John 1:1, the word was "a god."

[onewithhim]

Does anyone here have the list of Bible versions that say of John 1:1c "the word was a god"? I know there are several.

[onewithhim]

Even some noted trinitarian scholars are forced to admit that grammatically John 1:1c in NT Greek may be literally translated as “the Word was a god”! These include:


W. E. Vine (p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983 printing.);

Dr. C. H. Dodd (director of the New English Bible project, Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, vol. 28, Jan. 1977);

Dr. Murray J. Harris (p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992);

Rev. J. W. Wenham, p. 35, The Elements of New Testament Greek, Cambridge University Press, 1965;

Dr. Robert Young (p. 54, ‘New Covenant’ section, Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, 1977 printing).

Dr. William Barclay (p. 205, Ever yours, edited by C. L. Rawlins, Labarum Publ., 1985).

Of course, being trinitarians, they often insist that the correct interpretation of such a literal translation must be, somehow, trinitarian in spite of the actual literal meaning.

Awesome, tygger2. I knew I had seen a list some time ago.

[tygger2]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #1]

The earliest Christian writers have also clearly shown that they understood John’s Logos concept to be basically that of Philo’s Jewish “Logos.” The Encyclopedia of Religion, Macmillan Publishing Co., 1987, vol. 9, p. 15, discusses very early Christian writings concerning John’s use of Logos:


“...another sentence from [Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho]... ‘There is, as has been said, another [heteros] god and lord below the Creator of the universe...the Creator of the universe has no other [allos] god above him’ (56.4). .... Origen himself will downgrade the Logos in calling it ‘second [deuteros] god’ (Against Celsus 5.39, 6.61, etc.) or again in writing ‘god’ (theos) without the article, whereas he calls the Father ho theos, ‘the God’ (Commentary of Saint John 2.2.13-18).” And, “Thus Philo had used the presence or absence of the article to distinguish the ‘true God’ from the Logos god (On Dreams 1.39.229-230), and had marked out the Logos as being ‘the second god’ (Questions and Answers on Genesis, 2.62). Before [Christian writers] Justin and Hippolytus [and Origen and the writer of the Epistle to Diognetus - DEF-7, etc.], Philo sees in the Logos ‘another god’ (ibid.). .... It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Christian theologians of the [first,] second and third centuries, even theologians of the caliber of Origen...came to see the Logos as a god of second rank.”

[placebofactor]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #1]

The earliest Christian writers have also clearly shown that they understood John’s Logos concept to be basically that of Philo’s Jewish “Logos.” The Encyclopedia of Religion, Macmillan Publishing Co., 1987, vol. 9, p. 15, discusses very early Christian writings concerning John’s use of Logos:


“...another sentence from [Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho]... ‘There is, as has been said, another [heteros] god and lord below the Creator of the universe...the Creator of the universe has no other [allos] god above him’ (56.4). .... Origen himself will downgrade the Logos in calling it ‘second [deuteros] god’ (Against Celsus 5.39, 6.61, etc.) or again in writing ‘god’ (theos) without the article, whereas he calls the Father ho theos, ‘the God’ (Commentary of Saint John 2.2.13-18).” And, “Thus Philo had used the presence or absence of the article to distinguish the ‘true God’ from the Logos god (On Dreams 1.39.229-230), and had marked out the Logos as being ‘the second god’ (Questions and Answers on Genesis, 2.62). Before [Christian writers] Justin and Hippolytus [and Origen and the writer of the Epistle to Diognetus - DEF-7, etc.], Philo sees in the Logos ‘another god’ (ibid.). .... It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Christian theologians of the [first,] second and third centuries, even theologians of the caliber of Origen...came to see the Logos as a god of second rank.”

I have a log in my backyard. Why don't you look under there? You may find something related to John 1:1.

[Difflugia]

I have a log in my backyard. Why don't you look under there? You may find something related to John 1:1.

What exactly are you directing your sarcasm at? That John's Logos theology is based on Philo's or that someone might support their position with scholarship?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #1]

The earliest Christian writers have also clearly shown that they understood John’s Logos concept to be basically that of Philo’s Jewish “Logos.” The Encyclopedia of Religion, Macmillan Publishing Co., 1987, vol. 9, p. 15, discusses very early Christian writings concerning John’s use of Logos:


