Logos, Word

Click here to view graphically

Newman / Nida describe some of the difficulties surrounding the translation of the Greek “Logos” which is typically translated as “Word” in English (click or tap here to read more):

“The term ‘the Word’ has a rich heritage, by way of both its Greek and Jewish backgrounds. For the Greeks who held to a theistic view of the universe, it could be understood as the means by which God reveals himself to the world, while among those who were pantheistic in outlook, the Word was the principle that held the world together and at the same time endowed men with the wisdom for living. In the Greek translation of the Old Testament (Septuagint), the Word could be used both of the means by which God had created the world (Ps 33:6) and through which he had revealed himself to the world (Jer 1:4; Ezek 1:3; Amos 3:1). Among certain of the Greek-speaking Jews of New Testament times, there was much speculation about the ‘wisdom’ of God, which God ‘made in the very beginning, at the first, before the world began’ (Prov 8:22-23). (…) By the time that John writes his Gospel, the Word is close to being recognized as a personal being, and it has roles relating to the manner in which God created the world and to the way in which God reveals himself to the world that he brought into being. Moffatt [whose English translation of the New Testament was published in 1913], realizing the difficulty in finding a term equivalent in meaning to the one used by John, transliterates the Greek term: ‘the Logos existed in the very beginning’ [see also Hart’s translation below or The Orthodox New Testament, 2000)]; while Phillips [New Testament translation published in 1958] at least makes an effort to give his translation meaning: ‘at the beginning God expressed himself.’

“Though the Greek term logos may be rendered ‘word,’ it would be wrong to think it indicates primarily a grammatical or lexical unit in a sentence. Greek has two other terms which primarily identify individual words, whether they occur in a list (as in a dictionary) or in a sentence. The term logos, though applicable to an individual word, is more accurately understood as an expression with meaning; that is, it is ‘a message,’ ‘a communication,’ and, as indicated, a type of ‘revelation.’ A literal translation, therefore, more or less equivalent to English ‘word,’ is frequently misleading.

“In some languages there are additional complications. For example, in some languages the term ‘word’ is feminine in gender, and therefore any reference to it must also be feminine [or neuter — see German below]. As a result, the possible use of pronouns in reference to Jesus Christ can be confusing. Furthermore, in many languages a term such as ‘word’ must be possessed. One cannot speak about ‘the word’ without indicating who spoke the word, since words do not exist apart from the persons who utter them.

“Because of these and other difficulties, many translators treat the term ‘Word’ or Logos as a title, and that is precisely what it is. The very fact that it is normally capitalized in English translations marks it as a title; but in many languages the fact of its being a title must be more clearly indicated by some explicit expression, for example, ‘the one who was called the Word’ [see Xicotepec De Juárez Totonac below] or ‘the one known as the Word’ [see German below] In this way the reader can understand from the beginning that ‘Word’ is to be understood as a designation for a person.

“Therefore, this first sentence in John 1:1 may be rendered ‘Before the world was created, the one who was known as the Word existed’ or ‘… the person called the Word existed.’ In languages which employ honorific forms it is particularly appropriate to use such an indication with the title ‘Word.’ Such a form immediately marks the designation as the title of deity or of a very important personage, depending, of course, upon the usage in the language in question.”

Translation for “Logos” include:

