MASTER APPENDIX ON JOHN 1:1 — TRANSLATIONS, SCHOLARS, AND LOGOS USAGE

Introduction

The following appendix gathers historical translations, scholarly commentary, and linguistic evidence showing that John 1:1 does not require the interpretation that “the Word” is a pre‑existent divine person. Instead, many translators and scholars have understood the Logos as God’s spoken or written word—prophecy, utterance, or message—which later became flesh in Jesus. These sources demonstrate that renderings such as “a god,” “divine,” “godlike,” or even “it” have long existed in reputable translations and academic discussions.

A. TRANSLATIONS OF JOHN 1:1c (“a god,” “divine,” “godlike,” “it”)

1. Translations Rendering “a god” or “a God”

Emphatic Diaglott (1864)

“and the Word was a god.”

New World Translation (1950–)

“and the Word was a god.”

https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/john/1/ 

Coptic (Sahidic)

Coptic grammar requires the indefinite article: “the Word was a god.”

Synaxarium Baramouda 30: Great Saint Mark, the Apostle The Evangelist of the Land of Egypt. - CopticChurch.net 

(copticchurch.net in Bing)

Improved Version (1808)

Notes allow “a god” or “divine.”

Belsham's Unitarian New Testament (1808) 

Improved Version (Belsham, 1822)

19th Century English Versions 

Newcome New Testament (1808)

The Gospel According to St. John 

Summary of Section A1:  

These translations show that “a god” is not a modern invention but a historically attested rendering supported by grammar (especially in Coptic) and by early English translators who recognized that the Greek lacks the definite article. This supports the idea that John 1:1c can describe the Word as having divine quality or status without identifying the Word as the same God.

2. Translations Rendering “divine,” “godlike,” or Similar

Moffatt New Testament (1913/1935)

“the Word was divine.”

Video at 14 minutes shows John 1:1, and the word was Divine

American Translation (Smith & Goodspeed, 1935)

Footnote: “the Word was divine.”

https://archive.org/details/bibleamericantra00good (archive.org in Bing)

Schonfield New Testament (1975)

“the Word was divine.”

https://archive.org/details/newtestamentinmo00scho (archive.org in Bing)

NET Bible (translator notes on qualitative theos)

https://netbible.org/bible/John+1

BibleHub parallel versions

https://biblehub.com/john/1-1.htm

Summary of Section A2:  

These translations emphasize the quality of the Logos rather than identity. “Divine” or “godlike” communicates that the Word possesses godly characteristics without equating the Word with “the God.” This aligns with the qualitative interpretation recognized by many Greek scholars.

3. Translations Referring to the Word as “it”

BibleHub parallel versions (check older translations)

https://biblehub.com/john/1-3.htm  

https://biblehub.com/john/1-4.htm

BibleGateway (compare versions)

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1&version=KJV (biblegateway.com in Bing)

Summary of Section A3:  

Several older translations refer to the Logos as “it,” reflecting the understanding that “word” (logos) is not inherently a person but an impersonal utterance or message. This supports the interpretation that the Logos is God’s prophetic word rather than a pre‑existent divine being.

B. SCHOLARS SUPPORTING QUALITATIVE OR NON‑IDENTITY READINGS

B. F. Westcott

The predicate “God” describes nature, not person.

https://archive.org/details/gospelaccordingt00west (archive.org in Bing)

C. K. Barrett

John 1:1 does not identify the Word with God the Father.

https://archive.org/details/gospelaccordingt0000barr (archive.org in Bing)

James Moffatt

John 1:1c describes a quality about the Logos, not identity.

https://archive.org/details/newtestamenttran00moff (archive.org in Bing)

Philip Harner (JBL 1973)

Argues theos in John 1:1c is primarily qualitative.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/326275

Jason BeDuhn

Defends “a god” as grammatically valid.

https://archive.org/details/truthintranslati0000bedu (archive.org in Bing)

William Barclay

Says John is not calling Jesus “God” but describing godlike character.

https://archive.org/details/gospelofjohnvol100barc (archive.org in Bing)

Summary of Section B:  

These scholars—many of them Trinitarian—agree that John 1:1c does not equate the Word with “the God.” Instead, they emphasize a qualitative meaning: the Word possesses divine qualities. This scholarly consensus undermines the claim that “the Word was God” is the only legitimate translation.

C. LOGOS AS SPOKEN/WRITTEN WORD, NOT A DIVINE PERSON

James D. G. Dunn – “Christology in the Making”

Logos = God’s self-expression, not a pre-existent person.

https://archive.org/details/christologyinmak0000dunn (archive.org in Bing)

Anthony Buzzard – “The Doctrine of the Trinity”

Logos = God’s word/wisdom, not a second divine being.

https://archive.org/details/doctrineoftrinit0000buzz (archive.org in Bing)

Andrew Perry / Biblical Unitarian

Articles on Logos as God’s prophetic word.

https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/

Lexical evidence for logos (word, message, saying)

https://biblehub.com/greek/3056.htm

Scripture4All Interlinear

“the saying was toward the God, and God was the saying.”

https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh1.pdf (scripture4all.org in Bing)

Summary of Section C:  

Every New Testament use of logos outside John 1 refers to a spoken or written message, never a divine person. Scholars like Dunn and Buzzard argue that John is using the same concept: God’s prophetic word—His plan, promise, and utterance—moving toward fulfillment. Scripture4All’s interlinear reinforces this by translating logos as “the saying,” which fits perfectly with the idea that prophecy (the Word) was “toward the God” and destined to be fulfilled in the Messiah.