APPENDIX C: JOHN 1:1 and 18–JESUS AS “GOD”

Although the majority of modern translations render John 1:1c as “and the Word was God,” this translation is somewhat problematic and possibly misleading. As one of the leading scholars on this issue admits:

[It] is clear that in the translation “the Word was God,” the term God is being used to denote his nature or essence, and not his person. But in normal English usage “God” is a proper noun, referring to the person of the Father or corporately to the three persons of the Godhead. Moreover, “the Word was God” suggests that “the Word” and “God” are convertible terms, that the proposition is reciprocating. But the Word is neither the Father nor the Trinity… The rendering cannot stand without explanation. (Murray Harris–Jesus as God, p. 69)

In the words of a non-Trinitarian critic of this translation, “Trinitarians do not mean what they say and they do not say what they mean.” Moreover, qualified Greek scholars such as Jason BeDuhn have also taken a public stand against the traditional translation, going as far as to state that:

Grammatically, John 1:1 is not a difficult verse to translate. It follows familiar, ordinary structures of Greek expression. A lexical (“interlinear”) translation of the controversial clause would read: “And a god was the Word.” A minimal literal (“formal equivalence”) translation would rearrange the word order to match proper English expression: “And the Word was a god.” The preponderance of evidence, from Greek grammar, from literary context, and from cultural environment, supports this translation, of which “the Word was divine” would be a slightly more polished variant carrying the same basic meaning. Both of these renderings are superior to the traditional translation which goes against these three key factors that guide accurate translation. The NASB, NIV, NRSV, and NAB follow the translation concocted by the KJV translators. This translation awaits a proper defense, since no obvious one emerges from Greek grammar, the literary context of John, or the cultural environment in which John is writing… (Jason BeDuhn, Truth in translation)

This concern has been taken seriously and a number of alternative translations have been proposed and used in recent versions, including:

(1) The Word was a god or The Word was god (Jannaris, Becker, DeBuhn)

(2) The Word was divine (Moffatt, Goodspeed, Schonfield, Temple, Strachan, Zerwick)

(3) The Word was deity (Dana and Mantey, Perry, Tenney, Fennema)

(4) What God was, the Word was (NEB, REB).

The EOB footnote for this verse explains the difficulty:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. This second theos could also be translated ‘divine’ as the construction indicates a qualitative sense for theos. The Word is not God in the sense that he is the same person as the theos mentioned in 1:1a; he is not God the Father (God absolutely) or the trinity. The point being made is that he is of the same uncreated nature or essence as God the Father, with whom he eternally exists. This verse is echoed in the Nicene Creed: “God from God... True God from True God... homoousion with the Father”

In order to allow the public reader to use the now traditional form “The Word was God,” the EOB uses parentheses to inform the private reader that the second theos should be understood in a qualitative, not personal sense. The liturgical reader also has the option to read the verse as “the Word was what God was” which is indeed a very accurate translation of the grammar and intent of the Greek text.

John 1:18 presents a double difficulty. The first aspect is that the original Greek is debated. Several ancient manuscripts read μονογενὴς θεός (“only-begotten or unique God”) instead of μονογενὴς υἱός (“only-begotten or unique son”). Inasmuch as the Critical Text gives preponderance to the so- called Alexandrian textual tradition, it adopts θεός as the most likely original reading of John 1:18. This reading is also quoted by Irenaeus (latin text), Clement (2 out of 4 citations), Origen, Arius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Jerome and Cyril.

On the other hand, Byzantine manuscripts always read μονογενὴς υἱός which is therefore the reading found in the Patriarchal Text and the main text of the EOB. The witnesses supporting this reading are geographically widespread and it is consistent with Johannine usage (3:16, 18; 1John 4:9).

Hence, it is extremely difficult to be certain as to the original reading of this passage, but it is clear that both μονογενὴς θεός and μονογενὴς υἱός are consistent with John 1:1 and that they do not create any doctrinal issues.

The second difficulty of John 1:18 is how to properly translate μονογενής. The King James version rendered this Greek word as “only begotten” but extensive research in the usage of μονογενής seem to indicate that a better rendition would be “uniquely-loved-and-begotten” or “uniquely loved on account of [one’s] origin,” which is sometimes simplified as “unique” or “only.” This is also close in meaning to “one and only of its kind,” but this has to be clarified by the fact that μονογενής is always used in the context of a parent-child relationship. Based on various interpretations and grammatical options, modern scholars and translations have adopted a variety of renditions, including:

· The only-begotten God (NASB)

· God, only-begotten (Westcott)

· God the only Son (TCNT, NAB1, NIV1973,1978, NRSV)

· The only son, God (NAB2)

· The divine only Son (Goodspeed)

· God the one and only (NIV1984)

· The only One, who is the same as God (GNB1966, 1971).

The problem here is that while “only-begotten” makes it clear that the Son has his source and origin in the Father, “unique” and “one and only” tend to hide this important aspect of historic orthodox theology, sometimes intentionally so.²⁶⁴⁹ At the same time, “only-begotten” may also be misleading by directing the reader to the idea that the “only-begotten” is the only one who is a son or who has been “begotten” or “obtained.”

For these reasons, the EOB translates μονογενὴς υἱός as “uniquely-begotten” and provides an explanatory footnote.

As Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon writes:

God the Father loves uniquely only one Person, that is his Son. The adjective μονογενής with which the Father refers to his Son (Jn 1:14–18; 3:16), does not mean simply the ‘only-begotten’ but also the ‘uniquely loved one’ (ὁ ἀγαπητός Mt. 3:17; 12.18; 2Pet. 1.17; etc.). It is in and through and because of him that the Father loves all the beings that exist, for he made them ‘in him’ and ‘for him’ (Col. 1.16–18). (John D. Zizioulas–Communion and Otherness, p. 73–74)