  • Xicotepec De Juárez Totonac: “the one who is called the Word”
  • Sayula Popoluca: “the Word by which God is known”
  • Miahuatlán Zapotec: “one who revealed God’s thoughts”
  • Alekano: “God’s wise Speech”
  • Tojolabal: “he who told us about God” (Source for this and above: M. Larson / B. Moore in Notes on Translation February, 1970, p. 1-125.)
  • Yatzachi Zapotec: “Jesus Christ the person who is the Word, he who gives eternal life”
  • Eastern Highland Otomi: “the Word that gives new life to our hearts”
  • Garifuna: “the one named Word, the one who gives life” (Source for this and two above: John Beekman in Notes on Translation 12, November 1964, p. 1ff.)
  • Tzeltal de Oxchuc y Tenejapa (Highland Tzeltal): te C’opile: “the Word” (in a new, 2001 version of the New Testament to avoid the previous translation “the Word of God,” a term also used for “Bible.” — Source: Robert Bascom)
  • Mairasi: “The Message” (source: Enggavoter 2004)
  • German: Er, der ‘das Wort’ ist: “He who is ‘the Word'” — this solution circumvents the different gender of Jesus (masculine) and “das Wort” (neuter) (in: Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, 3rd edition: 1997)
  • Anindilyakwa: Originally translated as N-ayakwa-murra or “he having the properties of a word/message/language.” Since this was not understandable, it is now “Jesus Christ, the one who revealed God who was hidden from us.” (Source: Julie Waddy in The Bible Translator 2004, p. 452ff. )
  • Kwang: “He who is called ‘The reality (lit: the body) of the Word of God himself’” (source: Mark Vanderkooi)
  • Kikuyu: Ũhoro or “Affair”/”Matter” (source: Leonard Beecher in The Bible Translator 1964, p. 117ff. )
  • Dholuo: Wach: “Word” (but also: “problem,” “issue,” or “matter”) (source: Jim Harries)
  • Matumbi: Liyi’gi’yo or “spoken Word” (as opposed to yi’gi’ya or “the word to heard”) (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific notes in Paratext)
  • Assamese: বাক্য (bakya) / Bengali: বাক্ (bāk) / Telugu: వాక్యము (vākyamu) / Hindi (some versions): वचन (vachan). All these terms are derived from the Sanskrit vach (वाच्), meaning “speech,” “voice,” “talk,” “language,” or “sound.” Historically, “in early Vedic literature, vach was the creative power in the universe. Sometimes she appears alone, sometimes with Prajapati, the creator god. She is called ‘Mother of the Vedas.’ All of this suggest an interesting parallel with logos. From the Upanishads on [late Vedic period, the Vedic period overall stretches from c. 1500–500 BC), however, she retreats from her creative role and becomes identified with Saraswati, the goddess of speech.”
  • Sanskrit and Hindi (some versions): शब्द (shabda), meaning “speech sound.” Historically, “Shabda is of importance from the Upanishads on. As shabda-brahman it is eternal and is the ground of the phenomenal world.” (Source for this and above: R.M. Clark in The Bible Translator 1962, p. 81ff. )
  • Sinhala: ධර්මයාණෝ (dharmayāṇō), meaning “philosophy” or “religion.”
  • Tonga: Folofola: “Originally, the term is used in the kingly language and is related to the meaning of unrolling the mat, an indispensable item in Tongan traditions. The mats, especially those with beautiful and elaborate designs, are usually rolled up and kept carefully until the visit of a guest to the house. The term thus evokes to the Tongans the idea of God’s Word being unrolled to reveal his love and salvation for mankind.” (Source: Joseph Hong in The Bible Translator 1994, p. 329ff. )
  • Pitjantjatjara: Tjukurnga: “Dreaming” (“a form of religious mapping, an ideological construction whereby the universe is rendered understandable in religious terms; it is the collection of myths, stories, and practices by which the land is perceived and through which a person makes sense of the world.” For more tap or click here.)

    “Like many crucial terms [Tjukurnga] is thankfully untranslatable. Its possible meanings are: (1) story; (2) Dreaming or Law (with a capital; there is an emerging Aboriginal desire for this sense of the word not to be given an English equivalent any longer); (3) message; (4) news; (5) individual word; (6) what someone says, thing said; and (7) birthmark, wart, which is regarded as showing something that is distinct and personal.

    “It seems that with tjukurpa [the root form of Tjukurnga] is not so much the untranslatability of Christian and Aboriginal ideas but the potential for a word such as this to release the controls and spin out in all sorts of unexpected direction. For what takes off here is precisely the ‘Word.’ Not only does tjukurpa designate the Word, the logos, the meaningful expression or creative principle — or indeed story, saying, message, news, birthmark, Law … — but it is also used at times for ‘parable’ (Mark 4:13 et al.), for the translation of ‘word’ elsewhere (Mark 4:14), and for ‘gospel’ itself. Thus, Mark 1:1 has Tjukurpa Palya, ‘good Tjukurpa‘ (with a capital!) for ‘gospel.’ (…) Once let loose, it is as though tjukurpa cannot stop, for the whole mini-Bible, comprising most of the New Testament and sections of the Hebrew Bible, is itself Tjukurpa Polya: Irititja munu Kuwaritja, ‘The good Tjukurpa: old and new.’ (Source: Boer 2008, p. 154ff.)

