Unless other wise stated, all Scriptures will be from the American Standard Version 1901
What the Greek Really Says
You are right in saying that in John 1:1 the Greek word for God is not preceded by a definite article. However, good Greek scholarship agrees that this dose not mean it should be translated “god” with a small “g.” The definite article is omitted because of a somewhat technical rule of Greek grammar.
Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t know all that much about Greek grammar, but I do understand enough to know what these Greek scholars are talking about, and have enough faith in God that he would inspire these men to translate the Greek manuscripts correctly. Now what Greek scholars say is that a definite predicate nominative (theos) that precedes a verb dose (sic) not have to have the definite article(ho). The order of Greek words in the last clause of John 1:1 is “God was the Word” (theos en ho logos). The subject of the sentence is “the Word,” the verb is “was,” and the predicate nominative is “God.” Usually the predicate nominative follows the verb, but in this case it precedes it; and since it precedes the verb no article is necessary. I know that it is very hard to understand, and I tried to give you the best understanding possible.
When a Greek writer wanted to stress the quality of the person or thing that was in the predicate nominative case, he would put it before the verb rather than after it. This is what John did to stress the fact that the Word (Christ) possesses the qualities of Godhood. This fundamental principle of Greek grammar supports the deity of Christ and gives no support whatsoever to the translation “The Word was a god.” The intent of John could be rendered in English, “The Word was fully God.”
Reply: I pressed Jason for more information of this rule, he replied:
"The rule I was talking about is actually explained in the Letter its self. I know its kind of hard to catch, but the rule is that the definite predicate nominative (Theos,God) that precedes the verb (En, was) dose not have to have the definite article (Ho, the). You see in the actual Greek the verse is rendered "God was the word" (Theos en ho logos) Therefore no definite article is needed. Also an interesting thought, is that "God" which is a definite predicate nominative, can't be preceded by an indefinite article "a." You can look that up in any college English text book. Also for the "rule" we were talking about in Greek grammar; look up reference to that in Thayer's Greek-English lexicon. I specifically give you Thayer as a reference, because he himself did not believe Jesus was God, and did not believe the bible was completely accurate, yet translates just what it says in the Greek, not changing it to mold to his believe. That might help you a little I hope =). But im Glad you have decided to write back a rebudle to my letter. Rarely do I see witnesses scrutinize what I send them with an actual letter back to me. Im very interested to see what you can get out of God's word to argue what iv said. Very good brother, God bless you."I initially replied:
"I think you are being too harsh on Thayer. Despite the ad hominem attack on Thayer, that what is called 'Thayer's Lexicon', is mostly the work of Lutherans Wilke and Grimm in Greek and Latin, which were translated into English by Joseph Henry Thayer, who was a Congregationalist and NOT an Unitarian [see: George Huntston Williams, The Harvard Divinity School, Boston, The Beacon Press, 1954, p. 147 and The Encyclopedia Americana, 1956, Vol. 26, p. 490.]Jason replied:
Are you referring to Colwell's rule of grammar ["God" which is a definite predicate nominative, can't be preceded by an indefinite article "a?"]
I just finished reading the reference in Thayer's Greek Lexicon, and it mentions nothing of this rule of grammar, that I can see. Perhaps you can be more specific, or give me a reference I can work with. Sorry to be troublesome, but I am presently working on your response, and this information will help me out."
>>You know what, maybe I was mistaken about the reference to the rule, I was just going off of memory. Let me go through my notes and get back to you on that. Sorry about that. Also, just to let you know, you can be as troublesome as you'd like. You need to be very assertive and scrutinize everything when studying the bible. So any mistakes you come across, let me know.I appreciate that candor. Since Thayer was not forthcoming, I decided to take a look at Dana and Mantey's grammar on page 139:
...Here, I don't have this book myself, but im sure it would be in here, try looking at "Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament" because there is a section in there that talks about Theos with and with out the article on page 139. I hope that helps.
