6

What is the justification for English translations capitalizing “Word” in John 1:1?

ΕΝ ΑΡΧΗ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

New International Version In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

New Living Translation In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

English Standard Version In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Berean Study Bible In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Berean Literal Bible In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

New American Standard Bible In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

New King James Version In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

In early Greek MSS that we have, they were all written in capital letters. However, in English a proper noun is capitalised for a reason (i.e. to indicate that it is a name or a title). In my question, it relates to this understanding of English grammar. Does the Greek phrase ὁ λόγος , the subject of John 1:1, refer to a title or name of a person so that it is accurately translated into English as a proper noun?

R. Brown
  • 6,031
  • 3
  • 46
  • 73
  • 3
    You should note that the lack of a capital in Greek does not have any bearing on how English translations should capitalise - lowercase Greek letters didn't exist until many centuries after the gospels were written – Nacht Sep 30 '20 at 05:41
  • @Nacht, thank you for the note. I edited my question to reflect that fact. – R. Brown Sep 30 '20 at 05:52
  • It appears you’re really asking why is the Greek a noun which is reflected in English as Capital letter. That would require understanding where John was inspired to use the word Word and it comes from the inspired OT text from the word the scribes referred to as the Word which is the et or the alephtav. It appears right in the beginning in Genesis 1:1 and John explains Genesis 1:1’s et in John 1:1. So the English doesn’t find its justification in the Greek as much as the English and the Greek gets its justification from the Hebrew OT. Hence I think this question should go to the source the OT. – Nihil Sine Deo Oct 13 '20 at 11:17

3 Answers3

5

O λογος (The Word) , the subject in John 1:1, is a title of person, specifically of someone who is God (θεος).

ὁ λόγος was one of the many titles of Jesus in the gospel of John. Jesus had the titles The Word, The Lamb, The Bread, The Light, The Door in the Johannine gospel (1:1, 1:14, 6:35, 8:12, 10:9). Neither word nor light nor door nor lamb nor bread is a person. Yet all of those were ascribed to Christ as titles. The evidence that λογος is a title in John 1 is that it is the subject (ο λογος) being described by a predicate noun θεος which means that the subject was being described as a person, specifically as a divine person. Majority of scholars agree with the Trinitarian interpretation that ὁ λόγος was one of the many titles of Jesus Christ/the Son of God.

On the GJohn, it’s clear that the text makes the Son/Logos the agent of creation of “all things/everything”. That puts the Son/Logos on the side of the line with God. At the same time, from 1:1 onward the text also distinguishes the Son/Logos from God “the Father”. This tension is the central factor that drove later christological debates. So, of course, the Son/Logos isn’t the Father. But there is no hint in GJohn that the Son/Logos is a creature. He’s just “there” with God. (From Larry Hurtado's comments in Even Higher Christology in the Gospel of John: Frey’s Edinburgh Essay, Larry Hurtado, May 24, 2019).

Only personal beings were described as θεὸς in the Bible. Thus, it makes sense that the Word was a who in John 1:1, having been described as 'God'.

The subject being described is always a personal being and never an impersonal thing for θεὸς semantically refers to a personal entity in the Bible. The word θεὸς in the predicative nominative case has a sentence construction of (subject + verb + θεὸς).

You are gods... (Psalm 82:6, John 10:35) 
You are my God... (Psalm 118:28)
...the Word was God (John 1:1)
...you make yourself God (John 10:33)
...he was a god (Acts 28:6)

The Word was described as θεὸς (God). Thus, the Word was God (not flesh) in v 1 but then this same Word, who was already God in v.1, became flesh in v. 14. Ergo, John 1:1 speaks of Jesus Christ pre-existing as God and that John 1:14 speaks of the incarnation of Jesus Christ.

R. Brown
  • 6,031
  • 3
  • 46
  • 73
  • 1
    Yes. Agreed. Both question and answer up-voted +1. – Nigel J Sep 29 '20 at 21:10
  • 1
    Cf. Rev. 19:13 "And he was clothed with a garment sprinkled with blood; and his name is called, The Word of God." – Sola Gratia Sep 30 '20 at 21:36
  • With the 'person' construct, the logos was God. 'He' was also with God, which makes him NOT God. The NEB puts, ...what God was the word was. Not making 'him' God, but a full representation of in every sense - which is why Jesus - the word made flesh, is also the full representation of God without being God. Which he never said he was. – Steve Oct 20 '20 at 00:40
5

