“And the Word Was God” Is a Mistranslation of John 1:1c

Sharing my perspective on why the data don’t support translating the final clause of John 1:1 as “and the Word was God”

[jackcimino]

I think what he means by "deity" is divine. Divinity was more of a gradient category in the ancient Mediterranean world. As demonstrated by Philo, Hellenized Judaism allowed for people and even stars to be divine without disregarding monotheism.

[Matt_The_Hugenot]

I used to have arguments with my father about this one, he supported the traditional reading whereas I favour "and the word was divine", that seemed to make the most sense to me.

[Thoughtpologetics]

“Word was divine”… I always felt that was the best translation

[michaelbrown]

Dan, are you familiar with David Bentley Hart's NT translation? His footnote on this seems to address varying translations. Wondered what you thought about his interpretation.

[dustinellerbe]

Divine is also a good word to use. Given it meaning typically used.

[kamilgregor]

It should be added that things like attacking idolatry and Greek polytheism is in no way incompatible with the view that Yahweh does not exhaust the category of θεός. Philo is a case in point - while emphasizing Yahweh's unique metaphysical status and rejecting deification of rulers, he still calls Moses θεός no less than ten times, says that Moses was "changed into the divine" and became "truly divine" (Questions on Exodus, 2.29)

[RobSeib]

Are there English translations that do not impose meaning on the text? I know its impossible to remove translator bias, but I am peeved by how many instances there are of translators doing additional interpretation of the text. Forgive my ignorance, I genuinely wish to learn.

[stevenv]

I usually heard conservative Christians cite the Cromwell rule here but I have never heard of this rule outside of the context of John 1:3. Could you cover this?

[kevincameron]

Thank you Dan for this and all your other work. The terms 'son of god ' and 'son of man' really confound me at times. Any chance you have or will comment on them? TY.

[chuckshingledecker]

Can you speak to how the patristic writers of the 4th century understood the Greek? Did Arius make this argument about the grammar? Or did others make the counter argument?

[lyricaltraveller]

All the semantic arguments about grammar can actually be set aside with this one very simple point. Throughout ALL of John's writings, and even within the verse of John 1:1, you see his form of writing is to use the definite article to denote specific verses general. Or to denote identity verses quality. Why would John, in the very last phrase of this one and only verse, suddenly change his writing style? He wouldn't have. So, all the creative ways that trinitarians come up with to explain away the missing definite article are nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

[tienshan]

So, what might have the author of the Gospel of John intended?

[Truelogic]

In Greek John 1:2 it reads “
and God was the word”
not “ the word was God”

I think it should be noted that John is referring to the Elohiym of Genesis 1:1-3. Which is an entirely different discussion.

[boboak]

Dan, are you saying the most likely implication of this data is that the author had a polytheistic world view?

[johna]

I can’t believe I’ve never heard this before. Thank you. Fascinating

[ericmacrae]

Thanks you for explaning in this short video. I have had many apologist that tries to argue otherwise.

[SkjorTheSteelHelm]

Do you believe that verses 1-18 in chapter 1 was added in much after the death of John? Because after you read verses 1-18. It begins make a big shift from this deifying Jesus to John suddenly being questioned by the pharisees

[David-cwpd]

Dont disagree that it is qualitative, but disagree that the word of god isnt a qualitative statement, and since the greek uses theos in both the word was with theos, and the word was theos, being so close it is perfectly appropriate to use the same english word for theos, which is customarily god

[samuel.thornton]

Could you point to some scholarly resources about the development of 2nd+ century trinitarian doctrine as categorically different than the first century understanding of Jesus' Lordship?

[WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou]

Would love some interaction from the NET Bible which seems to use different arguments for the traditional translation than the ones you have mentioned:

“FOOTNOTE
tn Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (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 θεός 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.”