moffatt) does not quite catch the
meaning since "divine" as a descriptive term is not
used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The
translation "what God was the Word was" is perhaps the
most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God
was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity
of essence between the Father and the Son without
equating the persons. However, in surveying a number
of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal
theological training and some of whom did not, the
editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated
by "what God was the Word was" would not be understood
by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation
"the Word was fully God" was chosen because it is more
likely to convey the meaning to the average English
reader that the Logos (which "became flesh and took up
residence among us" in John 1:14 and is thereafter
identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in
essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, "the
Word was with God," shows that the Logos is distinct
in person from God the Father.

sn And the Word was fully God. John’s theology
consistently drives toward the conclusion that Jesus,
the incarnate Word, is just as much God as God the
Father. This can be seen, for example, in texts like
John 10:30 ("The Father and I are one"), 17:11 ("so
that they may be one just as we are one"), and 8:58
("before Abraham came into existence, I am"). The
construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word
with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b,
"the Word was with God"); rather it affirms that the
Word and God are one in essence. 

> 4.) I have heard of a grammatical rule 
> called "Colwell's Rule" and that it is a pertinent 
> part of discussing this passage.  Would someone be 
> able to help me understand what Colwell's Rule is, 
> and its application to John 1:1?

The NET Bible notes I posted in response to your third
question discusses the relevance and applicability of
Colwell's Rule to this verse.

> I am just beginning to study Greek, so this will be 
> of benefit both to the conversation with my friend 
> as well as myself.
>
> Cordially yours,
> Chuck Wynn
> Campus Staff, Riverview Church
>
> P.S.  I'm sure I'll have further questions as we 
> progress in our conversation.  Thank you so much 
> for your help!


=====
Eric S. Weiss




		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



More information about the B-Greek mailing list