“...another sentence from [Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho]... ‘There is, as has been said, another [heteros] god and lord below the Creator of the universe...the Creator of the universe has no other [allos] god above him’ (56.4). .... Origen himself will downgrade the Logos in calling it ‘second [deuteros] god’ (Against Celsus 5.39, 6.61, etc.) or again in writing ‘god’ (theos) without the article, whereas he calls the Father ho theos, ‘the God’ (Commentary of Saint John 2.2.13-18).” And, “Thus Philo had used the presence or absence of the article to distinguish the ‘true God’ from the Logos god (On Dreams 1.39.229-230), and had marked out the Logos as being ‘the second god’ (Questions and Answers on Genesis, 2.62). Before [Christian writers] Justin and Hippolytus [and Origen and the writer of the Epistle to Diognetus - DEF-7, etc.], Philo sees in the Logos ‘another god’ (ibid.). .... It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Christian theologians of the [first,] second and third centuries, even theologians of the caliber of Origen...came to see the Logos as a god of second rank.”

Excellent information! I hope folks looking on will dig deeper into "a god" and come to an understanding of it as you have shown here.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #1]

The earliest Christian writers have also clearly shown that they understood John’s Logos concept to be basically that of Philo’s Jewish “Logos.” The Encyclopedia of Religion, Macmillan Publishing Co., 1987, vol. 9, p. 15, discusses very early Christian writings concerning John’s use of Logos:


“...another sentence from [Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho]... ‘There is, as has been said, another [heteros] god and lord below the Creator of the universe...the Creator of the universe has no other [allos] god above him’ (56.4). .... Origen himself will downgrade the Logos in calling it ‘second [deuteros] god’ (Against Celsus 5.39, 6.61, etc.) or again in writing ‘god’ (theos) without the article, whereas he calls the Father ho theos, ‘the God’ (Commentary of Saint John 2.2.13-18).” And, “Thus Philo had used the presence or absence of the article to distinguish the ‘true God’ from the Logos god (On Dreams 1.39.229-230), and had marked out the Logos as being ‘the second god’ (Questions and Answers on Genesis, 2.62). Before [Christian writers] Justin and Hippolytus [and Origen and the writer of the Epistle to Diognetus - DEF-7, etc.], Philo sees in the Logos ‘another god’ (ibid.). .... It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Christian theologians of the [first,] second and third centuries, even theologians of the caliber of Origen...came to see the Logos as a god of second rank.”

I have a log in my backyard. Why don't you look under there? You may find something related to John 1:1.

When an argument is lost, the loser resorts to slander and put-downs.

[Capbook]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #8]

(1) The New Testament in an Improved Version (Unitarian) says: "the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."

(2) The New World Translation (Jehovah's Witnesses) says: "and the Word was a god."

(3) The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson (Christadelphian?) says in the interlinear section: "a god was the Word."

(4) The Four Gospels - A New Translation by Prof. Charles C. Torrey says: "the Word was with God, and the Word was god."

(5) Das Evangelium nach Johannes by Siegfried Shultz says: "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word."

(6) Das Evangelium nach Johannes by Johannes Schneider says: "and godlike sort was the Logos [Word]."

(7) Das Evangelium nach Johannes by Jurgen Becker says: "and a god was the Logos."

Most of them are paraphrase translations that Bible words in Hebrew and Greek did not exist.

Das Evangelium nach Johannes" is not a word-for-word translation, but rather a phrase that translates to "The Gospel according to John" in German, meaning it captures the overall meaning of the original Greek text while adapting the wording to fit the German language; it is considered a "thought-for-thought" translation, particularly when referring to the widely recognized Luther Bible version.
https://www.google.com/search?q=is+the+ ... s-wiz-serp

"The Four Gospels - A New Translation" is not considered a word-for-word translation; it is generally understood as a more dynamic translation that aims to convey the meaning of the original Greek text in a way that is accessible to modern readers, rather than strictly adhering to the literal word order and phrasing.
https://www.google.com/search?q=is+the+ ... s-wiz-serp

"The New Testament in an Improved Version" is not considered a word-for-word translation; it is more likely to be a "thought-for-thought" translation.
https://www.google.com/search?q=is+the+ ... s-wiz-serp

[Difflugia]

After recent discussions about the various codices, I was browsing images of Codex Sinaiticus and noticed something: the scribe used nomina sacra notation for both θεόν and θεὸς in John 1:1. I then checked Alexandrinus and that scribe did the same thing. Whatever else may be true, that at least means that by the fifth century, Christians thought that the Logos was God and not just a god.

Here are relevant images. I circled the nomina sacra in both scans. I've linked the originals, in case someone wants to see them without my hamfisted notations.

Codex Sinaiticus


Codex Alexandrinus

[historia]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #18]

The same is true in Codex Vaticanus (see pg. 1349)

[onewithhim]

Thank you, tygger2 for your research.