"Word" (Logos) being capitalized by some versions is consistent with some versions capitalizing all of Jesus numerous titles. Here is a sample:

  • Word, Word of God, Word of Life, John 1:1, 14, 1 John 1:1, Rev 19:13
  • First and Last, Rev 1:17, 22:13. Compare Isa 41:4, 44:6, 48:12
  • Emanuel, Matt 1:22
  • Savior, 2 Tim 1:10, Totus 1:4, 2:13, 3:6. Compare Isa 43:3, 11, 45:17, 21
  • "I Am", John 8:58. Compare Ex 3:13-15; Deut 32:39, Isa 41:4, 43:10, 13, 25, 45:19, 46:4, 48:12, 51:12, 52:6 (LXX)
  • Shepherd, Heb 13:20, 1 Peter 2:25, 5:4, Rev 7:17. Compare Psalm 23:1; Eze 34:11ff
  • Lord of all, Acts 10:36, Rom 10:12, Col 1:15. Compare Deut 10:17, Josh 3:11, 13, Ps 97:5, Zech 4:14, 6:5, Mic 4:13.
  • Lord of lords, Rev 17:14, 19:16. Compare Deut 10:17, Ps 136:3, 26.

Most these titles, in the OT are titles of YHWH and are used in the NT of Jesus.

Dottard
  • 104,076
  • 4
  • 44
  • 149
-5

Capitalising logos in John 1 has nothing to do with Jesus being called 'Word of God'.

1 John 1:1 does, but this is an personal experience of the author and peers - touching, seeing - this is not the beginning of creation, but the new beginning Jesus made possible. Note it is the life of the Father which the 'word' (which is now Jesus) manifests and has the appropriate title/role or name.

What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life — and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us.

Continuing, it has nothing to do with any of Jesus' titles granted him at various times after his arrival on the earth scene. When John 1:1 refers to the logos, Jesus wasn't born yet in John's account of events.

The logos becoming flesh was Jesus' grand entry - and is certainly NOT part of, 'in the beginning' concerning the creation of all things! That was the role of God through the/His logos - and Jesus being appointed the heir to. Heb 1:1-4

Seeing as the personhood (he, him) attributed to the logos is not clearly revealed at all, and due to the complete lack of any other reference to this abstract that John has delivered, there is no substance to making more of it than John intended. John is revealing what the logos is, not who.

The word logos is used many times without capitalisation - everywhere except the translators treatment of John. Excepting those few where we have the Word of Life or Word of God, Rev 19:13

Note Rev 1:2 '...who testified to the word of God' no capital there in any version.

(Is Jesus the word of God or not? They don't seem to have made up their minds)

Heb 4 :12 The word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword…

If anywhere, one would think this verse deserved capitalisation... (Youngs renders 'reckoning')

Now this is but one example of a complete abandonment of a capitalisation bias that has otherwise plagued the John verses - leading to doctrine based on ideas and guesses - not solid biblical evidence.

Logos is the Gr. for many English words as noted below;

Luke 7:17 And the news about Jesus spread…

John 6:60 This is a difficult statement…

Phil 2:16 holding fast the word of life…

Matt 5:37 But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes…

1 Cor 2:4 my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words…

What is the justification for capitalising logos in John?

Nothing more than a biased appropriation of various parts of scripture to enhance a Jesus to be more than he is. Jesus is a man without sin, the son of God.

There is no clear expression of the logos being a ‘person’, and is never mentioned again- except in connection with Jesus. Jesus was sent to die, if the logos is now Jesus, this logos ‘who’ is God, cannot die. Some may be comfortable using philosophy, traditional logic and theological myth to reimagine the word of God to fit human constructs, but that’s not what we’re here for.

John does not say, ‘in the beginning was Jesus’. We must not conflate logos with Jesus unless the text indicates this for us, as in v14. Jesus, God, the apostles and prophecy all speak of Jesus as a man - why must we insist he is God?

