Does John 1:1 actually say, "the Word was a god"?

Question:

I got into a conversation with some Jehovah's Witnesses, and they said that according to Greek grammar, John 1:1 should read, "In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." Is this true?

Answer:

No.

In order for me to explain why that is wrong, I'm going to need to explain a few rules of Greek grammar, which most people will find horribly boring. I apologize, but unfortunately, this is the best way to refute this claim, so if you really want to know why this JW doctrine is wrong, you will need to bear with me. If not, feel free to stop reading now.

The Jehovah's Witnesses claim that Greek only has a definite article ("the"), and does not have an indefinite article ("a"). This is true. They also claim that since Greek normally attaches the definite article ("the") to the noun, any time it does NOT attach the definite article to the noun, it automatically implies the indefinite article ("a"). This is NOT completely true, but the really irritating part is that the Jehovah's Witnesses KNOW this is not completely true, which I shall prove at the end of this post with their own translation.

You can read the Jehovah's Witnesses full argument on this issue here. If anyone is interested, I have the writings of most of the scholars they reference, and it is NOT true that those scholars support their interpretation of John 1:1. Their explanation is, at best, the kind of thing a first year Greek student might come up with before he gets a wider, and much more in depth understanding of Greek beyond the bare basics.

Now, it is true that the only way to imply the indefinite article is to leave off the definite article, and that construction DOES occur in the New Testament, however there are at least ten ways to make a noun definite in Greek, and attaching a definite article to it is only one of the ten ways. This means that an indefinite article is only implied in about 15% of all cases in the New Testament where the definite article is missing. In other words, there are other rules that help us determine if a noun that is missing a definite article is supposed to be indefinite. So what rule applies to John 1:1?

Ok, now comes the really boring Greek grammar stuff. You have been warned.

The first thing you need to know is that Greek is a highly inflected language, meaning the endings on most words, particularly the nouns and verbs, tell us the role they are playing in the sentence (subject, primary verb, object, predicate, etc.). As a result, the word order rules in Greek are much more flexible than in English, and because of that, many Greek words can appear anywhere in the sentence. Greek writers typically used this inherent word order flexibility to emphasize or de-emphasize specifics words and concepts within a given sentence. Most of this is extremely subtle, but it can occasionally have a huge impact on what the writer is trying to say.

The third clause in John 1:1 is normally translated "And the Word was God," which the JW's claim is incorrect because the noun "God" does not have an article, and thus, it should be translated with the indefinite article as "a god."

Here is the clause in question in Greek:

και θεος ην ο λογος

And God was the Word.

Just as in English, a sentence in Greek in which the connecting verb was some form of "to be" (is, was, are) has a subject and predicate (rather than a normal sentence which has a subject and object). In English, the subject is always first, and the predicate is always second, and it is used to equate the predicate to the subject. For example, "John is king," "Jane is black," "Bill is cold," or "Sue is angry" are all this kind of construction. In most cases, it matters which of these is the subject and which is the predicate. In the sentence, "Bill is cold," we are saying that "being cold" is something Bill is experiencing. We are not saying that "being Bill" is something cold is experiencing.

In Greek, we would normally determine which noun is the subject and which is the object from the endings, but in predicate constructions, this is a problem, as both nouns are in the same case, so they have the same ending. Since a Greek writer can put these words in any order, determining which is the subject and which is the predicate could be a problem . . . except that Greek has a rule for this. Here is how the rule works:

If both nouns have the article, or neither noun has the article, then the first noun is the subject and the second noun is the predicate. Thus, in the following sentences (shown in English for ease of understanding), "John" is the subject and "king" is the predicate:

A)   The John was the king.
B)   John was king.

In example (B), since there is no particular reason for leaving off the article, it would be legitimate to translate that sentence, "John was a king," or maybe, if the context was not clear as to who "John" was, it might be translated, "A John was a king."

However, if only one of the nouns had the article, then the rule is that the noun with the article is the subject, while the noun without the article is the predicate. Thus, although they read oddly in English (remember, we are pretending that our English words are actually Greek words), in both of the following sentences, "John" is the subject and "king" is the predicate.

C)   The John was king.
D)   King was the John.

Here are the two really important things to remember: First, Greek uses word order for emphasis, and second, if both words have the article, the FIRST word is the subject, and the SECOND word is the predicate.

Remember that the third clause of John 1:1 follows the pattern of example (D) above, where one noun has the article (ο λογος = "the Word"), and one noun does not have the article (θεος = "God").

So we know that "the Word," although it appears at the end of the clause, is actually the subject, and "God," although it appears at the beginning of the clause, is actually the predicate. From this rule, we know this clause SHOULD be translated, "And the Word was God," NOT "And God was the Word."

Ok, so why did John place θεος ("God") at the beginning of the clause? For emphasis. The effect is something like this, "And the Word was GOD!"

