I like to collect different translations of the Bible. Recently I bought this [hold up book] which is the New Testament translation by the Eastern Greek Orthodox church. Like the Western Roman Catholic church, the Eastern Greek Orthodox also believes in the Trinity. They just differ on a key point pertaining to the source of the holy spirit. The Western church (Catholics) claim that both the Father and Son are the source of the holy spirit, while the Eastern Greek Orthodox claim that only the Father is the source of the holy spirit.
I bought the Bible through Amazon, and one of the first things I looked at when it was delivered to my door was its rendering of John 1:1.
John 1:1 is the foremost of the pro-Trinitarian proof texts. The rendering given this verse by the New International Version is typical of the great majority of translations.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1 NIV)
I expected this new trinitarian Bible would be no different, so you can imagine my surprise to read this:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was {what} God {was}.” (John 1:1 EOB)
Why did the translators insert two words marked by curly brackets? Naturally, I was intrigued and wanted to learn more. I noticed that there was a link to an appendix.
APPENDIX C:
JOHN 1:1 AND 18—JESUS AS “GOD”
JOHN 1:1 “THE WORD WAS {WHAT} GOD {WAS}
What I read there blew my minds. I guess after years of arguing with Trinitarians, I was not expecting them to make my argument for me, or that we should be on the same page. I have to admire the honesty of these translators of the EOB.
I’m just going to read directly from the appendix.
“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 sates that:
Grammatically, jeon 1: 1 is not a difficult verse to translate. It follows familiar, ordinary structures of Greek expression 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 defence, 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) one 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:
The Greek word logos (λόγος) is traditionally translated as “Word.” French translations sometimes use “Verb” which has a dynamic quality. The English “Message” or “Expression of the Mind” may also be appropriate attempts to convey the nuance of the Greek concept. The Jewish-Alexandrian theologian and philosopher Philo wrote extensively about the Logos in ways that are reminiscent of NT theology. For instance, his teaching that “For the logos of the living God being the bond of everything, as has been said before, holds all things together, and binds all the parts, and prevents them from being loosened or separated” echoes Colossians 1:17.
In order to allow the public reader to use the now traditional form “the word was God,” the EOB uses parenthesis 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.
And there you have it, right from the horse’s mouth. The “word was what God was” is a very accurate translation of the Greek grammar and the intent of the Greek text.
In the Greek, when it says that “the Word was with God,” it actually says “the God.” The Word was with the God (ho theos). If I said the prince was with the King, and what the King was the prince was, what would that make the prince? The King? No, there is only one King. But what is the King. He is royalty. And so is the prince, royalty. The one true God, Yehovah, is divine. Yeshua (Jesus) his son is also divine, but he is not the one true almighty God.
So, if you’re a staunch Trinitarian and look to this verse as a step to confirming your belief, you have to abandon it as proof. Proof is not ambiguous, it is solid. Here we have a translation which is in dispute, and so we have ambiguity not proof. Let’s now move on to the next common proof text, John 5:18.
Thank you for watching and for supporting our work.