Steve
  • 1
  • 1
  • 15
  • 45
  • You said, "The Logos becoming flesh was Jesus' grand entry-and is certainly NOT part of, 'in the beginning'! If this is true then how do you reconcile this errant view of yours with John 1:2? "He/This one was in the beginning with God." Also, if Jesus was "certainly NOT part of "in the beginning" explain verse 3. "All things came into being by Him, and apart or without Him NOTHING has come into being that has come into being." So how can you say Jesus had no part of in the beginning? – Mr. Bond Oct 12 '20 at 23:39
  • You are conflating the two terms. John DID NOT write 'in the beginning was Jesus' etc for good reason. If you choose to see that there that is for you to work through. John uses the term 'logos' for equally good reason. They are not the same in this reference of John 1:1-3 As you've noted, the Gr. does not require 'he' or 'him' either. all came into being through the logos - not Jesus - according to John anyway. This helps explain why Jesus was 'foreknown', was 'appointed heir' of all that God/Yahweh had made. – Steve Oct 12 '20 at 23:51
  • The logos becoming flesh happened ~4BC - how was Jesus there in the beginning? – Steve Oct 12 '20 at 23:59
  • 3
    I think perhaps it is you who are conflating the two terms. Jesus is the incarnation of the Logos, the begotten Son of God. Jesus was not Logos' name prior to the incarnation (You shall call His name Jesus...). A claim that the Son did not exist prior to the incarnation disregards what John is saying. Logos did not cease to exist; Logos took on flesh and was called Jesus but Logos has always been the Son (that which God begat). – Mike Borden Oct 13 '20 at 11:06
  • 1
    Clearly you think so, barely of shred of what you just said has any biblical basis. Esp. this, 'Logos has always been the Son'. What? Before logos became flesh (~4BC) there was no son suitable for the purposes God had in mind from the start. I don't know why they call this site BH, it's absurd the things that pass for truth! Tradition yes, truth about the nature of God, barely. – Steve Oct 13 '20 at 11:13
  • Jude v5 says Jesus existed prior to incarnation and Jesus Himself said He was before Abraham. Still waiting on the proof of corrupted text. And while you’re at it, throw the whole book out, why trust any of it? “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Though you are little among the thousands of Judah, Yet out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, From everlasting, from eternity.” ‭‭Micah‬ ‭5:2‬ Matthew 2:1,2 – Nihil Sine Deo Oct 14 '20 at 03:16
  • 1
    Excellent work. Taking a couple of 'odd' passages that either in this case are readily explained another way, the Jude one is clearly of dodgy origin - if you're relying on that as a 'proof text' it's a bit sad. Those that choose to not trust what Jesus said about himself as a man and his God - throughout the NT incl. in Rev. insist on making up whatever they want like 'begotten Gods', eternal sons, one substances, incarnations etc. Anyway, those who call out the traditional view can expect the usual suspects to get upset and defensive - ignoring plain revelation at their peril. Nice to chat. – Steve Oct 14 '20 at 06:22
  • @user48152 If the Logos/Jesus Christ was "NOT" part of "in the beginning" as you said then please explain 1 John 1:1. "What or that which was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of Life." The preposition "from," in Greek "apo" and is Strong's word G575. It means, "of the place whence anything is, of origin of a cause." This is confirmed from John 1:1 where the Logos/Jesus was "from the beginning. Anyone can state a position but at least around here you have to prove your position. – Mr. Bond Oct 14 '20 at 14:18
  • @Mr.Bond WHEN did the word become flesh? Stop here and answer!There is no mention of Jesus before ~4BC none! I'm not the one making stuff up with the logos/Jesus combo that seems to apply whenever YOU decide it does! And don't bother with Jude 5 which is clearly unoriginal. Do the words, 'I am a man who has told you the truth', not mean anything to you'? – Steve Oct 14 '20 at 20:26
  • @Mr.Bond You say we have to prove our position - silly me, I thought it had to be from the BIBLE - which my answer complies with. I'm here to learn and understand - people making their own truth is not helpful and should expect to get called out. – Steve Oct 14 '20 at 20:26
  • @user48152 The Word became flesh when Jesus incarnated as a man. John 1:1-5 is dealing with the "Word/Logos/Jesus existing before He became a man. This is what you don't understand. John 1:1 is not assigning Jesus as the spoken word of God. It explicitly says, "and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," period. The text is "NOT" teaching that God's spoken words are with Him and His spoken words was God. The Word/Logos is a person, not spoken words nor the plan of God. And quit assuming what I'm thinking. I'm not interested in Jude 5, only John 1:1-14 and 1 John 1:1. – Mr. Bond Oct 14 '20 at 21:14