  • Ajië: Nô (click or tap here to read an explanation by Maurice Leenhardt — in The Bible Translator 1951, p. 154ff. ):

    “There are other words that the learned translators of the West have in vain tried to render into rich tongues as French or Latin. They found obscure expressions for the common ‘word’ or ‘speech’ (…) It would seem that these words would present insurmountable difficulties for the translator in primitive languages. Missionaries of the Loyalty Islands could not find the word to translate ‘Word,’ nor have they imagined that there could be a corresponding term in the native language. They simply introduced the Greek word into the vocabulary, pronouncing it in the native fashion, ‘In the beginning the Logos’. These people are intelligent; and do not appreciate pronouncing words which make no sense whatsoever. However, when a Caledonian speaks French, he translates his thoughts as they seem to him the most adequate. He can easily express himself relative to the man who has conceived good things, has said them, or done them. He simply describes such a person as, ‘The word of this man is good’. Thought, speech, and action are all included in the New Caledonian term nô. In speaking of an adulterous man one may say, ‘He has done an evil word’. One may speak of a chief who does not think, order, or act correctly as, ‘His word is not good’. The expression ‘the Word of God’ is limited in our speech to meaning of the divine Scriptures, but in New Caledonian it includes the thoughts and acts of God, ‘God said and it was done’. The New Caledonian has no difficulty in seeing the Word becoming action, becoming flesh, the word becoming a physical reality. Our deceased colleague Laffay once said: ‘I prefer to read John in the Ajië rather than in French’.

The recent English New Testament translation by David Bentley Hart (2017), that uses the transliteration Logos for the Greek Λόγος, says this about its translation (p. 549ff.): “In certain special instances it is quite impossible for a translator to reduce [Λόγος] to a single word in English, or in any other tongue (though one standard Chinese version of the Bible renders logos in the prologue of John’s Gospel as 道 (dao), which is about as near as any translation could come to capturing the scope and depth of the word’s religious, philosophical, and metaphoric associations in those verses, while also carrying the additional meaning of “speech” or “discourse”).”

Below you can find some background of this remarkable Chinese translation (click or tap here to read more):

Dao 道, which developed into a central concept of classical Chinese philosophy, originally carried the meaning of “path” and “(main) road.” From there it developed into “leading” and “teaching” as well as “say” and “speak.”

As early as the 7th century BC, however, dao appears with the meaning “method.” With this and the derived meaning of “the (right) way” and “moral principle,” dao became one of the central concepts of the Confucian writings.

In Daoist writings (especially in the Daodejing ), dao goes far beyond the Confucian meaning to take on creative qualities.

With this new compendium of meaning, the term became suitable for numerous foreign religions to represent central points of their doctrine, including Buddhism (as a translation for bodhi — “enlightenment”), Judaism (similar to the Confucians as the “right [Jewish] way”), and Islam (likewise the “right [Muslim] way”).

The Jesuits, who had intensively dealt with Confucianism from the 16th century on, also took over dao as the “correct (Catholic) way,” and the so-called Figurists, a group of Jesuits in the 18th century who saw the Messianic figure of Jesus Christ outlined in Chinese history, went so far as to point to the existence of John’s Logos in the dao of Daodejing.

In later Catholic Bible translations, dao was rarely used as a translation for Logos; instead, the Latin Verbum (from the Latin Vulgate) was transliterated, or yan 言 — “language”, “meaning” — was used, usually with the prefix sheng 圣 — “holy” (also used by the Russian Orthodox Church).

Protestant translations, however, began to use dao as a translation for Logos in the 1830s and have largely retained this practice to this day.

Some voices went so far as to describe Logos and dao as a point of contact between Christianity and the Chinese religions. By its gradual shaping in Greek and Jewish philosophy, Logos had become an appropriate “word vessel.” Similarly, dao’s final formation in Daodejing had also assumed the necessary capacity to serve as a translation for Logos.

The origins of dao and Logos have some clear differences, not the least being the personal relationship of Logos as the Son of God with God the Father. But it is remarkable that using dao as the translation of Logos emulates John’s likely intention with the use of Logos: the central concept of the philosophical and religious ideas of the target culture was used to translate the central concept of Christian theology.

This was not possible in the case of European cultures, which for the most part have offered only translations such as Word or Verbum, terms without any prior philosophical or religious meaning. Only advanced civilizations like China — or ancient Greece — were able to accomplish that. (Summarized version of: Zetzsche, Jost. Aspekte der chinesischen Bibelübersetzung. R. Malek (ed.) Fallbeispiel China. Beiträge zur Religion, Theologie und Kirche im chinesischen Kontext. Nettetal: Steyler Verlag, 1996.)

Peng Kuo-Wei adds this perspective (in Noss / Houser, p. 885): “The Chinese term chosen for logos is not hua (‘word’ or ‘utterance’) but dao from which the term ‘Taoism’ is derived and which can denote a general principle, a way (concrete or abstract), or reason. Thus, Chinese readers can understand that the dao of God is not just words spoken by God, but it constitutes the guiding salvific principle underlying the whole biblical account, including his action in history and teaching and action of Jesus whom he sent. Jesus is the dao of God because his ministry, death and resurrection comprises the fulfillment and realization of God’s theological and ethical principles for humanity.”

