John 1:1

There is a continually running controversy among Jehovah’s Witnesses and Trinitarians surrounding the translation of John 1:1. The Jehovah’s Witnesses conclude that the translation of John 1:1 should lessen Jesus Christ’s Deity to some form of a lesser, created being who is still some how “divine” yet not God. Their reason for doing this is brought on by a paper trail of dishonesty on the original Koine Greek and Sahidic Coptic Greek translation of John 1:1.

“In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” (John 1:1 NWT).  The New World Translation contains the first verse of John 1:1 with a dramatic variation on the translation of the third clause of the verse. This dramatic variation is the supplemental addition of the English indefinite article.  Their reason for this is one that leads to a contradiction in their theology as well as a guaranteed inconsistency with the way they handle the Koine Greek of the New Testament. The reason for supplying the English indefinite article in the translation is due to the fact that in the third clause of John 1:1 the Greek word for “God” does not have a definite article. The Greek text of John 1:1 appears as the following:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

The clause containing the Greek word for “God” without the definite article is, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. The reality of the absence of the definite article before θεὸς is the extent of the honesty offered on the text by Jehovah’s Witnesses and Arians. The honesty stops here and the dishonesty starts as to what it means for the clause to not have a defintie article before the word “God”. Ironically enough, the conclusion that the absence of the definite article as being cause for the insertion of the English indefinite  article (Koine Greek lacks an indefinite article in toto) in the translation creates a sticky situation for the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The word Jehovah actually never appears in the Hebrew text with the definite article. The Greek Septuagint of the Old Testament actually translates Jehovah as κύριος without the definite article (cf. Gen 2:8, 2:16, 2:18, 3:1, 1 Kings 1:48, Psalm 41:13, 72:18, 106:48, etc).

The truth comes into focus when one simply seeks to understand the concept of the Koine Greek definite article and its absence. First, one should understand that the article does appear before the earlier use of θεὸς in John 1:1. Before the third clause (“and the Word was God”) the passage states that “the Word was with God” or literally that “the Word was with the God”. The BDAG points out the Koine Greek definite article and creates the proper understanding of why God appears in the first clause with the definite article, “In its generic use it singles out an individual who is typical of a class, rather than the class itself.”[1] The first use of the word “God” in the text of John 1:1 is clearly signifying an individual. John MacArthur helps to gain some insight on who John is referring to as to whom Jesus Christ was with “in the beginning” as he states, “Yet in an act of infinite condescension, Jesus left the glory of heaven and the privilege of face-to-face communion withHis Father (cf. John 17:5)” (my emphasis added).[2] It’s important to note that John 17:5 denotes that Christ was with the Father “before the world was” (John 17:5 NASB).  

With an understanding of one of the ways the definite article is employed it should be noted what it means when the definite article isn’t employed. Before getting into that it is necessary to understand that Greek word order is manipulated for the sake of emphasis. Daniel B. Wallace asserts, “As we have said, word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis.”[3] This becomes incredibly important to our understanding of the third clause of John 1:1. The word θεὸς (God) does appear first in the order of the third clause. It should also be noted that in the third clause there is a transitive, copulative verb which creates the “subject” and “predicate nominative” relationship. This verb is translated as the word “was”. Since word order can’t be the determinative factor on which word is operating as the subject and which as the predicate nominative, there must be a way that Koine Greek uses to determine these functions. Wallace points out, “We know that ‘the Word’ is the subject because it has the definite article….”[4] The difficulty with the employment of copulative verbs is seen in that both the subject and the predicate nominative have the same case endings (the sigma case ending). Thus the article becomes increasingly important to distinguishing between subject and predicate nominative.

Since it can be rightly observed, as Wallace has pointed out, that the article identifies the subject, how can the predicate nominative be identified? If the article appeared before θεὸς it would change the nature of the clause. Wallace comments that this would be propounding Sabellianism, stating that the Word was the Father.[5] Wallace also points out that if θεὸς wasn’t pulled forward in the sentence that the clause would be propounding Arianism and could be properly translated with the English indefinite article.[6]

Wallace further demonstrates the weakness of the indefinite predicate nominative argument of θεὸς in the third clause of John 1:1 when he quotes R. H. Countess’ understanding of the anarthrous use,

"In the New Testament there are 282 occurrences of the anarthrous θεὸς[God]. At sixteen places NWT[New World Translation] has either a god, god, gods, or godly. Sixteen out of 282 means that the translators were faithful to their tranlsation principle only six percent of the time....