"vi. The use of the articular and anarthrous constructions of QEOS is highly instructive. A study of the uses of the term as given in Moulton and Geden's Concordance convinces one that without the article QEOS signifies divine essence, while with the article divine personality is chiefly in view. There is keen discernment in Webster's statement. published as far back as 1864:Dana and Mantey go on to confirm on page 141 that "There are no 'rules' for the use of the definite article in Greek..."
'QEOS occurs without the article (1) where the Deity is contrasted with what is human, or with the universe as distinct from its Creator, or with the nature and acts of evil spirits, (2) when the essential attributes of Deity are spoken of, (3) when operations proceeding from God are appropriated to one of the three Divine Persons, (4) when the Deity is spoken of as heathens would speak, or a Jew who denied the existence of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. But the article seems to be used (1) when the Deity is spoken of in the Christian point of view, (2) when the First Person of the blessed Trinity is specially designated, unless its insertion is unnecessary by the addition of PATHR or some distinctive epithet (op. cit., p. 29).'
This analysis is doubtless more exact and detailed than the facts will support, but it certainly shows admirable discrimination. Surely when Robertson says that QEOS as to the article, "is treated like a proper name and may have it or not have it" (R. 761), he does not mean to intimate that the presence or absence of the article with QEOS has no special significance. We construe him to mean that there is no definite rule governing the use of the article with QEOS so that sometimes the writer's viewpoint is difficult to detect, which is entirely true. But in the great majority of instances the reason for the distinction is clear. The use of QEOS in Jn. 1:1 is a good example. PROS TON QEON points to Christ's fellowship with the person of the Father; QEOS HN O LOGOS emphasizes Christ's participation in the essence of the divine nature. The former clearly applies to personality, while the latter applies to character. This distinction is in line with the general force of the article. It may be seen even in the papyri, as O FWS EK FWTOS, QEOS ALHQINOS, 0 Light of light, true God, where the emphasis is clearly on God's character rather than His personality (Milligan: op. cit., p. 134).
vii. The articular construction emphasizes identity; the anarthrous construction emphasizes character. If the student will turn to Rom. 8:1ff. and apply this principle, be will find how illuminating it becomes in actual interpretation. It is certain that one engaged in exegesis cannot afford to disregard the article. The New Testament justifies the observation of Buttmann that "the use of the article has everywhere its positive reason" (Bt. 88)."
We have an interesting statement though on pages 148 and 149:.
"The article sometimes distinguishes the subject from the predicate in a copulative sentence. In Xenophon's Anabasis, 1:4:6, EMPORION D HN TO CWRION, and the place was a market, we have a parallel case to that we have in John 1:1, KAI QEOS HN O LOGOS, and the word was deity. The article points out the subject in these examples. Neither was the place the only market, nor was the word all of God, as it would mean if the article was also used with QEOS. As it stands, the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in QEOS." pp. 148, 149Again, we have an excellent example of how we can translate John 1:1c with Xenophon's Anabasis, "the place was a market, i.e., the Word was a god. But notice how the language becomes confused:
"Neither was the place the only market, nor was the word all of God." This is not an even parallel at all. A truthful and equivalent statement SHOULD be, "Neither was the place the only market, nor was the word the only God." The reasons for this strange turn of language is made quite clear in the following sentence, where he wants to implicate "the other persons of the Trinity."
When Dana & Mantey speak of the "essence of divine nature" they are mentioning something of import to their target audience, but the idea and words are foreign to the Johannine prologue.
Additionally, you stated that your "Greek Scholars" make assumptions that the predicate nominative in John 1:1c is definite.