For another use of dao in the Chinese Bible, see the Way).

The English translation by Sarah Ruden (2021) uses true account in John 1. She explains (p. lxiii): “Logos can mean merely ‘statement’ or ‘speech,’ but it also has lofty philosophical uses, especially in the opening of the Book of John, where it is probably connected to the Stoic conception of the divine reasoning posited to pervade the universe. The essential connotation here is not language but the lasting, indisputable, and morally cogent truth of numbers, as displayed in correct financial accounting: this is the most basic sense of logos.”

Famously, Goethe also had Faust ponder the translation of Logos into German in the first part of the play of the same name (publ. 1808). The German original is followed by the English translation of Walter Kaufmann (publ. 1963) (click or tap here to read more):

Geschrieben steht: “Im Anfang war das Wort!”
Hier stock ich schon! Wer hilft mir weiter fort?
Ich kann das Wort so hoch unmöglich schätzen,
Ich muß es anders übersetzen,
Wenn ich vom Geiste recht erleuchtet bin.
Geschrieben steht: Im Anfang war der Sinn.
Bedenke wohl die erste Zeile,
Daß deine Feder sich nicht übereile!
Ist es der Sinn, der alles wirkt und schafft?
Es sollte stehn: Im Anfang war die Kraft!
Doch, auch indem ich dieses niederschreibe,
Schon warnt mich was, daß ich dabei nicht bleibe.
Mir hilft der Geist! Auf einmal seh ich Rat
Und schreibe getrost: Im Anfang war die Tat!

It says: “In the beginning was the Word.”
Already I am stopped. It seems absurd.
The Word does not deserve the highest prize,
I must translate it otherwise
If I am well inspired and not blind.
It says: In the beginning was the Mind.
Ponder that first line, wait and see,
Lest you should write too hastily
Is mind the all-creating source?
It ought to say: In the beginning there was Force.
Yet something warns me as l grasp the pen,
That my translation must be changed again.
The spirit helps me. Now it is exact.
I write: In the beginning was the Act.

See also this devotion on YouVersion .

woman (Jesus addressing his mother)

Stephen Hre Kio reports on the translation of the Greek word into Falam Chin that is translated as “woman” in English, specifically when it refers to Jesus addressing his mother (see The Bible Translator 1988, p. 442ff. ):

“No child would call his parents by their names, either half name or full name, in private or in public. To do so would show disrespect of a high degree. It would be an open insult. The only possible situation where the children might address their parents by name would be where a combination of an endearment title and the name was used as a form of introduction, and the listeners were people not familiar with the parents. For example, the son Za Hu can introduce his father to an unfamiliar audience by saying, ‘This is my father U Kaw Kaw. . .’ If he does it without saying ‘my father,’ Za Hu is creating a distance between himself and his father, but not disrespect. If he addresses his father as ‘Man!’ and his mother as ‘Woman!,’ he is in real trouble. He would be creating an image of being uncultured, disrespectful and downright contemptuous.

“That is precisely the situation we find in John 2:4 and 19:26, where Jesus addressed his mother as ‘woman’ (Greek gunai). To translate this utterance literally would be Nunau in Falam Chin, and this would be offensive to Falam readers. Although we find the same utterance in John 20:13, by two angels who say to Mary, ‘Woman, why are you crying?,’ this is not as offensive as the other uses. The difference lies in the person who said it. For the angels to say to the woman “Woman,” is acceptable. But for the son to say ‘Woman’ to his mother demonstrates utter disrespect and contempt or even extreme anger. That is precisely what we found the text of John put in the mouth of Jesus. But is that actually what Jesus meant when he said ‘Woman’? Fortunately, we are told that ‘Jesus’ use of ‘woman’ (RSV) in direct address was normal and polite. . . It showed neither disrespect nor lack of love. . .’ (quoted from: Newman / Nida 1980). In Falam, the word ‘woman’ Nunau, will have to be avoided and replaced by Ka Nu, meaning ‘My Mother.’ This is the only choice possible in the situation. ‘Woman’ (Nunau) would be insulting, and ‘mother’ Nu Nu would be childish.”

Abel Tabalaka (in: Scriptura 81 (2002), p. 453ff. ) reports something similar from the translation into the apparent semantic equivalent mosadi into Tswana. Readers found this also unacceptably rude and it might therefore distort the meaning of the Greek text (even though it’s used in all Tswana Bibles except the the 1993 paraphrase by Biblica where the word is just skipped.)

