John 1 Logos Remix

Language is a tricky thing. How do you translate words that express ideas and experiences specific to a culture (or an individual for that matter)? Linguists have been wrestling with this problem for centuries.

This is especially troublesome for the translation of spiritual and religious texts. Sometimes, a words in one language does not have the equivalent in another language. Other times it has multiple near-equivalents.

Then, once a text is translated, the translation takes on its own significance -- often communicating a message that the original texts never intended. Consider the New Testament word "gahenna." Usually it is translated as "hell." Hell -- in our societal traditions -- carries the idea of an eternal torturous abode for the wicked. However, there is nothing in the New Testament that connotes this in "gahenna." Gahenna was the garbage dump outside Jerusalem that was originally a place of human sacrifice. It never connoted anything like our idea of "hell."

It's not limited to Biblical literature. Consider the Buddhist concept of dukkha. It is often translated as unease, suffering, disquiet, anxiety, frustration. But none of those words capture the essence of dukkha.

The Tao (dao) is another example.

One of the key Greek concepts was Logos. It precedes the Biblical literature, but it was appropriated by Biblical authors -- particularly in the Gospel of John. The concepts related to Logos morphed over the centuries as Logos was used by Christians of various schools and Neoplatonists. It continued to develop throughout the millennia as Christian traditions and medieval Aristotelian approaches were applied to it.

So while words are not always directly translatable, some common themes emerge as people from diverse cultures communicate with one another. I already mentioned Aristotle and medieval philosophy (Islamic, Christian, and Jewish).

Even though I am not a linguist, I've been reflecting on the prologue to the Gospel of John and the use of Logos here. You know it is usually translated as "word." But that doesn't convey the essence of Logos. Logos is a creative, emotive force. It permeates all things. It signifies the fundamental order of the universe. Logos involves intent, and it is the animating power. It is the creative principle.

All of this barely touches upon the depths of Logos. To know Logos one must simply know Logos. You know it when you experience it. However, we have to try to explicate it if we want to understand it.

Back to my reflection on John. As i said, I'm not a language scholar. And I'm sure that aficionados of their preferred traditions might find this objectionable. So be it. But I've been considering how John 1 might overlap with some of the major spiritual traditions.

"In the beginning was the logos. The logos was with God, and the logos was God."

By the way, "God" (theos) could stand a fresh re-translation too. The word "God" has come to mean nearly everything and nothing.

This has surely been done before by others, but here are a few of my observations.

In the beginning was the Tao. And the Tao was with God, and the Tao was God.

In the beginning was Nirvana. And Nirvana was with God, and Nirvana was God.

In the beginning was the Shekinah. And the Shekinah was with God, and the Shekinah was God.

In the beginning was Sophia. And Sophia was with God, and Sophia was God.

In the beginning was Buddha Nature. And Buddha Nature was with God, and Buddha Nature was God.

In the beginning was wahdat ul-wujood. And wahdat ul-wujood was with God, and wahdat ul-wujood was God.

In the beginning was the Brahman. And Brahman was with God and Brahman was God.

In the beginning was Namaste. And Namaste was with God, and Namaste was God.

In the beginning was the Pleroma. And the Pleroma was with God, and the Pleroma was God.

In the beginning was Satori. And Satori was with God, and Satori was God.

In the beginning was Suchness. And Suchness was with God, and Suchness was God.

In the beginning was Spirit. And Spirit was with God, and Spirit was God.

In the beginning was your neighbor. And your neighbor was with God, and your neighbor was God.

In the beginning was Love. And Love was with God, and Love was God.


This is not an attempt to reconcile all spiritual traditions to the Bible -- or the Bible to all spiritual traditions. It shows, though, several similarities. I recognize that none of the juxtapositions adequately translate each other's uniqueness. However, this also indicates that there is a point where language breaks down. At best, all language is metaphor. Speech falls silent to the presence of wonder, stillness, transcendence, awe, mystery, spirit.