This is referring to Colwell's rule of grammar:
"A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb. . . . The opening verse of John’s Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite noun. The absence of the article [before theos] does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb; it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it. The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John, for this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas [John 20:28, "My Lord and my God"]. (E. C. Colwell, "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament," Journal of Biblical Literature, LII (1933), 12-21. Cf. also B. M. Metzger, "On the Translation of John 1:1," Expository Times, LXIII (1951-52), 125 f., and C. F. D. Moule, The Language of the New Testament, Inaugural Lecture, delivered at Cambridge University on May 23, 1952, pp. 12-14.)"There are problems with Colwell's Rule, and NO Greek scholar today worth his salt would defend it. The following is from an online conversation between Robert Hommel and Professor Jason Beduhn:
"The problem arises when Colwell himself - and many who followed him - affirmed the consequent of his Rule - that is, "Anarthrous pre-copulative PNs are usually definite." His perfectly valid descriptive Rule was inverted to become a logically invalid and inductively falsifiable prescription for translation. Colwell did not define the converse of his Rule in his article, but he begins to assume it, and finally overtly applies it to John 1:1c.Donald E. Hartley Th.M, Ph.D also has an interesting article on this at https://bible.org/article/revisiting-colwell-construction-light-masscount-nouns entitled
When most scholars refer to Colwell's rule, they rightly quote the Rule as stated - and it is a valid rule (and useful in the field of textual criticism). However, when they commit the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent, and then apply the result to John 1:1, they are, indeed, creating an "imaginary rule.""
http://www.republika.pl/arekwis/doktryna/trojca/hommelvsbeduhn.html
Dr.J.Beduhn and R.Hommel: A Discussion upon the translation of John 1:1c.
(occurring Jan/Feb, 2002 on Christian Apologetics Research Ministry JW discussion board)
Revisiting the Colwell Construction in Light of Mass/Count Nouns:
Third, Colwell appears to be responsible, because of his application to John 1:1, for laying the groundwork of a logical blunder. Colwell’s rule “Definite predicate nominatives that precede the verb usually lack the article” came to be seen as “Anarthrous predicate nominatives that precede the verb are usually definite.” We have affirmed, based on our study, that Colwell’s original rule is valid but the converse of his rule is inductively falsifiable. In fact our study confirms that within the NT as a whole, this semantic category (definiteness) is certainly not the expected nuance of the construction, and not the predominant sense when it comes to singular count nouns as well. Thus this converse is neither true of the whole nor of its parts. So although definiteness is a possible semantic category, it is certainly not the probable one regarding anarthrous constructions. In addition, although the converse of Colwell’s rule is not formally illogical, it is inductively falsifiable.Murray Harris relates according to this rule:
Fourth, Colwell seems to have misunderstood what a definite semantic to the noun entailed linguistically. His improper method of prescription, based on his analysis, led him to commit a category mistake by foisting a se-mantic upon a certain group of nouns (pre-copulative PNs) that he failed to appreciate on their own terms. Because of this, and apparently without considering the ramifications of what the semantic suggested, he applied it to John 1:1c and argued against the indefinite or qualitative sense. But this was an improper use of his own rule, for his rule was only to be applied post hoc to nouns clearly understood to be definite from context. But here is where the prob-lem of his method shows up starkly. Because John 20:28 has the articular qeov", he assumes that its pre-copulative anarthrous occurrence bears the same semantic. But this is simply an example of pigeonholing a noun into a semantic box based completely on the semantics born out in a separate construction. Count nouns can bear different nuances without the article than it can with the article—Colwell has not properly understood this principle. In short he begged the question by making his rule prescriptive rather than descriptive of the majority of cases involving definite nouns preceding the copulative verb.
"b. Evaluation of the RulesAccording to Rodney J. Decker:
(1) There can be no doubt that the formulation of these rules that cover NT usage represented a significant advance on the three general observations concerning the use of the article with predicate nouns that are found in the older NT grammars (e.g., Robertson, Grammar 767-68), viz., (a) that predicate nouns tend to be anarthrous; (b) that predicate nouns that are generic are anarthrous; 52 and (c) that predicate nouns in convertible propositions are articular.
With this said, one should not overlook the definite limitations of the rules.
(2) Colwell himself notes ("Rule" 16-17, 17 n. 12) that the rules do not apply to constructions where there is an ellipsis of the copula or to qualitative nouns. And it is clear from the last two rules that proper names (2c) and predicate nominatives in relative clauses (2d) are themselves exceptions to the principal exceptions (viz., 2a and 2b). Examples that fitted any of these four categories were not included in Colwell's statistical analysis.