In Elhomwe and Matumbi it is translated as “mother,” because “woman” would be impolite. (Source: project-specific translation notes in Paratext)

See also formal pronoun: Jesus and his mother.

mixture of myrrh with aloes

The Greek that is translated as a “mixture of myrrh with aloes” refers a mixture of “a fragrant resin used for embalming the dead” (myrrh) and a “powdered aromatic sandalwood, spoken of as providing perfume for the bed or clothes” (aloes) (source: Newman / Nida),

Ojitlán Chinantec translates it as “fragrant powder, resin powder and wood powder mixed” and Chol as “a wood that gives a fragrant smell when it is rotten.”

(Source: M. Larson / B. Moore in Notes on Translation February 1970, p. 1-125.)

Translation commentary on John 1:1

Before the world was created, the Word already existed represents the Greek “in (the) beginning was the Word.” As the commentaries point out, John obviously intends that his readers see a parallel between the opening words of his Gospel and the opening words of Genesis. “In (the) beginning” refers to the period before creation (creation is not mentioned until verse 3), and so Good News Translation renders this phrase before the world was created [see New English Bible (New English Bible) “when all things began,” New English Bible alternative rendering “The Word was at the creation,” and Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch “In the beginning, before the world was created”]. John wants his readers to understand that at whatever point the creation began, the Word already existed.

In a number of languages it is difficult to translate literally “in the beginning,” since a word such as “beginning” requires some indication of what began. Some translators attempt to use the phrase “in the beginning of the world,” but this phrase may not make sense, since in some languages only events begin, and not objects, such as the world. The problem is sometimes avoided by using another type of expression, for example, “before there was anything” or “when things first came into existence.” Other translators prefer to transform the passive expression “the world was created” into an active one, for example, “before God created the world.” However, to do so introduces a minor complication, for later in the same passage the creation is spoken of as being performed through the Word. Note, however, that in Good News Translation the revelation of the Word to creation is clearly indicated as secondary agency. God is the one who makes all things, but he does so through the Word (verse 3). Some of these problems are overcome in certain languages by an idiomatic expression which identifies creation as “in the beginning of life” or “when there was as yet nothing.” Such expressions, however, depend entirely upon the idiomatic usage in the language into which the translation is being made. Otherwise such a rendering can be misleading.

The term the Word has a rich heritage, by way of both its Greek and Jewish backgrounds. For the Greeks who held to a theistic view of the universe, it could be understood as the means by which God reveals himself to the world, while among those who were pantheistic in outlook, the Word was the principle that held the world together and at the same time endowed men with the wisdom for living. In the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Word could be used both of the means by which God had created the world (Psa 33.6) and through which he had revealed himself to the world (Jer 1.4; Ezek 1.3; Amos 3.1). Among certain of the Greek-speaking Jews of New Testament times, there was much speculation about the “wisdom” of God, which God “made in the very beginning, at the first, before the world began” (Prov 8.22-23). In the “Wisdom of Solomon” (written during the first century B.C.), “wisdom” is close to becoming a personal being, standing beside God when he made the world (9.9) and making holy souls to be God’s friends (7.27). In philosophical Judaism of New Testament times, the Word largely assumes the functions assigned to “wisdom” in these writings. Thus, by the time that John writes his Gospel, the Word is close to being recognized as a personal being, and it has roles relating to the manner in which God created the world and to the way in which God reveals himself to the world that he brought into being. Moffatt, realizing the difficulty in finding a term equivalent in meaning to the one used by John, transliterates the Greek term: “the Logos existed in the very beginning”; while Philllips (Phillips) at least makes an effort to give his translation meaning: “at the beginning God expressed himself.” Some translations include Word as a glossary item (Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch), or give a footnote to help the reader (Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible).

Though the Greek term logos may be rendered “word,” it would be wrong to think it indicates primarily a grammatical or lexical unit in a sentence. Greek has two other terms which primarily identify individual words, whether they occur in a list (as in a dictionary) or in a sentence. The term logos, though applicable to an individual word, is more accurately understood as an expression with meaning; that is, it is “a message,” “a communication,” and, as indicated, a type of “revelation.” A literal translation, therefore, more or less equivalent to English “word,” is frequently misleading.

In some languages there are additional complications. For example, in some languages the term “word” is feminine in gender, and therefore any reference to it must also be feminine. As a result, the possible use of pronouns in reference to Jesus Christ can be confusing. Furthermore, in many languages a term such as “word” must be possessed. One cannot speak about “the word” without indicating who spoke the word, since words do not exist apart from the persons who utter them.