The first section of John–1:1–18 furnishes a lucid example of NWT arbitrary dogmatism. Qεὸς occurs eight times–verses 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, 18–and has the article only twice–verse 1, 2. Yet NWT six times translated 'God,' once 'a god,' and once 'the god.'"[7]

It’s obvious then that the NWT isn’t being consistently honest on not just the Greek grammar, but also their own implementation of their understanding of the Greek grammar. Wallace further adds, “According to Dixon’s Study, if θεὸς were indefinite in John 1:1, it would be the only anarthrous pre-verbal [predicate nominative] in John’s Gospel to be so. ”[8]

Since it’s clearly pointed out that the indefinite construction cannot be the case of what John is propounding, can we conclude that John is stating definiteness? As Wallace pointed out earlier, if the definite article was applied to θεὸς John would in fact be propounding Sabellianism (the belief that constitutes “modalism” i.e. that God is a singular person existing in three different ‘modes’ throughout history). However, Wallace also points out the discovery by E. C. Colwell, which became known as “Colwell’s Rule”. Wallace presents, “Colwell’s rule is as follows: ‘Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article… a predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a ‘qualitative’ noun solely because of the absence of the article; if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun….’”[9] Since it’s possible for a noun to be anarthrous and yet still articular, should Colwell’s rule be applied to John 1:1? Wallace continues in agreement with Walter Martin and Bruce Metzger when he states, “Our point is that Colwell’s rule has been misunderstood and abused by scholars. By applying Colwell’s rule to John 1:1 they have jumped out of the frying pan of Arianism and into the fire of Sabellianism.”[10]  Wallace correctly points out that the definite construction of θεὸς is not the case. Notice, “The vast majority of definite anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives are monadic, in genitive constructions, or are proper names, none of which is true here, diminishing the likelihood of a definite θεὸς in John 1:1c. ”[11] 

The reality of what the construction is asserting is seen in the fact that John is emphasizing the Deity of Jesus Christ, and yet distinguishes Him from the Father.  John is in fact stating, “What God was, the Word was” (John 1:1 NEB). Wallace correctly identifies that this construction is qualitative rather than indefinite or definite,

"The idea of a qualitative θεὸς here is that the Word had all the attributes and qualities that “the God” (of John 1:1b) had. In other words, he shared the essence of the Father, though they differed in persons. The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most consice way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father"[12]

Dr. James R. White also concludes the same thing that Wallace did, “The last clause of John 1:1 tells us about the nature of the Word. The translation should be qualitative.”[13] The result of the proper understanding of the Koine Greek text is seen from the stand point that John places “the Word” as the subject of the clause by supplying the definite article. John then pulls the word “God” forward in the sentence for emphasis. To maintain subject and predicate nominative identity and to stress the importance of the qualitativenature of θεὸς, John does not place θεὸς with a definite article. The end result is the demonstration of true absolute Deity of the Son, and yet maintains the distinction between He and the Father.

With all the work that has taken place by renowned Koine Greek scholars, it shouldn’t even be a question as to the qualitative nature of John 1:1 and the inappropriateness of the indefinite translation of the NWT.  Surprisingly, however, the determination of keeping the NWT’s indefinite translation is fostered by atranslation. The Sahidic Coptic translation is the one in question. John 1:1 reads in the Coptic:

Hn tehwite nefshoop nqi pshache auw pshache nefshoop nnafrm pnwte auw neunoute pe pshache[14]

There’s not doubt as to the importance of the Sahidic Coptic translation to Biblical studies and textual criticism.[15] However, once again we’re left with the same cunundrum offered to us by Arians with the Koine Greek text. That being the level of honesty only goes so far on the reality of a grammatical principle, and dishonesty picks up where the honesty stops.

The claim that is made by Arians in relation to the Sahidic text is that in the third clause of the Coptic translation there is a Coptic indefinite article supplied on the nominal predicate containing the word for “God”. And when you look to the Sahidic text the indefinite article is exactly what you find juxtaposed to the word “God”. However, this is once again where the level of honesty stops.