But how do we know it is not supposed to be translated "a god"? Simple, remember that if both words have the article, then the first word is the subject and the second word is the predicate? That means, according to the rules of Greek grammar, you cannot place the predicate at the beginning of the sentence AND also give it the article. So, Greek grammar demands that if you want to place the predicate at the beginning, as John did in this clause, you MUST drop the article (so that your readers will know this is the predicate, NOT the subject).

This means that John could NOT do both. He could EITHER give it the article and leave it without any particular emphasis, OR place it at the beginning of the sentence for emphasis, where he would be required to drop the article. If he chose to place it at the beginning for emphasis, the rules DEMAND that he must drop the article.

When the rules demand that you drop the article, the absence of the article does not, in fact, cannot indicate the indefinite.

Thus, the effect is the exact opposite of what the JW's claim. By placing the predicate θεος at the beginning of the sentence, John is required to drop the article, but in so doing, he is placing extra emphasis on the noun θεος, which gives it extra force in the sentence, and produces the result, "And the Word was GOD."

Now, here is the really underhanded part of this argument from the Jehovah's Witnesses. They actually DO know that the absence of the article only rarely indicates the indefinite, as proven by their own translation, the New World Translation (Available online here).

John 1:6 reads as follows in the New World Translation:

There came a man who was sent as a representative of God; his name was John. [emphasis mine]

Here is how the Greek reads in that verse:

εγενετο ανθρωπος απεσταλμενος παρα θεου ονομα αυτω ιωαννης.

The word θεου ("of God") does not have an article, which according to their claims, means it should be translated, "of a god." But they know their claim is not true, and they demonstrate that in this verse.

How about John 1:12 where the New World Translation reads:

However, to all who did receive him, he gave authority to become God’s children. [emphasis mine]

And the Greek reads:

οσοι δε ελαβον αυτον εδωκεν αυτοις εξουσιαν τεκνα θεου γενεσθαι

Again, θεου ("of God," the Greek literally reads, "the children of God") has no article, so by their rules, it should read, "the children of a god."

Here is the next verse, John 1:13. New Word Translation:

And they were born, not from blood or from a fleshly will or from man’s will, but from God. [emphasis mine]

And the Greek:

οι ουκ εξ αιματων ουδε εκ θεληματος σαρκος ουδε εκ θεληματος ανδρος αλλ εκ θεου εγεννηθησαν.

Again, θεου does not have an article attached to it (εκ is a preposition meaning "from"), so according to their own arguments, this should be translated, "from a god."

These are all from the same writer as John 1:1, in the same chapter.

Just so you can verify this for yourself, because Greek is an inflected language, the article can have 17 different spellings. I will list them all here (in alphabetical order) so you can see that there is no article attached to θεου in any of these sentences: αι, η, ο, οι, τα, ταις, τας, τη, την, της, το, τοις, τον, του, τους, τω, των.

There are numerous other examples directly from their own translation I can give where it is clear they either don't really understand how the article works in Greek, or are being intentionally deceptive about the rules governing its use.

The bottom line is that John 1:1 tells us, to quote preeminent Greek scholar Daniel B. Wallace, "Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has. But He is not the first person of the Trinity. All this is concisely confirmed in και θεος ην ο λογος." [Quoted in Basics of Biblical Greek, by William D. Mounce, pages 27-28].

Far from meaning what the JW's claim, this verse, when coupled with verse 14 (and the Word become flesh, and dwelt among us), actually proclaims the deity of Jesus with emphatic boldness that leave no room for doubt about the claims John is making about Jesus: He is the God, He is the creator, He was not created (he was already there in the beginning), and He became flesh to pay for our sins so that we could be saved.

What Translation of the Bible is the Best?

Question:

So a friend told me that the only real Bible is the King James Version, but I have a hard time understanding it. I kinda like the NIV, but she said that one is corrupt. I was wondering which version you think is the best?

Answer:

This is really two issues:

1) Is the KJV really the only legitimate Word of God?
2) If not, what is the best English translation?

The primary argument of the King James Version only view is that all other translations are corrupt because they leave out words, phrases or verses that are found in the KJV. How do we know they are wrong in leaving those words, phrases or verses out of the bible? Simple. If they are in the KJV, they are scripture. Period.

The first issue assumes that somehow an English translation made 1500 years after the New Testament was written is the one and only bible against which all bibles, before and after, must be measured. Thus, if we find a second century copy of the Gospel of John in Greek that differs slightly from the KJV (which did happen with Papyrus 75), the ancient Greek manuscript is wrong, not the KJV. How does this even make sense?

So, they are starting with an assumption that cannot be proven. Then, based on this assumption, when a modern translation is missing something that is found in the KJV, they accuse it of being corrupt, and quote this verse from Revelation to condemn it:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Rev 22:19 KJV)

There are two serious ironies here.

The first is, how are we to know if modern translations are leaving verses out of the bible that are supposed to be there, or if the KJV has added verses to the bible that were never supposed to be there in the first place? The only way to know this is to look at the oldest copies of the bible in Greek, and see how they read.