Because of these and other difficulties, many translators treat the term “Word” or Logos as a title, and that is precisely what it is. The very fact that it is normally capitalized in English translations marks it as a title; but in many languages the fact of its being a title must be more clearly indicated by some explicit expression, for example, “the one who was called the Word” or “the one known as the Word.” In this way the reader can understand from the beginning that “Word” is to be understood as a designation for a person. Therefore, this first sentence in John 1.1 may be rendered “Before the world was created, the one who was known as the Word existed” or “… the person called the Word existed.”

In languages which employ honorific forms it is particularly appropriate to use such an indication with the title “Word.” Such a form immediately marks the designation as the title of deity or of a very important personage, depending, of course, upon the usage in the language in question.

In translating John it is particularly important to avoid suggesting that “word” indicates merely “a voice” or “one who speaks” or that in the creation there was merely a great deal of talk. Such translations gained acceptance simply because in the account in Genesis 1 the text says “God spoke … and it was so,” but this is obviously not what John 1.1 means.

He was with God is literally “and the Word was with God.” Good News Translation renders the Greek word “and” by a semicolon, and “the Word” (logos) by he. In Greek “the Word” is masculine, and so to use a pronoun, as Good News Translation does, makes the clause read more naturally in English.

It may be convenient in some languages to break this first verse into two completely separate sentences, even though the relation between the sentences is very close. The first sentence would be “Before the world was created, the Word already existed,” and the second, “He was with God, and he was the same as God.” It is important, however, that the reference to “he” be clear in the second sentence, especially if God as creator is introduced in the first sentence.

The meaning of the preposition with (Greek pros) has occasioned some difficulty, but most commentators and translators apparently favor the meaning “to be with” or “to be in the company of.” This preposition often conveys the sense of reciprocity, that is, the Word was not merely in the presence of God, but there existed a mutual and reciprocal relationship between the Word and God. This relationship must be expressed in some languages as “God and the Word were together.” In other languages, however, an indication of purely spatial relation seems to be sufficient, and therefore one may say “the Word was there where God was” or “… in company with God.”

He was the same as God appears in most translations as “the Word was God” [Revised Standard Version (Revised Standard Version), Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible]. New English Bible renders by “what God was, the Word was” and Moffatt “the Logos was divine” [Goodspeed “the Word was divine”]. Zürcher Bibel has “the Word was God,” with a footnote indicating that this means the Word possessed a divine nature.

These many differences in translation are due to the Greek sentence structure. In this type of equational sentence in Greek (A = B) the subject can be distinguished from the predicate by the fact that the subject has the article before it and the predicate does not. Since “God” does not have the article preceding it, “God” is clearly the predicate and “the Word” is the subject. This means that “God” is here the equivalent of an adjective, and this fact justifies the rendering he (the Word) was the same as God. John is not saying that “the Word” was God the Father, but he is affirming that the same divine predication can be made of “the Word” as can be made of God the Father, and so “the Word” can be spoken of as God in the same sense.

Many languages have two quite different types of equational sentences. One type indicates complete identity in such a sentence as “My husband is John Smith” or “John Smith is my husband,” that is, the two parts of the sentence are completely equivalent. In the second type, however, one may say “John Smith is a teacher” but cannot say “A teacher is John Smith.” “A teacher” merely qualifies “John Smith” and indicates the class of persons to which he belongs. The latter is precisely the type of equational sentence which occurs in this verse. “God” completely characterizes “the Word,” and all that is true of God is true of the Word. This does not mean, however, that the two elements can be inverted, and that one can translate “God was the Word” any more than one can make “Love is God” an inversion of the biblical statement “God is love.” It is difficult for some people to recognize that this equational sentence in Greek belongs to the second class because in the predicate the term “God” refers to a unique object. Since this type of equational sentence may be misleading with “God” in the predicate, it is better to translate it “The Word was the same as God” or “Just what God was that is what the Word also was.”

In some languages there is an additional problem in this verse and some of the following verses, namely, the problem of tense. In some languages a past tense indicates something which existed in past time but no longer exists. Thus, if one translated “he was with God and he was the same as God,” the statement would presumably apply to a past situation no longer true. This possible misunderstanding is avoided in some languages by the use of the so-called perfect tense, which carries the meaning “He has been with God, and he has been the same as God” or “He was and still is with God, and he is the same as God.” In still other languages a so-called “timeless tense” must be used in order to avoid wrong implications with regard to the temporal relations.

Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on the Gospel of John. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1980. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Translation commentary on John 1:2

This verse is not a mere repetition of the one preceding. In verse 1 John said that the Word was in the beginning and that the Word was with God; here he is careful to affirm that the two existed simultaneously, that is, from the very beginning, the Word was with God.