  • @user48152 Continued. Before Jesus incarnated as a man He was in the form of God or God according to Philippian 2;6 and then took another form of that being a man. And yes, I am going to "challenge" you or as you said "call you out" on issues. That's what Apologetics is all about. Just read 1 Peter 3:15. – Mr. Bond Oct 14 '20 at 21:17
  • You need to ask a Q about the 'form of God' as you are mis-understanding that. The 'incarnation' is an unbiblical construct - and on it goes. Phil 2:6 is contemporary - are you forcing a pre-existing birth aspect to the form? It is referring to the period of time that Christ was with men - in the form of God - not prior to this time-----because he wasn't born yet! good to chat. – Steve Oct 14 '20 at 22:08
  • @Mr.Bond Apologies, I misread yr 1 John 1:1 Q! the context is clearly talking about the writer's experience - seeing, touching etc - do you think you can extrapolate this to the beginning of creation? The 'life was manifested' yes, the life of the Father - in Jesus who comes from the logos - but again, not before he was born. – Steve Oct 15 '20 at 03:41
  • You continually state "the Word becoming flesh" was His grand entry. The Prologue is arranged chaistically with verse 14 coming after the main theme (12-13). It also speaks of seeing His glory which comes after His death and Resurrection. His "grand entry" was arising from the dead, not from Mary's womb. – Revelation Lad Oct 15 '20 at 05:02
  • Yes, agreed - my comments were firstly to focus on the misuse of Jesus as logos in John 1:1-3 We cannot have the 'grand entry' as firstborn from dead, if we don't have a birth to begin with can we? Surely you would not dismiss the birth of the holy child, the Kings of Kings as being without grandeur in the whole scheme of things! Really, his arising and ascension is a grand accomplishment more than an entry... – Steve Oct 15 '20 at 05:36
  • @user48152 No apologies necessary, I to misread at times. You want "extrapolation," you got it. It was not the life of the Father that was manifested. John 1:4, "In Him/Jesus Christ WAS LIFE, and the life was the light of men." Jesus had life in himself BEFORE his incarnation. This power was given back to Him AFTER his resurrection, after he had accomplished his mission as a man. Notice the past tense, "had life" in Himself already before he incarnated. Giving life to the Son at John 5:26 concerns not the Son as deity, but the office the Son was commissioned to execute. Philippians 2:6-8. – Mr. Bond Oct 15 '20 at 22:55
  • No, John 1:4 is about the logos. Can you seriously not see the difference? The subject is logos - Jesus becomes the subject in v14, though alluded to from v9. Even though it is God who made the world Acts 17:24 + others God is in the world thru His son, but made the world via the logos. If John was abundantly clear we would not need this discussion - but to understand it, we must tie in the rest of scripture - not assume we think we know what he means in isolation. No mention of the logos in the birth narratives - this 'eternal person' is never mentioned again except as a title for Jesus. – Steve Oct 15 '20 at 23:27
  • Before the Word was made flesh, He could not have been the Savior, hence could not have been named ,"Jesus", which means Savior. Afterward, He now had flesh within which to obey the law under, which law He had to be born under, and He had now had blood to sacrafice--all according to the Scripture. He was the Word before he was begotten, and He was the Word after He was begotten as a flesh and blood Savior--though He had a lot of work to do before He could save my wretched soul--which He did. Thank God. – Bill Porter Oct 17 '20 at 18:42
  • @BillPorter nice work, but this ‘eternal word’/God had to die. Not half die, not a two natured construct as neither is biblical. Jesus said he was a man, never said he was God - why the big secret? Why do we refuse his own words? – Steve Oct 17 '20 at 21:18
  • The Spirit of God that was inherent with Jesus in the person of the WORD died along with His flesh and blood body. His Spirit was indeed separated from God (the meaning of spiritual death) for three days and three nights, just as the thief on the cross whose spirit was also separated from God Almighty. Then, Jesus' body was resurrected and He ascended on high with His Spirit intact in His glorified body, taking with Him all the spirits of the saints. Yes, Jesus physically died. Yes Jesus was spiritually separated from Almighty God while in Abraham's bosom, just like that forgiven thief. – Bill Porter Oct 19 '20 at 05:06
  • wait, what? "The Spirit of God ... died along with His flesh and blood body", Is that what you meant? You'll need some support for that. His spirit wasn't separated - Jesus gave it up to the Father (into your hands I commit my spirit Lk 23:46) So the 'word' died too? Did a 'God the Son' die also? – Steve Oct 19 '20 at 07:28