(3) It must remain uncertain whether the inference Colwell drew from his study may stand, viz., that a predicate noun which precedes the copula "is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it" ("Rule" 21). In fact the reverse would seem to be the case, as Colwell himself first stated it: "A predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because of the absence of the article; if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun in spite of the absence of the article" ("Rule" 20). The difficulty is simply this. How can one determine the definiteness of a noun which is anarthrous? For example, is PROFHTHS definite or indefinite in Mark 11:32 and John 4:19? The only indisputable datum about an anarthrous noun is that it lacks the article. Particularly in the application of rule 2b-often referred to as "Colwell's rule"-a considerable element of subjectivity comes into play and there is the constant danger of arguing in a circle by assuming from the context that a particular anarthrous predicate noun is definite and then finding in its placement before the copula the confirmation of its definiteness. Whether in the subject or predicate, an articular noun is definite with regard to what is signified. An anarthrous noun in the subject or predicate, on the other hand, may be either indefinite or definite, but the presumption ought to be that it is either (1) indefinite (since Greek has, in the article, a means of making definiteness unambiguous), until it has been shown to be definite from the context (both immediate and general), or (2) qualitative, whatever be its state of definiteness. This leads me to affirm that one may not infer (as is often done) from rule 2b that anarthrous predicate nouns which precede the verb are usually definite. Indeed, such nouns will usually be qualitative
in emphasis."
Jesus as God, Murray Harris, pp. 311, 312
"Definiteness is assumed, not proven by the rule. It is not valid to use the rule to establish definiteness....The converse of the rule may not be assumed. That is, it is not true that because a predicate noun precedes a copulative verb, it is therefore definite." The entire article can be downloaded by clicking here. Professor Furuli adds:
"Contrary to what Bowman says, Colwell himself laid the foundation for the misuse of his rule by applying it to John 1:1 (See page 21 of Colwell's JBL article.) Bruce M. Metzger, "The Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ," Theology Today 10.1 (April 1953), pp. 65-85, also must share some of the responsibility for the general abuse of the rule. He stated that the translators of the NWT, by translating "the Word was a god," overlooked entirely "an established rule of Greek grammar which necessitates the rendering ... and the Word was God." Metzger is a respected scholar who has done much good work with the Greek text of the NT. His words may have been written because of his theological differences with Jehovah's Witnesses. I think he would have expressed himself more cautiously today. However, such inaccurate statements are still used as authoritative, for instance, by Robert Countess, The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1982), p. 53."What it comes down to is that Colwell's Rule says if a definite predicate noun precedes the copulative, then it tends to be anarthrous. It is wrong to deduce from this, "if an anarthrous predicate noun precedes the copulative, then it tends to be definite." This is the erroneous conclusion of Colwell himself, and host of others have followed suit. It is like saying that if a man is a citizen of North Carolina, then he is a citizen of the United States, which is true, but false if we use this to prove the converse, that if a man is a citizen of the United States, then he is also a citizen of North Carolina.
P. 215 n.31 The Role Of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation
Walter Martin even goes so far as to misquote Colwell's Rule:
"Colwell's rule clearly states that a definite predicate nominative (Theos-God) never takes an article when it precedes the verb." Kingdom of the Cults, 1977, 75What Colwell said was that it usually lacks the article, and then submits 15 instances that are exceptions:
Lu 4:41; John 1:21; 6:51; 15:1; 2 Pet 1:17; Rom 4:13; 1 Cor 9:1, 2; 11:3, 25; 2 Cor 1:12; 3:2, 17; Rev 19:8; 20:14 (see Colwell, “A Definite Rule,” 18). Further recommended reading is Paul Stephen Dixon's article: "The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John" from the Faculty of the Dept. of New Testament Literature and Exegesis-Dallas Theological Seminary, May 1975;
Philip B. Harner's Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1, JBL 92 (1973), pp. 75-87; and Professor Rolf Furuli's The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation.
According to Harner's study, John has 53 examples of anarthrous predicate nominatives occurring before the verb, 26 of them being indefinite, with possibly 11 more being indefinite.
