October 8, 2000
New World Translation:
In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
Westcott-Hort:
en arch hn o logoV kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon kai qeoV hn o logoV
Young's Literal Translation:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;
As you can see, there is the original Greek, then there are two basic differences of translation for whether the Word "was a God" or "was God".
So it becomes obvious that even the translators, the 'experts' on the subject, do not all agree
on how this passage should be translated. So for a certainty it will not be resolved between
the two individuals in a private discussion today. However, some information for consideration can be
offered for the one lacking in linguistic knowledge, and for edification.
Note Footnote #3 of John 1:1 from The Net Bible
(http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm) [bold/italics added for emphasis of interested points]:
----------------------------------------
3tn (1:1) Or "and what God was, the Word was too"; or "and the Word was fully God."
Colwell's Rule is often invoked to support the translation of qeov" (qeos) as definite
("God") rather than indefinite 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. Orthodox Christian theology would permit either a definite or a
qualitative meaning for qeov" here. From a technical standpoint, though, it is probably
preferable to see something of a qualitative aspect to anarthrous qeov" in John 1:1.
Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John
1:1, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father).
However, in contemporary English "the Word was divine" does not quite catch the
meaning since "divine" as a descriptive term is not used in English exclusively of God.
Thus the translation "what God was, the Word was too" is more likely to convey the
meaning to the average English reader.
sn (1:1) And the Word was 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 John's use of the verb "worship" (proskunevw, proskunew) with Jesus as
object in John 9:38, a word that elsewhere in John (4:21, 23-24) has only God the Father as
its object. The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God;
rather it equates the essence of the Word with that of God.
--
Notice from the above notes that the anarthrous usage of [theos] points to the quality of the Word's existance, rather than his personal identity. Even though the writer of those notes supports the doctrine of the deity of Christ, openly acknowledging that it is biased by Orthodox Christian theology as a basis for intepretation, it does grudgingly admit that in fact John 1:1 describes Christ's quality, or essence, and not his identity. From this we can determine that the usage of "was a God" or "was God" is dependant on the Bible translator; and either way only points to the form of his existance. The translators own theology dictates how this verse is translated. But no matter which method is chosen, "was a God" or "was God", it does not mask over the original intended meaning of the verse. So let's peek into some information that a translator would have to consider before translating the verse.
In John 1:1, the first appearance of "theos", a definite article appears before it. But this does not happen before the second. An English equivalent would be, "When the man walks, he moves like man." As we can see, the "the" which precedes the first "man" points out that the existence of some person is under scrutiny. In the second instance of "man", which is missing any definite article such as "a", "the", etc... we see that a quality is being referred to, as in man-like, and not an individual personality. Of course, proper English would dictate this latter part of the phrase be written as, "he moves like a man" since the qualitative "a" makes for better sentence structure. However, in Greek, this was not necessary, in fact would allow for a different meaning. Thus, the definite article before the first appearance of "God" in the original Greek, and this article not appearing before "God" in it's second appearance indicates a difference in usage and direction of thought. The first as a pointer toward a personality, the second as a highlight of some quality. We can see one side of this in the portion of this scripture where "the" Word is being referred to in the sense of a personality as the subject. It is because the second location of the Greek word [theos] in the location of what the Word's existence is, was written in a form that is called "anarthrous", which simply means "without an article".
There is also a difference between the word "God" in the first instance, and the word "God" in the second instance of John 1:1. A difference besides the already mentioned definite article, and the anarthrousism, the way the word is spelled differently. Ascii characters to not carry the spelling difference well, but I'll use similar keyboard characters to indicate this difference. In the first instance the word [theos] for God was something like: 8EOC but in the second instance was something like: 8EOV So we can see that there was also a third difference that the original writer had indicated as a signal to the reader. The second spelling being the 8EOV version of the word for "God." What can we tell about this 8EOV version? Since John 1:1 is the scripture under controversy, then let's look elsewhere, where this 8EOV word for "God" had been written, and see if anything can be determined. We need not travel far in the scriptures to provide us with a contrast between the first indicative 8EOC "God" and the second 8EOV "god." In fact, the same penman offered us John 1:18. There he contrasts the 8EOC "God" with the 8EOV "god", in that no one has ever seen the 8EOC "God" but they have seen the only-begotten 8EOV "god." This is but a reminder that followed verse 14, where it pointed out that the Word was a begotten son, and any student of the Bible knows that the one true God was never begotten.
Now that we've made it past the mental excersizes, let's use a simpler technique, and take a favorite translation of those who would support the doctrine that Jesus is God, and do some word substitution. If we pull the word usage out of the realm of mysticism, it often helps to clarify the intended usage within the sentence. Here I'll take the rendition passed to us in the King James version, although any other would work as well, and substitute "apple" for "Word" and "orange" for "God." Yes, we'll compare "apple and oranges." So that gives us:
"In the beginning was the Apple, and the Apple was with Orange, and the Apple was Orange."
So now, in looking at the sentence structure here, exactly when did the apple become the orange? Or rather is the indication provided for us that the apple is orange, in likeness to an orange (in color perhaps). Yet it does not imply that the apple has changed, or has become the orange. Merely it is a reflection of orange. And this without being the orange. To repeat this with "Word" and "God" re-inserted:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
So now, in looking at the sentence structure here, exactly when did the Word become a God? Or rather is the indication that the Word is God, in likeness to a God (in existence perhaps). Yet it does not imply that the Word has changed, or has become the God. Merely it is a reflection of God. And this without being the God.
Another similar excersize would be to take a father and a son, and substitute for Word and God. Such rendering might give us:
"In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with Dad, and the Son was Dad."
Such a rendering quickly exposes the lunacy of using this passage to hold two different identities as a single being. Instead it would be realized that the Son and the Dad are indeed very much alike, like an image perhaps (2corinthians 4:4), but not to be interpreted as the same person. (1Corinthians 11:7)
If we read Colossians 1:16, it does state that Jesus created all things. But he was also created. (Hebrews 1:3) Although he perfectly reflects his Father's glory and being in every way, the one thing in which they do not match, is that God was not created (1Chronicles 16:36), and that Jesus his son was created, not once, but twice, which serves to add emphasis to his in-equality with God. (Revelation 3:14, 1:5; note also; 2Corinthians 5:17) One must use caution to not delve into a worship of one who is created, rather than the creator (Romans 1:25; Colossians 2:18). Despite the glory that Jesus does have (Hebrews 1:4) we should follow his example (Matthew 4:10; Luke 22:41; John 20:17) and worship not him, but God (Mark 3:35; Colossians 1:7; 4:7; Revelation 19:10; 22:9).
Thefore, the New World Translation committee in an effort to provide a literal translation for the readers of scriptures have, if anything, uncovered the lie of Jesus' being a defied personality, and the truth only hurts those who would choose to support a continuing lie. (Genesis 3:5)
And as far as studying the Bible, I do recommend one use every valid translation they can get their hands and eyes on. I encourage anyone to study with several versions, even if some do prove superior to others as does the New World Translation. One single translation cannot carry over every nuance and shade of meaning of the original text into the recieving language, in our case English, thus a variety of translations can help to overcome that loss.
(You might also note that John 1:1 would only support Jesus as a spirit, and not as one in the flesh, since it never mentions the Word as having flesh. That part is left to verse 14. But it should be noted that John 1:1 only mentions two, and if it is believed that Jesus is God, then it would be a duality, and not a trinity. But that's a whole 'nother subject...)
I hope this helps,
-Joe Schaffer