John 1:1c - English translation: "The Word was a god."
John 1:1c - English translation: "The Word was a god."
- NT Greek:- θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
-"god was the word."
A. In NT (New Testament) Greek the word used for "God" and "a god" is theos (θεὸς).
B. The Gospel writers (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) always used the article "the" (o with a tiny "c" above it in NT Greek: ὁ ) with theos when they intended "God." That is, when they meant to say "God" they would always write ho theos (ὁ θεὸς). [This does not always hold true for other Greek forms of "God" e.g. theou or theon or theo.]
C. The only exceptions in these inspired writings (Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, John, 1 Jn, 2 Jn, 3 Jn, and Revelation) are those things which can (and do) cause ambiguous or erratic use (or non-use) of the article ("the"). These things, as noted by most NT grammarians, include added phrases (usually prepositional in meaning, like "god of israel," "the god of me," or "god to you"), numerals ("one God"), appositives, abstract nouns, personal names, etc. But, fortunately, John 1:1c has none of these exception-causing things.
D. Therefore, if we restrict our examples to those used by John only and which are closest in construction to John 1:1c, we should thereby avoid any and all honest dissension concerning definite article use (and non-use) and different grammatical constructions, etc.
E. Here, then, are all the constructions which are most closely parallel to John 1:1c (a single non-abstract, unmodified, singular predicate noun without a definite article coming before the verb and a single non-abstract, unmodified noun (or pronoun) used as a subject coming after the verb) found in all the writings of John: 1. John 4:19 - indefinite ("a prophet") - all Bibles. 2. John 8:48 - indefinite ("a Samaritan") - all Bibles. 3. John 18:37 (a) - indefinite ("a king") - all Bibles. [4. John 18:37 (b) - indefinite ("a king") - in Received Text and in 1991 Byzantine Text.]
F. Trinitarian NT Greek experts Dana and Mantey specifically give us an example of "a parallel case to what we have in John 1:1"! Yes, these prominent trinitarian scholars have translated "market was the place" in the literal ancient Greek as "and the place was a market." They even described this example as a parallel to John 1:1! - p. 148, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Macmillan Publ.
G. We are dealing exclusively with nouns as found in John 1:1c. That is, a singular noun which is a person, place, or thing and which can be used with both an indefinite article ("a" or "an" - in English only: Greek has no indefinite article) and a definite article ("the") and which can be properly changed into a recognizably plural form: e.g., "WORD": "a word"/"the word"/"words;" - "GOD": "a god"/"the god"/"gods;" - "HOUSE": "a house"/"the house"/"houses;" etc.
H. So we can see that words like "pretty," "holy," or "true," for example, cannot normally be made plural ("trues") and do not use articles by themselves alone ("a pretty," "a true") and are, therefore, not nouns as found at John 1:1c and cannot be used as proper examples in an attempt to interpret John 1:1c.
I. Also, this singular, concrete noun, to be a proper example (equivalent to John 1:1c), must be without additional phrases joined to it: "a man of the world," "a house of bricks," etc. (pp. 780, 781, A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, Broadman Press; p. 175, C. F. D. Moule, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press; p. 137, Dana and Mantey Grammar) and, possibly, not even modified by any adjectives (Robertson, p. 763).
J. To be most certain, we need such proper examples to have a subject (a single noun or pronoun "doing" the verb) coming after the verb and the predicate noun (a singular noun as described above and which is the same thing as the subject) coming before the verb in the NT Greek exactly as found in John 1:1c. "god was the word."
K. To find such examples we need a Greek-English New Testament Interlinear Bible (available in any "Christian" book store or from any Jehovah's Witness). Then we search through all of John's writings to find all the predicate nouns (also called predicate nominatives) which come before the verb (and meet the above requirements) in the NT Greek. Since we are concerned about John's use (or non-use) of grammatical rules in order to determine the intended meaning of John 1:1c, we must use only examples from John's writings as proper evidence.
L. The easiest way to do this is to carefully read through all the full-English portion of the writings of the Gospel writers in an interlinear Bible and find all the verbs which could take a predicate noun ("is," "are," "am," "was," "were," "be," "become," "became"). Then determine if a noun (as described in our requirements above) comes after that verb in the English. If it does, and if it is "equal to" the subject, we have found a predicate noun, e.g., "the bird was an eagle." In English, then, the noun "bird" comes before and is "doing" the verb "was" and is therefore the subject. The noun "eagle," in English, comes after the verb "was" and is the same thing as the subject and is therefore a predicate noun (p.n.).