The third clause of the Sahidic text is a nominal subject/predicate construction[16] consisting of only one morph[17] i.e. “[t]he smallest, basic units of grammatical or dictionary meaning….”[18]  Before the third clause, however, there are three bound groups (strings of morphs).[19] The first sentence in the Sahidic text is going to sound strikingly familiar. “Hn” consitutes the preposition in, and is technically apart of the bound group “tehwite” to form the prepositional phrase “in the beginning”. The Sahidic text actually inserts the definite article “te” into this bound group to convey the understanding of “the beginning” whereas the Koine lacks a definite article in the phrase Ἐν ἀρχῇ. It’s obvious on this point that the Coptics understood ideas conveyed in the Koine and supplanted articles in order to keep the understanding of the original intact. The next bound group consists of a past tense marker which is understood as an imperfect copulative verb, namely “ne”. This becomes important to recognize in the Sahidic translation of the third clause of John 1:1. After the imperfect copula, the second morph contains a third person pronoun “f” and finally the bound group is concluded with “shoop”. This bound group combined with the first one creates an interesting understanding in the Sahidic texts. The literal rendering places the present tense existence (shoop) of the Word (pshache) in the past tense imperfect time frame so as to read “the Word [subject] He was existing in the beginning.” Coptic uses a subject marker that appears in the text as “nqi”, letting us know that “the Word” is the subject. This is an odd construction for a created lesser divine being since it denotes continuous existence up to the point of the beginning as well as past it.

“Auw” is the conjunction “and” which then sets off the next clause which again, when rendered properly in English, sounds strikingly familiar. “peshache” once again “the Word” followed by the next bound group “nefshoop”. If you’ll notice at this point the same bound group has appeared again in this clause. This becomes a problem in the Arian’s understanding of the Coptic text. The reason for this is that “shoop” is the verb of existence. Combined with the imperfect copula “ne” the Coptic texts asserts that the Word was existing withthe Father. Grammatically, here, it should be noted that the Coptic definite article in reference to God is employed to denote “[t]he most typical or essential instance of a class.”[20] The definite article is employed when someone is “known or anticipated by both speaker and listener.”[21] Ironically enough, the Arians would admit to anticipating that the Father is God, so the understanding that the Father is being referred to as "pnoute" shouldn’t be a problem for the Arian. The Jews also understood the Father to be God (cf. John 8:41), thus the “anticipation” can be seen in the fact that no one is denying that the Father is God.

We have seen thus far that our translation of the Coptic of John 1:1 looks like this,

“The Word was existing in the beginning and the Word was existing with God….” The context thus far denies the Word’s creation. John 1:1 in the Coptic is actually stating not just the continuous existence of the Word, but that the existence parallels the Father’s existence. It would be enough to assume that only true absolute deity has the capacity to continuously exist outside of creation (as John 1:1 denotes existence before creation happened). However, considering the problems contained in the understanding of the Coptic indefinite article, addressing the third clause is appropriate.

“Auw neunoute pe peshache”. We have already seen the conjunction “auw” (and) and it is in literally the next bound group that we find the controversial indefinite article. It is this bound group that is the nominal predicate (the bound group functioning as the predicate nominative).[22] This bound group consists of the imperfect tense marker "ne" followed by the Coptic indefinite article “ou” which contracts after “e” or “a” to simply “u”. We’ve already observed the remaining elements of the sentence. The sentence would awkwardly be rendered literally as “and was a God He is the Word.” On this point it is clearly visible that the Coptic indefinite article is present before “noute”. However, it is necessary to understand the meaning of the indefinite article in Coptic considering “…that the Coptic use of ‘a’ and ‘the’ does not exactly correspond to English usage!”[23] We have already observed the Coptic definite article is often employed to denote the most typical instance of a class, and is used to refer to someone known or anticipated by both listener and speaker. It would logically follow that the indefinite article would be employed for someone “unknown to the listener but known to the speaker, as at the beginning of a story.” (my emphasis added)[24] It would also logically follow that the indefinite article would be employed for “an ordinary instance.”[25] Thus, the definite article being employed before the first "noute" and not the second is not lessening the Word to some created being, but has to do with the fact that the second isn’t a typical instance of the word “noute”.

Further examination of the Coptic sentence structure shows that the third clause of John 1:1 in it’s nominal sentence predicate is showing a description of the Word. Thus, the sentence is known as a descriptive predicate. Layton defines descriptive predicates as, “…one that speaks of an entity by its quality but without explicitly naming (denoting) the particular entity to which it refers…. Descriptive predicates are [indefinite] or [definite] article phrases of either a gendered common noun or a genderless common noun. They are usually introduce by [ou-] or [hen-] (rarely by the definite article)....” (my emphasis added)[26] Thus the insertion of the indefinite article before “noute” is referring to the quality of the Word. At this point it seems rediculously familiar to the qualitativeness of the Koine Greek text of John 1:1 i.e. the designation of the deity of the Word yet distinction between He and the Father. In accordance with this, the full translation of John 1:1 from the Coptic translation, regarding “the Word” as the subject and “was a God” as the nominal predicate, would be “The Word was existing in the beginning and the Word was existing with God, and the Word was God.”

