Help With The Greek

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

But that's not how English speakers would say it

God bless you a thousand times.

[Scott Pitta]

Yes.

"God was the logos" in Greek but in English the "Logos was with God".

[Michael The Disciple]

Costeon said:

Tyndale knew Greek, but that doesn't mean he was infallible and could never be inaccurate. However, please see the following link. It is to a site that says it's Tyndale's NT: https://www.biblestudytools.com/tyn/john/1.html. It is different from the version you linked to and agrees will all other English translations.

Yes I looked at it. Why conflicting versions of the same version?

I also found the Coverdale version which followed the Tyndale version at this site.

https://www.studylight.org/bible/mcb/john/1.html

John 1:1

1 In the begynnynge was the worde, and the worde was with God, and God was ye worde.

Costeon, please dont take my questioning as being combative. I'm just trying to understand. I have noticed the same thing with Martin Luthers Bible if I am reading this right.

Luthers Bible John 1:1

1 Im Anfang war das Wort, und das Wort war bei Gott, und Gott war das Wort.

Of course this would be German but closer to the Greek than the English?

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Yes.

"God was the logos" in Greek but in English the "Logos was with God".

Costeon and Prax, do you agree with Scott?

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Costeon said:

Yes I looked at it. Why conflicting versions of the same version?

I also found the Coverdale version which followed the Tyndale version at this site.

https://www.studylight.org/bible/mcb/john/1.html

John 1:1

1 In the begynnynge was the worde, and the worde was with God, and God was ye worde.

Costeon, please dont take my questioning as being combative. I'm just trying to understand. I have noticed the same thing with Martin Luthers Bible if I am reading this right.

Luthers Bible John 1:1

1 Im Anfang war das Wort, und das Wort war bei Gott, und Gott war das Wort.

Of course this would be German but closer to the Greek than the English?

Tyndale produced several editions of his New Testament over a period of ten years, beginning in 1526 and ending in 1536 sometime before his execution. The answer to why there are conflicting versions seems to be that he changed his translation of John 1:1 during that period. It seems that the version that you had originally linked to was likely the earliest edition. Here is a link to Tyndale's 1526 edition: https://archive.org/details/1536Will...tament/page/n7. You'll see on the title page that it is the 1526 edition. If you scroll to where John 1:1 is you'll see it has "God was the Word."

Here is a link to the 1534 edition: http://textusreceptusbibles.com/Tyndale/43/1. It has "and the word was God."

This site is interesting because it includes all the early English Bibles based on Greek. You'll note that versions associated with Miles Coverdale (Coverdale and the Great Bible) are the ones with "God was the word."

I can't really speak to Luther's translation besides that all translations had a Greek text before them that read "theos en ho logos." He of course would have consulted the Latin version as well, which again reads Deus erat Verbum.

We have to be careful when saying "closer to the Greek" and what we mean by that. The German would be closer to the Greek word order but not the Greek meaning. English translations (besides those from Coverdale) don't woodenly follow the word order but translate as literally as possible while still conveying the meaning. Again, since English is a not an inflected language, word order establishes meaning. Since "ho logos" unquestionably is the subject, "the Word" comes before "God."

I searched online to see if there were any different readings (variants) in the earliest Greek New Testament texts that are now available for John 1:1 that clearly have God as the subject (ho theos), so "God was the Word." There are none. The Greek text is established.

Oh I don't take your questions as being combative. We're just trying to understand a difficult issue.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Costeon and Prax, do you agree with Scott?

Yes. As he has noted, the word order is "theos en ho logos," but it doesn't mean "God was the Word." It means "the Word was God." Word order in Greek does not function like it does in English. Word order can be changed up in a way that it can't in English. "theos en ho logos" and "ho logos en theos" would mean the same thing in Greek, with probably an emphasis on the divine nature of the Word since theos is put first--"fronted for emphasis."

[Esaias]

The subject of the clause is ho logos (the word) and theos (God) is what the logos was. Word order in Greek does not affect subject onbject relationships like it does in English. However word order in Greek DOES signify emphasis and importance.