M. Then, after finding a proper predicate noun (p.n.), we must look at the NT Greek text (which has the equivalent English word written above each Greek word in the interlinear Bible) and see if the predicate noun we found in the English translation on the other page ("eagle" in the example above) actually comes before the verb in the Greek. If it comes before the verb, and if it is anarthrous (that is, without the article, "the") and meets the other requirements above, then we may have found a proper example to compare with John 1:1c.
N. So when all the proper examples (those most closely equivalent to the actual grammatical usage found at John 1:1c) found in John's writings are examined in the most-respected trinitarian Bibles (KJV, RSV, NASB, NIV, etc.), we find they are always translated with indefinite concrete nouns such as "you are a prophet" (Jn 4:19) which perfectly corresponds with a rendering of John 1:1c as "The Word was a god"! (Compare `the Prophet' at Jn 1:21 and Robertson, p. 768: article used when noun is only one of its kind.)
O. Such a rendering is not such a surprising concept as many modern members of Christendom might think. Other righteous persons and faithful angels have been called "gods" or "a god" by the inspired Bible writers. This understanding was also found in most of the writings of the Christians of the first three centuries after the death of Christ and, in fact was even taught by famed trinitarians Athanasius (4th century) and St. Augustine (5th century A.D.)
P. Even the most knowledgeable of the early Christian Greek-speaking scholars, Origen (died 254 A.D.), tells us that John 1:1c actually means "the Word was a god"! - "Origen's Commentary on John," Book I, ch. 42 - Bk II, ch.3.
Q. In fact, even certain trinitarian scholars have correctly admitted that those very first readers for whom John wrote his Gospel were already aware of the `Logos' concept even before John wrote to them. This was the concept of famed Jewish scholar and writer, Philo. In this best-known Jewish concept of the Logos of that time, the Word ("Logos") was "the Son of God" and "with God" and "a god" in his own right, but he was certainly not God nor equal to the one true God!
R. The fact that John provided no further explanation of the Word (`Logos') proves that he intended the Logos concept that his readers were already familiar with: "The Word (Logos) was a god."!
S. And, of course, John himself recorded the following prayer by Jesus: "Father,.... This is eternal life: to know thee who ALONE art truly God..." - John 17:1, 3, NEB.
If we examine every place in John's (and the other Gospel writers) writings where he has used theos (the form which is used for subjects and predicate nouns and ends with an `s') to mean "God," we find he always uses the article (ho, `the') with it, unless it is accompanied by a "prepositional" modifier: "of you"; "to us"; with him"; "for all"; etc.
In other words, when a proper example (comparable to John 1:1c) is used (as it very often is), theos will have the article "the" (ho or ὁ in the NT Greek) with it to mean "God" (ὁ θεὸς, `the god'). For example:
Jn 3:2; Jn 3:16; Jn 3:17; Jn 3:33; Jn 3:34; Jn 4:24; Jn 6:27; Jn 8:42; Jn 9:29; Jn 9:31; Jn 11:22; Jn 13:31; Jn 13:32; etc.
When proper examples do not have the article, "a god" is intended! Here's one way to look for all the uses of theos in John's and also note whether o (the) is used with it. Half way down the following page are the instructions for finding theos in the NT:
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/08/online-bible-tools-and-research-study.html
For comparison, look at the examples of "man" (anthropos in NT Greek). John uses the article "the" (ὁ) with anthropos (ἄνθρωπος) to indicate a certain, definite "man." But when he uses it alone (and, again, without "prepositional" additions such as "of the world" "in the house"; "with the Lord"; etc.), it simply means "a man." For example:
John 1:6; Jn 3:4; Jn 3:27; Jn 7:23; Jn 7:46; Jn 9:16; Jn 10:33; Jn 16:21; etc.
Trinitarian scholars, in desperation, have invented "grammar rules" in the last century or two in order to "make" John 1:1c say "and the Word was God [ho theos]."
One, which initially makes the most sense, but is completely false, nevertheless, is "Colwell's Rule." It says that when the predicate noun comes before its verb (theos coming before `was' in John 1:1c) in the original NT Greek, the definite article may be "understood" to be with it! This is provably false as I have shown in my article on John 1:1c (DEF).