When we use count nouns (nouns that can be counted, as opposed to ones that cannot, like "flesh" or "love"), we also arrive at an interesting conclusion.
The following chart shows pre-verbal singular count nouns, as in, and excluding John 1:1c, as rendered in the NIV:
We must remember that the Greek does NOT have an indefinite article ("a"), but they are deemed necessary when translating into English.
The RED indicates Qualitativeness according to Dixon's Thesis, "The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative In John."
The BLUE indicates "Probably Qualitative, but Possibly Definite" according to Dixon.
| Scripture | NIV Rendering with the definite article | NIV Rendering with indefinite article | No article rendered |
|---|---|---|---|
| John 1:49 | You are the King of Israel | Beck's Bible, WEB | |
| John 3:29 | The bride belongs to the bridegroom | ||
| John 4:19 | Sir...I can see that you are a prophet | ||
| John 5:10 | It is the Sabbath | ||
| John 5:27 | he is the Son of Man | Young's, Rotherham, Montgomery | |
| John 6:70 | one of you is a devil | ||
| John 8:33 | We are Abraham's descendants | ||
| John 8:34 | everyone who sins is a slave to sin | ||
| John 8:37 | you are Abraham's descendants | ||
| John 8:42 | If God were your Father | ||
| John 8:44 | He was a murderer | ||
| John 8:44 | for he is a liar | ||
| John 8:48 | you are a Samaritan | ||
| John 8:54 | you claim as your God | ||
| John 9:17 | He is a prophet | ||
| John 9:24 | this man is a sinner | ||
| John 9:25 | he is a sinner | ||
| John 9:28 | you are this fellow's disciple | ||
| John 10:1 | the man who...is a thief | ||
| John 10:2 | The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep | Young's, Rotherham, 20h Century NT | |
| John 10:13 | he is a hired hand | ||
| John 10:36 | I am God's Son | ||
| John 12:6 | he was a thief | ||
| John 18:35 | Am I a Jew? | ||
| John 18:37 | You are a king then? | ||
| John 18:37 | I am a king | ||
| John 19:21 | claimed to be king of the Jews |
John 5:10 is rendered with the indefinite article in the Good News Bible, Beck's Bible, God's Word, Emphatic Diaglott, Kleist & Lilly NT, Weymouth's NT, and Young's Literal Translation.
John 5:27 is rendered with the indefinite article in the World English Bible, Kleist & Lilly NT, Smith & Goodspeed's An American Translation, Emphatic Diaglott, Revised Version-Improved and Corrected.
John 10:2 is rendered with the indefinite article in the Weymouth NT (ftn.), Barclay's NT, Revised Version-Improved and Corrected, and the Emphatic Diaglott.
As we can see, most of the above examples can make a claim for indefiniteness. They are even more indefinite than the ones labelled qualitative.
Qualitativeness does not rule out indefiniteness, just like indefiniteness does not rule out qualitativeness. We simply cannot get away from the fact that the majority of Bible translations and versions have translated the above in the indefinite, not in the qualitative. John 4:19 was not translated "prophet-like," but "a prophet." John 6:70 was not translated "devil-like" or "devilish," but "a devil" despite the fact that the New International Version is a dynamic equivalent version.
Not only is it that "the predicate nominative describes the class to which the subject belongs" (See Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Daniel Wallace, p. 41), but anarthrousness often proves that you are not the only one in that class.
At Mark 1:3, Wuest says of "The Voice" [FWNH], "no definite article in the Greek text. The Baptist was not the only mouthpiece of God sent to Israel." (P. 13, Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, Kenneth Wuest)
On Anabasis, 1:4:6, EMPORION D HN TO CWRION, and the place was a market, Dana & Mantey's Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament state that the place was not the only market. How does this usage compare with the above list?
At John 1:49, though Jesus was uniquely THE King of Israel, he was not the only one to bear that title. He can although, bear the traits of a king.
The bridegroom at John 3:29 is modified by the present active verb ECWN (echon).
At John 4:19, Jesus was not the only prophet.
The Sabbath at John 5:10 was not the only such sabbath.