For example, 1 John 5:7 appears in the KJV, but not in any modern translations. Why? Because prior to the twelfth century, that verse did not appear in ANY Greek manuscript of the New Testament. It FIRST appears as a margin note in the twelfth century, and is found in only FIVE manuscripts (out of more than 5,800 Greek manuscripts), all of them after the twelfth century. So, here is the problem. This verse was not found in ANY bible in the 1st century, 2nd century, 3rd century, 4th century, 5th century, 6th century, 7th century, 8th century, 9th century, 10th century or 11th century, yet somehow the KJV only view wants us to believe it is original? If a new version drops that verse, are they not returning to the way the bible was for 1100 years PRIOR to its sudden appearance as a margin note? Doesn't the choice to return to the way the bible was for the first thousand years of its existence make more sense?

Besides, Revelation has another warning, one that proponents of this theory never mention.

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: (Rev 22:18 KJV)

The second ironic thing about Revelation 22:19 quote from the KJV listed above is that prior to the sixteenth century, the phrase "book of life" did not exist in ANY Greek manuscripts (it appeared first in a poor Latin translation). ALL Greek manuscripts in existence read "tree of life." So which is correct? The KJV or ALL the Greek manuscripts in existence?

The bottom line here is that modern translations are NOT attempting to corrupt the bible. Far from it, they are, through serious scholarly research into Greek manuscripts, attempting to produce a bible that is as close to the originals as possible.

There are a few other issues involved, but I don't have the time or space to go into them. If you are interested, the following web site addresses many of the KJV only issues fairly well:

Notes on the King James Translation and the so-called Textus Receptus

Bottom line: it is simply not true that the King James Version is the only valid, true and reliable translation of the Bible.

So what is the best translation of the bible?

The one you understand the best, and are most likely to actually read.

In other words, I have only run into ONE seriously BAD translation of the Bible (done by a guy who could not actually read Greek, who assumed that each Greek word had ONE, and only ONE meaning, and really did not understand Greek structure, syntax or grammar - and I am NOT providing a link to his web site), and quite a few really good translations.

The truth is, there is no such thing as a "best" translation of the bible. It is simply impossible to create a perfect translation of a Koine Greek document into modern English, if for no other reason than there are so many things in the ancient Greek for which we have no equivalent in modern English. For example, in John 1:1 the Greek word λόγος is translated "word," yet it does NOT mean "word" in that sentence. In fact, we have no English equivalent for what it means in that context, which is something like this:

λόγος is the principle of order and knowledge in the universe. The way everything in the universe held together, followed laws or patterns, the way learning made sense of that order, and the way new knowledge explained things that had previously been a mystery. All of this was λόγος. You could say that λόγος is all knowledge that ever was or ever will be. In its purest form, it is the actions, thoughts and knowledge of God Himself. [from my up coming book, "The Gospel According to John: Wide Open" due out sometime in 2015 or so . . . hopefully]

We have no English word that can relate this meaning, so what do we do? We use the sorely under-powered and seriously lacking alternative, "Word," mostly because no scholar on the planet can can think of anything better.

But there is more. Greek has constructions we don't have in English, some of which are due to it being a flexible language that uses WORD ORDER to convey subtle, but often critical, information in a sentence, and we have no set way to relate these nuances in English. Greek has greater distinctions and subtleties in many words than we have in English. For example, to contrast two ideas, we have "but, however, and although," each of which mean pretty much the same thing, and to connect, we have "and, as well as" and maybe a few others, each of which, again, mean essentially the same thing. Greek, however, has a five step progression from the strongest contrast (opposites) to the strongest connection (indicating unity, or the tightest connection). How do we accurately relate exactly where we are on this progression with a given conjunction?

Additionally, we are constantly learning more and more about Greek as time goes on. For example, it has only been in the last twenty-five years or so that we have learned that the Greek word αὐθεντέω meant "violence," not "authority" in the first century, and very few modern translations reflect this discovery even today (I only know of one: the ISV).

Different translations tend to reflect different subtleties, all found in the Greek. No translation is perfect, and every translation (including my own) has some problems that often cannot be overcome due to the limitations of human language. Every translation has moments of unmatched beauty, stunning clarity, and outright genius.

My recommendation: get several translations, and switch back and forth between them.

If you are interested, I own well over thirty-five different translations (on top of being able to read the Greek), and these are some of my favorites (in alphabetical order):

Amplified Bible, Contemporary English Version, Easy to Read Version, English Standard Version, Holman Christian Standard Version, International Standard Version, King James Version, Message, Modern King James Version, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, New International Reader's Version, New King James Version, Today's New International Version, Young's Literal Translation.

So buy a couple that you like, and most importantly of all, READ THEM! And you will be fine.

Oh, and if you have any questions about a specific passage or word, write to me, and I'll do my best to explain it to you.