In rendering “from the very beginning,” it may be necessary in some languages to repeat the first clause of verse 1, for example, “from the time before the world was created.” However, in some languages reference to the time before creation may simply be indicated by a temporal substitute, for example, “from that very time.”

Since, however, the relation of the Word to God has continued into the present time, in some languages a so-called perfect tense may be required, for example, “the Word has been with God.” Otherwise, as already noted, a pure past tense may suggest a state which no longer exists.

Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on the Gospel of John. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1980. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Translation commentary on John 1:3

Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on the Gospel of John. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1980. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Translation commentary on John 1:4

This statement is literally “all things through him came into being.” The Greek phrase through him indicates that the Word was the agent in creation, but at the same time the context clearly implies that God is the ultimate source of creation; Good News Translation makes this explicit. Similar expressions are found in Paul’s writings and in the Letter to the Hebrews. In 1 Corinthians 8.6 Paul distinguishes between “God, the Father, who is the creator of all things” and “Jesus Christ, through whom all things were created.” Again, in Colossians 1.15-16 Paul refers to “the first-born Son,” by whom “God created everything in heaven and on earth.” In Hebrews 1.2 the writer speaks of the Son as “the one through whom God created the universe.”

The Greek text indicates clearly that the Word was the instrument or agency employed by God in the creation. Accordingly, in some languages one must distinguish clearly between the primary agent or initiator, which would be God, and the secondary agent or immediate agent, which is the Word. Such a relation may be expressed in some languages as “God caused the Word to make all things” or “God made all things; and the Word did it” or “God used the Word to make all things.”

The last half of verse 3 presents a punctuation difficulty. It is possible to make a full stop at the end of verse 3 (so Good News Translation, Revised Standard Version, Jerusalem Bible, Moffatt, Phillips, New American Bible) or to make a full stop before the end of the verse, and so connect the last half with verse 4 (see Good News Translation and Revised Standard Version alternative renderings and New English Bible). The oldest Greek manuscripts have no punctuation here, and even if there were some punctuation, it would merely reflect the exegesis current when the punctuation was introduced into the text. The UBS Committee on the Greek text favors the second of the two alternatives for two reasons: (1) it represents the consensus of opinion of the ante-Nicene writers, orthodox and heretical alike; (2) this punctuation is more in keeping with what is believed to be the rhythmical pattern of the prologue. However, the same UBS Committee also suggests several good arguments in favor of following the punctuation represented by the majority of modern English translations: (1) John often begins a sentence with the preposition “in” (en), as would be the case if a full stop were placed at the end of verse 3; (2) it would be more in keeping with John’s repetitive style; (3) it reflects Johannine thought (see 5.26,39; 6.53).

If one follows the Good News Translation text, the second part of verse 3 is an emphatic negative statement, essentially equivalent in meaning to the first part of the verse. Such an emphatic combination of positive and negative expressions may be found in certain languages in such forms as “by means of the Word God created all things. There was not anything that he did not create without the Word” or “… He did not create anything without the Word.”

The Word was the source of life is literally “in him (the Word) was life.” The intention of this statement is not to affirm that the Word was alive, as might be suggested by a literal translation. Rather, it is to declare, as Good News Translation makes clear, that the Word was the source of life.

Jerusalem Bible also makes it clear that this is the meaning “(All that came to be) had life in him,” as does New English Bible “(All that came to be) was alive with his life,” and the Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch “he gave life to all living beings.” Bible de Jerusalem (Bible de Jérusalem) adds a footnote, “If the Word, the Son of the living God (6.57), is the source of eternal life for men (3.15, etc.), it is because he has life in himself (5.26) and because he himself is life (11.25; 14.6; see 1.1, etc.).”

If, however, the second part of verse 3 is combined with the beginning of verse 4, there is a logical relation between the two clauses essentially equivalent to “God did not create anything without the Word, since the Word was the source of life.” This logical relation, however, is simply implied, not specifically indicated, in the Greek text.

What is the meaning of the word life in this context? Is it a reference to natural life or to eternal life? Since life is one of the basic themes of the Gospel of John (see 20.31, where the purpose of the Gospel is stated to be “that through your faith in him you may have life”), it is probable that life here is equivalent to “eternal life.” Even though “everlastingness” is one quality of eternal life, it is not the primary emphasis in John’s Gospel. For John life (“eternal life”) describes a quality of existence, that is, the kind of life that man has when God rules in his life. The word life (Greek zoē) is used 36 times in John’s Gospel, never in the sense of “natural life” or “biological life,” but always with the meaning of “real life” or “true life.”