  • @user48152 You know as well as I do that Jesus entrusted His spirit to the Father to re-unite that Word of God after the three days and nights. How else, other than in His Spirit--separated from the Heavenly Father--could Jesus preach that good news to the spirits in prison. 1 Pe. 3:18-19: For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;". If the prisoners were spiritually separated , so was that speaking WORD – Bill Porter Oct 19 '20 at 16:25
  • @BillPorter No, raised in the spirit is his resurrection. It is IN or BY this spirit which he preached after he was raised. When he was dead, he awaited the Father to raise him after 3 days and nights. He was doing nothing during this time in the tomb - he was dead! – Steve Oct 19 '20 at 23:11
  • @user48152 You can't have it one way for the spirits that were in prison, and another way for the Spirit of Christ. If those spirits were not extinguished while in prison, why should Jesus' Spirit be extinguished, as you seem to claim spiritual death to be. No, the verse quoted recognizes that the flesh was put to death--separated from the spirit--not extinguished--not in "Abraham's bosom" along with all those other believing spirits awaiting the work of salvation to be completed. Jesus' dead body was in the tomb. All those spirits in prison had a dead body also--not with their spirits. – Bill Porter Oct 20 '20 at 03:20
  • Precisely - simply because Jesus is not a spirit. he said so himself. Not before he died or after. (for a spirit does not have flesh and bones etc) He said, 'I am a man'. Perhaps you are thinking immortal soul... an unbiblical idea. Lol, this is the longest comments I've ever seen. He also said, 'no one has ascended to heaven except me' - that rules out any man - the angels etc are spirits and they are 'heavenly'. – Steve Oct 20 '20 at 03:27
  • @user48152 Last thing. When Jesus said to the thief, "... Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.", are you saying that that thief went to Jesus's tomb with Him? Are you saying that that thief went to a heavenly paradise beforetoday(that day) even three days before Jesus was resurrected. Did Jesus not lead all that entire group of captive in Abraham's bosom captive with Him after He was resurrected. You speak strange words--missing every concept--when you claim that the WORD wasn't really God, although scripture says He was, even in the beginning. – Bill Porter Oct 20 '20 at 03:42
  • I think Dottard explained this somewhere recently, move the comma and it reads, 'verily I say unto thee today...' No one is going anywhere until the resurrections 1 & 2. I didn't say the word wasn't God, I'm consistent in saying the word is not a person - as per my answer. Happy to edit answer to be more detailed as there are lot's of questions - but we have to stick to the text - not tradition. This isn't 'Tradition Hermeneutics' is it? – Steve Oct 20 '20 at 03:54
  • @user48152 If you move the comma--as you insist--you turn this statement by the very WORD of God into a question, not a statement, ie, "verily I say unto thee today,(sic)"shalt though be with me in paradise." Your word-twiddling is tying you up in knots. Stick with Biblical Hermeneutics, not word twisting. You are stepping in it deeper and deeper. Jesus made His statement "verily", not questionably. – Bill Porter Oct 20 '20 at 15:12
  • @user48152 As to "the Word" being a person, if "the Word" was with God, and "the Word" was God, then "the Word" had to be a "facet"--** a "face"--a "paniym" (H6440)--a "presence"--a "person" of a single, but plural faceted God. – Bill Porter Oct 20 '20 at 15:29
  • @BillPorter FYI, I link to the 'comma' as mentioned earlier. I don't see this as particularly important but share to present another option to your understanding. https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/52332/where-was-jesus-after-he-stopped-breathing-on-the-cross-until-he-came-out-of-the/52340#52340 – Steve Oct 26 '20 at 05:55
  • @user48152 You should never change the meaning of the plainspoken word based upon a “suggestion” rather than a fact.” The assumption that the thief had not died by the end of that day is preposterous. Jesus died early that day—between the sixth hour (noon) and the ninth hour when He commended His Spirit to the Father. There is absolutely no proof that they broke the criminals legs at the ‘last minute’ just in case. Jesus' spirit went to “the heart of the earth” (Mat 12:40)—Abraham's bosom (Luke 16:22)—where David was on that very day (Acts 2:25-27) and preached to those protected spirits. – Bill Porter Oct 28 '20 at 16:51
  • @BillPorter sorry, I wasn’t referring the entire post, just the comma. No it doesn’t make it a question - that’s just the translation you’re using. Jesus died late in the afternoon, remember the urgency to sort him before the sabbath began at sunset. – Steve Oct 28 '20 at 19:58