At John 5:27, though Jesus was uniquely THE Son of Man, he was not the only one who can claim that title.
Judas, at John 6:70 was not THE devil, or the only slanderer in the Bible, and he certainly shared the qualities/traits of Satan without actually being the devil.
John 8:33 is modified by the possessive construction.
In John 8:34, the indicated slave was not the only such slave....and so on.
At John 1:1c, Jesus was not the only God mentioned in the Bible, and he was not THE God. He did share the qualities/traits of God.
"Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas an anarthrous construction points to a quality about someone." Appendix 1950 edition NWTNote the appendix in the NWT 1984 Ed., where they said that the translations "a god" do so
"because the Greek word (the·os') is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous the·os'. The God with whom the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek expression, that is, the·os' preceded by the definite article ho. This is an articular the·os'. Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone. Therefore, John's statement that the Word or Logos was "a god" or "divine" or "godlike" does not mean that he was the God with whom he was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same as God himself.The above chart also attests that their translation, as that of the Revised Version-Improved and Corrected, Belsham, Priestley, etc, are superior.
In the Greek text there are many cases of a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, such as in Mr 6:49; 11:32; Joh 4:19; 6:70; 8:44; 9:17; 10:1, 13, 33; 12:6. In these places translators insert the indefinite article "a" before the predicate noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject. Since the indefinite article is inserted before the predicate noun in such texts, with equal justification the indefinite article "a" is inserted before the anarthrous in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read "a god." The Sacred Scriptures confirm the correctness of this rendering."
The following excerpt is from William Loader, PhD in his excellent book:
"The Word was 'God'The Christology of the Fourth Gospel-Structures and Issues, Page 155 by William Loader, Ph.D. and New Testament Lecturer for the Perth Theological Hall, Australia, teacher at Murdoch University as a member of the Perth College of Divinity
The gospel begins with the words, 'In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was theos (`God').' 'The Word was theos' must not be isolated and made into a simple equation: the Word
was God. Grammatically this is a possible translation, but not the only one. The statement's meaning, and so its translation, must be determined by its context. It could also be translated: 'the Word was a god' or 'the Word was divine'. Grammatical considerations alone fail to decide the question, since all three translations can be
defended on grammatical grounds.
The Word was God?
Against the first of these interpretations ('the word was God') is the fact that the author has just said that the Word was 'with' God.
If 'Word' means little more than 'words', then it would be conceivable that the author could say: God's words were with him; they are, as his words, part of God himself, in that sense, they are God. Dupont comes near to this in claiming that the Logos concept refers not to a person but to God's communication of himself. But the
author goes on to speak of the Word as a person as distinct from God, so that this must be assumed also in the opening verses.
Nor is it likely that the author intends to his opening statement to make a gradual approach to what he wishes to say, so that 'the Word was with God' is merely a step along the way to the statement, 'the Word was God' which is repeated in 1:2.
The Word was a God?
The other two translations fit the context more smoothly at one level. Yet their evaluation cannot take place without our making assumptions about the author's wider frame of reference. In particular it is unlikely, given his context within the Christian community and its roots in Judaism, that he would mean that there is more than one God. Langbrandtner reckons with this as the positions of the redactor, whereas the Grundschrift had thought of Jesus more as an extension of God into the world, but such a view on the part of the redactor is unlikely and unsupported elsewhere. It is true, on the most natural reading of the text, that there are two beings here:
God and a second who was theos but this second is related to God in a manner which shows that God is the absolute over against which the second is defined. They are not presented as two equal gods.
The Word was divine?
This leads us to consider the third translation, 'divine', the equivalent of theios suggested already by Origen, and represented often by the phrase 'Gott con Art' or 'God of a kind'. Should the author have been concerned to say the Word was divine. why did he write theos and not the more usual adjective, theios? The order of 1:1c and lack of the article may be idiomatic in relation to the use of predicate nouns, as Colwell suggests, or it may, in addition,
reflect an emphasis on quality shared without exact reciprocity. This would suggest that the focus here lies not on the person, but on the quality or nature of the Word. Schnackenburg points to 1 John 5:20 ('We know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know the truth and we are in the truth, in his Son, Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life') and understands the use of theos for Jesus as expressing that in him God reveals himself and that he has the same nature as the Father.
What was 'was'?
But what does 'nature' or 'quality' mean in this context? The New English Bible translates, 'what God was, the Word was.' It still leaves open the question: and what and how was that? Brown is right in pointing out that we are dealing with the languase of doxology here. Can we go beyond Bultmann's statement that here is paradox? Is,
as Haenchen argues, the anarthrous theos another indication of subordination of the Son to the Father in the gospel? It would be easy to read 1:l in isolation as a statement that the Logos had once been with, indeed been part of God and had ceased to be so, a kind of emanation, but passages such as 17:5,24 and those considered at the beginning of this discussion indicate much more of a personal relationship of union and love. The claim of shared originality ('in the beginning') and the absence of any notion of the Son Logos as, for instance, 'firstborn' or 'first created' being, normally associated with Wisdom/Logos tradition, is astounding. It is no surprise that such statements provoke cbristological reflection in subsequent centuries. But our task must be to interpret as far as
possible their meaning within the gospel without reading back into the text later attempts at a solution.
The nature of the relationship of Son and Father in the fourth gospel must rest on more than 1:1 and its grammatical interpretation. The term, theos, is applied similarly to Jesus in 1:l8 and comes in the confession of Thomas in 20:28. But the issue is much wider than the use of theos even in the prologue and presents itself as a repeated focus of contention, as the Son makes his claims and the Jews make counterclaims accusing him of ditheism, an accusation constantly repudiated. But we return first to the prologue as presupposition and prelude to the gospel.
Analogous relationship In Logos Wisdom Torah tradition
It is widely recognized that the motif, Word, Logos, belongs within a tradition of thought reaching back to such passages as Prov 8:22-31 and reflecting speculation about wisdom or logos as the highest heavenly power in God's service. One strand of this tradition identifies heavenly wisdom with Torah, Law, and so personifies Torah.
In this stream, Torah is God's and in that sense is God. It is not thought of literally as a person distinct from God, as we have it in the fourth gospel, but remains a personification. Closer to the notion of wisdom or the logos as a person is the stream which finds expression in Hellenistic Judaism (Wisdom, Philo). This belongs within a wider tendency Judaism to speak of the highest beings under God, sometimes to the extent that the kind of interchangeability already present in the Old Testament between the angel of the Lord and the Lord, which Justin later exploited so fully as a christological argument extended to other high beings, including the Logos. Incipient gnosticism doubtless heightened this tendency. It, too, used the Sophia/Logos speculation. In Philo the logos is not only portrayed as a person, the highest heavenly being in the service of God, but can also be called theos, a second god (De Somn. I 229f; Leg. All. III 207f; Qu. Gen. II 62). This is all the more interesting since Philo clearly does not understand this as compromising monotheism, which he stoutly defends. Rather the bearing of God's name seems related to the bearing of God's power and functions."
Even if we opt for a qualitative-only view, then "the Word was a God" is still superior to the definite rendering "the Word was God."
"Often, the only way to effectively communicate a qualitative noun in the English idiom is by prefacing the noun with 'a.'" -- Paul Stephen Dixon, "The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John" (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1975), 47.From an email: I would like to also point out, too, that even your New World Translation dose not always follow its no article-small g rule. For example, in John 1:6, 12, 12, the word God dose not have the article in the Greek, but it dose have a capital G in the New World Translation. It is correct to use the capital in those verses, but it is inconsistent with the New World Translation of John 1:1.