The concept of light is also characteristic of John’s Gospel. According to this Gospel, Jesus is not only the life (see 11.25; 14.6), but also the light of the world (8.12; 9.5). In the Old Testament the concept of light was something desirable and pleasant, as opposed to darkness. The world of the living was a world of light, while the world of the dead was a place of darkness. During the interval between the Old and New Testaments, however, the concept of light took on a new dimension. It became equated with the power of good, which was engaged in a struggle with darkness, the power of evil. This use is reflected, not only in Jewish sources of that period, but also in the religious and philosophical thought of other religions. In such contexts light becomes symbolic for the true revelation of God, and almost an equivalent term for God himself and for the salvation that he brings to men.

This life brought light to mankind is literally “this life was the light of men,” but the meaning of this genitive construction is obviously “this life was the light for men” (Moffatt, Zürcher Bibel).

If one understands life in terms of a particular quality of life, and not mere existence, there seems to be no special shift of meaning in verse 4. Otherwise, the first occurrence of life would refer to physical life, while the second occurrence would certainly indicate a quality of life which enlightens men. The really serious difficulty in translating this verse occurs in languages which do not employ a noun for life, but which use only verbs, since with such verbal expressions there must be an indication of who is living. In such instances the first part of verse 4 may be rendered “The Word was the one who caused people to really live.” The second clause may then be rendered “this way of living…” or “this way that people could truly live caused people to see” or “… to perceive.” Frequently it is not possible to speak of “bringing light to men,” since such an expression would refer only to carrying a torch. The focus here is not upon physical light but upon spiritual enlightenment, and therefore the passage may be translated “… caused people to truly perceive” or “caused people to perceive the truth,” but note the important symbolic significance of “light” in verse 5.

Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on the Gospel of John. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1980. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Translation commentary on John 1:5

In Johannine thought darkness is everything that light is not. It is evil and sin and death. The present tense of the verb shines is in direct contrast to the aorist tense in verse 11 (he came). The present tense refers to an eternal quality of the light (that is, it always shines), while the aorist tense in verse 11 (see also in verse 3) refers to a specific moment in time.

Has never put it out is difficult, in regard both to the meaning of the verb itself and the tense. The original meaning is “to grasp,” and it may be used either in a hostile sense (“to overcome”) or in an intellectual sense (“to grasp with the mind,” that is, “to understand”). Good News Translation (has never put it out; so also Goodspeed and Phillips), together with Revised Standard Version (“has not overcome it”) and Jerusalem Bible (“could not overpower”; see also New American Bible), accepts the first of these two interpretations. Few translations, in fact, follow the second.

It is difficult to tell what Moffatt (“but the darkness did not master it”) and New English Bible (“and the darkness has never mastered it”) intend. Either they take the first of these possibilities, or they attempt to combine the two, trying to bring together both meanings in the one phrase “to master.” The Zürcher Bibel rendering (“the darkness did not receive it”) is possibly based on the assumption that the verb (katalambanō) is equivalent to the Greek paralambanō (Good News Translation receive) in verse 11.

Not only is the meaning of the word difficult, but the significance of the tense is also disputed. A number of translators assume that the aorist tense here signifies a timeless truth (Good News Translation the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has never put it out; see also New English Bible, Goodspeed, Phillips, Revised Standard Version). Others see in the aorist as used here a reference to a specific event in the past (Moffatt “amid the darkness the light shone, but the darkness did not master it”; see also New American Bible, Jerusalem Bible).

In some languages the translation of verse 5 is particularly difficult because of clear distinctions in the use of words designating light. One term or set of terms refers to particular sources of light (fires, torches, lamps, and so forth), while another term or series of terms may refer to daylight, shining, brightness, and so forth, without indicating the particular instrument or the source of the light. Moreover, in some languages all terms for light are verbs rather than nouns. Therefore, “light shines” may be equivalent to “there is shining” or “it lights.” The abstract term the darkness may be rendered in some languages only as a general term for space, plus a characterization of that space as being “dark,” for example, “in places where it is dark.” Accordingly, the first clause of verse 5 may be rendered “There is shining in places where it is dark.” The second clause is even more difficult than the first, since in some languages one cannot take such an abstract term as the darkness and make it an instrument of “putting out the light.” The relation, however, may often be expressed as a kind of negation of cause and effect, for example, “Just because it is dark does not mean that the light has been put out” or “… that the light has been caused to go out.” Rather than being the direct agent of some activity, darkness only identifies a condition which has not succeeded in causing the light to go out.

Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on the Gospel of John. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1980. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .