The Sabellianism of John 1:1

This Kindle book, And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 is available on Amazon by clicking here

Visit a local listing for this book here

John 1:1 in Greek reads like this when transliterated: en (in) arche (beginning) en (was) ho (the) logos (word) kai (and) ho (the) logos (word) en (was) pros (with) ton (the) theon (god) kai (and) theos (god) en (was) ho (the) logos (word).

The traditional and most accepted/defended translation of this is: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." King James Version

Now look the following comments from "experts" in the field on Biblical scholarship:

"It would be pure Sabellianism to say 'the Word was ho theos.'" [B. F. Wescott. The Gospel According to St. John. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975. p. 3.]*

"The structure of the third clause in verse I, theos en ho logos, demands the translation 'The Word was God.'...Had theos as well as logos been preceded by the article the meaning would have been that the Word was completely identical with God, which is impossible if the Word was also 'with God'." [F.F. Bruce. The Gospel and Epistles of John. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Grand Rapids, MI. 1983. p. 31.]

Now go back to the Greek above. It say that the word was with ton theon, THE god (god with the definite article) it is simply translated "the Word was with God" (the definite article THE is left untranslated) and the Scripture closes with "and the Word was God." (GOD here does not have the definite article in the Greek but it is translated simply as GOD.) Notice that the traditional (and most defended) translation makes no distinction between GOD with the article, and GOD without the article. The traditional translation translates BOTH instances of GOD as if they both had the definite article.

In other words, the traditional (and most defended) translation translates so "that the Word was completely identical with God" if I may use Bruce's words, which, of course "is impossible if the Word was also ‘with God.’" Translating as though the Word also had the definite article would be "pure Sabellianism" according to Westcott's words.

So the traditional (and most defended) translation is actually heretical from their own point of view. A translation that creates a distinction between the two uses of GOD at John 1:1 would not be.



*Sabellianism...is the belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three different modes or aspects of God, as opposed to a Trinitarian view of three distinct persons within the Godhead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism (In other words, Sabellianism says that the Father and the Son are exactly the same person, while Trinitarianism say they are different persons, but yet they exist within one God.)