Reply: You had stated above, which I have placed in bold lettering:
"The NWT translators say the small “g” from the word god is required because the Greek word used for God (theos) is not preceded by a definite article “the”(ho). (Should you believe in the Trinity? P. 26)"The book, The Elements of New Testament Greek, by J.W. Wenham adds an interesting comment on this though:
"In ancient manuscripts which did not differentiate between capital and small letters, there would be no way of distinguishing between QEOS ('God') and QEOS ('god'). Therefore as far as grammar alone is concerned, such a sentence could be printed: QEOS ESTIN hO LOGOS, which would mean either, 'The Word is a god', or, 'The Word is the god'. The interpretation of John i. i will depend upon whether or not the writer is held to believe in only one God or in more than one god. It will be noticed that the above rules for the special uses of the definite article are none of them rigid and without exceptions. It is wiser not to use them as a basis for theological argument until the student has reached an advanced stage in the knowledge of the language."Interesting comments, though they do ignore qualitativeness and the earlier use of QEOS/theos for representatives of God.
From an Email: You might also be interested in noting that in John 13:3 the word God occurs twice, each time with a capital G. But in the Greek the first occurrence of the word dose not have the definite article (ho,) and the second occurrence dose. Since both obviously refer to the same person- God the Father- it would again be wrong to assume that the no article-small g has any validity in Greek grammar.
Reply: John 13 does not necessitate the distinction as is the case with John 1:1. I cannot rightfully say that the man was with the prophet, and the man was the prophet, but I can say he was a prophet, or qualitatively, he was prophet-like.
From an Email: Another point I would like to bring out is that without the article, theos signifies divine essence, whereas with the article theos suggest divine personality (see Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 139). Also theos is a definite noun and therefore cannot have the indefinite article “a”.
Reply: Theos is not a definite noun in John 1:1c, or else it would have been rendered with a definite article. If you are assuming definiteness for it here, then you are making the same mistake Colwell did, and you are now a Sabbellianist. The anarthrous QEOS/theos in John 1:1c is there to make a distinction between the articular QEOS at John 1:1b and John 1:2. If the Bible writers wanted a definite QEOS, then they could have added the definite article, as they have done elsewhere. There is no grammatical rule saying that the one word QEOS is by nature definite.
Take for instance:
John 10:33,
"The Jews answered him, For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself a god." Revised Version-Improved and Corrected
“Claim to be a god.”—New English Bible
“Makest thyself a god.”—John Bowes, 1870.
“[M]akest thyself a god.”—Samuel Sharpe, 1881.
“Make Yourself out to be a god.”—Ferrar Fenton, 1909.
“[M]akest thyself ‘a god’ not ‘God’ as in C[ommon].V[ersion, KJV]., otherwise the definite article would not have been omitted, as it is here, and in the next two verses,— ‘gods..[.] gods,’ where the title is applied to magistrates, and others, because in a certain sense they are God’s representatives. Compare also Acts 28. 6; 2 Cor. 2. 4.”—Robert Young, Concise Commentary, in loc. cit.
“[F]or making a mortal like yourself into a god.”—Andy Gaus, The Unvarnished New Testament, 1991.
Acts 12:22,
"And the people shouted, saying, The voice of a god, and not of a man." ASV
"And the people shouted, "The voice of a god, and not of man!"" RSV
Acts 28:6,
"Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god." KJV
"they changed their minds and said he was a god." NIV
There are many such instances in the LXX (Septuagint) also, as in Exodus 7:1; Judges 6:31; 1 King 18:27; Psalm 5:4, etc. (See Brenton's Translation).
From an Email: It is important to keep in mind that when John 1:1 states that “the Word was God,” it dose (sic) not mean “Jesus is God the Father” or “Jesus is the Trinity.” The Watchtower booklet “The Word”-Who is he? according to John (p.6) makes the error of trying to suggest that this is what non-Jehovah’s Witnesses mean by their translation “The Word was God.” But this is not the case at all. As already shown, this clause stresses the divine quality of the Word. John is telling us that in the beginning the Word existed, was with God the Father, and possesses full deity.
Reply: John 1:1 does not tell us that at all. In fact, if you are trying to argue that the theos (QEOS) in John 1:1c is definite, and the QEOS in John 1:1b is the Father, then you are equating the LOGOS with the Father, therefore making them the same. I have no problem with Jesus having the qualities of His Father, but having the qualities and traits of another does not make you equal or one in substance/essence to them.
See also A Definite Predicate Noun When it Precedes the Verb NEVER takes an Article in Greek?!