Now that we have an understanding of the indefinite versus definite article and the realm of the nominal sentence predication being descriptive, let’s look at the context of John 1:1 – 18  to gain furthur insight as to why John 1:1 in the Sahidic text is not lessening the Word to some created less-than-absolute diety being. John 1:18 reads,

Pnoute mpelaau nau erof enef pnoute pshhre nouwt petshoop hn kounf mpefeiwt petmmau pe ntafshache erof.[27]

The interesting portion of John 1:18 would be “pnoute pshhre nouwt petshoop hn kounf mpefeiwt p etmmau pe ntafshache erof”. The reason why this phrase is interesting is because it literally renders as  “The God, the only Son….” In other words, “the only Son” is placed in apposition to pnoute thus identifying Him as “the only Son” and pnoute i.e “the God”.

In light of the information provided by consistent, honest scholarship from both the Koine Greek front as well as the Sahidic Coptic, several conclusions can be made. First, the Koine Greek text is a qualitative construction that identifies Jesus Christ (the Word) as truly God yet maintains His distinction from the Father. Second, not only does the Sahidic Coptic translation not affirm Arianism’s understanding of the Word being a lesser, created being, but actually affirms the Koine Greek text’s presentation. This is done by the descriptive nominal predicate construction that shows us the quality of the Word as being God as well as distinguishing the Word from the Father. It’s obvious by a brief study of both the Sahidic and the Koine text that the Coptic translators made the effort to stay true to the original Greek understanding; whereas the New World Translation, does not.

Notes

1. Walter Bauer, et al, “ὁ, ἡ, τό” BDAG 2:686 – 687
2. John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary John 1-11, 17
3. William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek, page 27
4. Ibid, 27
5. Ibid, 28
6. Ibid, 28
7. R. H. Countess, The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New Testament: A Critical Analysis of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, 54 - 55
8. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: an Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, 267
9. Ibid, 257

10.  Ibid, 258

11.  Ibid, 268

12.  Ibid 269

13.  Dr. James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief, 57

14.  J. Warren Wells, Sahidica: The New Testament According to the Sahidic Coptic Text

15.  Bently Layton, Coptic in 20 Lessons, 1, 2

16.  Thomas O. Lambdin, Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, 14, 15

17.  Bently Layton, Coptic in 20 Lessons, 7

18.  Ibid

19.  Ibid

20.  Bently Layton, A Coptic Grammar, 39

21.  Bently Layton, Coptic in 20 Lessons, 15

22.  Thomas O. Lambdin, Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, 14, 15

23.  Bently Layton, Coptic in 20 Lessons, 16

24.  Ibid, 15

25.  Ibid, 16

26. Bently Layton, A Coptic Grammar, 227

27. J. Warren Wells, Sahidica: The New Testament According to the Sahidic Coptic Text

Bibliography

Bauer, Walter, A Greek – English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early   

Christian Literature. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 60637, The University of Chicago Press, Ltd., London, 1957, 1979, 2000

MacArthur, John, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: John 1 – 11. Chicago,

IL: Moody Publishers, 2006

Mounce, William D., Basics of Biblical Greek. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993,

2003

Countess, R. H., The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New Testament: A Critical Analysis of the The

New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. Philipsburg, N. J.:

Presbyterian Reformed, 1982 

Wallace, William B., Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan

1996

White, James R., The Forgotten Trinity. Bloomington, MN: Bethany House Publishers,

1998

Wells, J. W. (2006; 2006). Sahidica: The New Testament According to the Sahidic

Coptic Text (Jn 1:1). Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Layton, Bently, Coptic in 20 Lessons. Bondgenotenlaan, Leuven: Peeters, 2006

Lambdin, Thomas O., Introduction to Sahidic Coptic. Macon, GA: Mercer University

Press, 1983

Layton, Bently, A Coptic Grammar. Wiesbaden, German: Otto Harrassowitz KG, 2004

Search Post

Label :