Also, word order in older English did not have the same extent of control over subject object relationship that it does in current English. And even in modern English word order is not the final word on the subject. (Cool, a DOUBLE pun in one phrase! lol)

For example, consider the following statement: "The life of the party was Suzy." Which is the subject? The life of the party? It appears so, yet it is entirely possible that Suzy is actually the subject. As more clearly illustrated lin this other example: "A brave man was Hector." Which is saying Hector was a brave man, not that some random brave guy happened to be named Hector.

In such cases the object is seen to have a dual purpose. One is to specify what is being said of the subject (that Suzy is the life of the party, or that Hector is in fact a brave man). Two, and this is important to note, special attention is being drawn to the object as being descriptive or qualitative. Saying Hector was a brave man identifies him as a brave man, but saying "A brave man was Hector" draws special attention to Hector's qualities as a brave man. It's a case of emphasis or focus.

Regarding John 1:1, theos en ho logos is saying the word was God, but places special emphasis on the deific or divine quality of the logos. The word is still the subject but the EMPHASIS has shifted to God being that which the word was.

Older English translations kept the word order (And God was the Word) to keep that same emphasis, along the same lines as saying "A brave man was Hector". In fact, drop "brave" and say it like this: A MAN was Hector. In other words Hector was a "real man, a superlative man, a definitive man". The emphasis being man although the subject is Hector.

And GOD was the Word... This is not trying to say God existed as the Word as much as it is trying to empasize that the Word was nothing less than GOD.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Costeon

Yes. As he has noted, the word order is "theos en ho logos," but it doesn't mean "God was the Word." It means "the Word was God." Word order in Greek does not function like it does in English. Word order can be changed up in a way that it can't in English. "theos en ho logos" and "ho logos en theos" would mean the same thing in Greek, with probably an emphasis on the divine nature of the Word since theos is put first--"fronted for emphasis."

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The subject of the clause is ho logos (the word) and theos (God) is what the logos was. Word order in Greek does not affect subject onbject relationships like it does in English. However word order in Greek DOES signify emphasis and importance.

Also, word order in older English did not have the same extent of control over subject object relationship that it does in current English. And even in modern English word order is not the final word on the subject. (Cool, a DOUBLE pun in one phrase! lol)

For example, consider the following statement: "The life of the party was Suzy." Which is the subject? The life of the party? It appears so, yet it is entirely possible that Suzy is actually the subject. As more clearly illustrated lin this other example: "A brave man was Hector." Which is saying Hector was a brave man, not that some random brave guy happened to be named Hector.

In such cases the object is seen to have a dual purpose. One is to specify what is being said of the subject (that Suzy is the life of the party, or that Hector is in fact a brave man). Two, and this is important to note, special attention is being drawn to the object as being descriptive or qualitative. Saying Hector was a brave man identifies him as a brave man, but saying "A brave man was Hector" draws special attention to Hector's qualities as a brave man. It's a case of emphasis or focus.

Regarding John 1:1, theos en ho logos is saying the word was God, but places special emphasis on the deific or divine quality of the logos. The word is still the subject but the EMPHASIS has shifted to God being that which the word was.

Older English translations kept the word order (And God was the Word) to keep that same emphasis, along the same lines as saying "A brave man was Hector". In fact, drop "brave" and say it like this: A MAN was Hector. In other words Hector was a "real man, a superlative man, a definitive man". The emphasis being man although the subject is Hector.

And GOD was the Word... This is not trying to say God existed as the Word as much as it is trying to empasize that the Word was nothing less than GOD.

[votivesoul]

It might help to know what substantial difference or doctrinal upheaval would be generated--that benefitted the Oneness view over and against the Trinitarian view--if "God was the Word" in place of "the Word was God" is the better understanding and translation?

Does "God was the Word" make it seem more likely that the Logos is God the Father so that v. 14 means "God the Father was made flesh"?

What am I missing?