The other "rule" is that when the predicate noun comes before its verb (as in John 1:1c, of course), the predicate noun (theos in John 1:1c) is understood to be qualitative, and, therefore, for some reason, that makes the Word equal to God! This is also provably wrong.
The trinitarian scholars who want to believe "Colwell's Rule" say that the `qualitative' rule is false. And those trinitarian scholars who believe the `qualitative' rule say that "Colwell's Rule" applied to John 1:1c is heresy!
But it matters little since both made up `rules' are completely false when proper examples (comparable to the actual usage at John 1:1c) are used!
For example, look at John 10:33. The predicate noun "man" (anthropos) comes before its verb "being," and yet we do not find it consistently translated, even by trinitarian scholars and translators as: "you, being human" (qualitative) or "you being the man" (Colwell's Rule").
If they truly believed the "qualitative" rule or "Colwell's Rule," they would not have rendered it "you, being a man," as they so often do!
Posted by Elijah Daniels
My notes: https://justpaste.it/c7etj
ReplyDeleteThe claim that the absence of the definite article (ho) in John 1:1c necessitates the translation "a god" fails to account for the nuanced use of articles in Koine Greek. While it is true that THEOS lacks the definite article in this clause, this does not automatically make it indefinite. Greek, unlike English, does not require a definite article to indicate definiteness, especially in cases where the noun is qualitative, as most scholars agree is the case in John 1:1c. The construction THEOS ĒN HO LOGOS emphasizes the nature or essence of the Word, indicating that the Word possesses the same divine qualities as God without suggesting the Word is a separate or lesser deity.
The examples provided to support the indefinite reading are not analogous to John 1:1c. For instance, the use of “prophet” in John 4:19 or “king” in John 18:37 involves contexts where the indefinite sense is clear from the subject matter and does not parallel the theological and linguistic context of John 1:1c. These examples involve common nouns describing categories or roles, whereas John 1:1c deals with the nature of the Word in a theological context. The article’s attempt to draw a strict parallel between these examples and John 1:1c oversimplifies the grammar and ignores the broader context of John's Gospel, which consistently emphasizes the divine identity of the Word.
The appeal to Dana and Mantey's grammar is misleading. While Dana and Mantey describe a grammatical construction similar to John 1:1c, they do not conclude that the absence of the article necessitates an indefinite reading. In fact, they acknowledge that such constructions often indicate a qualitative sense. Their example of "and the place was a market" describes the nature of the place rather than its identification as one market among many. Similarly, in John 1:1c, THEOS describes the Word's divine nature, not a separate or lesser god.
The article's reliance on Colwell's Rule is misplaced. While Colwell's Rule does not universally apply, its principles align with the qualitative interpretation of THEOS in John 1:1c. Colwell noted that predicate nouns preceding the verb in Greek often lack the article, yet this does not imply indefiniteness. Instead, context and syntax must guide the interpretation. The context of John's prologue, which identifies the Word as the agent of creation (John 1:3) and as sharing in God's glory (John 1:14), supports the qualitative sense of THEOS.
The claim that early Christian writings support the interpretation "a god" is historically inaccurate. While some early Christians used the term "logos" in various ways, there is no evidence that they understood the Word to be a lesser deity. The Nicene Creed, formulated in response to Arianism, explicitly affirms that the Son is "of the same essence" (homoousios) as the Father. The argument that Origen or Philo supports the "a god" interpretation is similarly flawed. Origen emphasized the eternal generation and divine nature of the Son, distinguishing Him from created beings. Philo’s concept of the logos as a mediating figure in Jewish-Hellenistic thought does not align with the theology of John’s Gospel, which presents the Word as fully divine and incarnate.
The assertion that John's audience would have understood "a god" in a polytheistic or subordinationist sense misrepresents the monotheistic context of early Christianity. The Jewish-Christian audience of John’s Gospel would have rejected any interpretation that introduced multiple gods. John 17:3, which refers to the Father as "the only true God," does not contradict the deity of the Son but highlights the relationship within the Trinity, where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share one divine essence.
The appeal to the Coptic translation and early Christian understanding of logos is similarly unconvincing. The Sahidic Coptic translation's use of "a god" reflects linguistic differences rather than theological intent. Coptic articles do not function identically to Greek articles, and the qualitative sense of THEOS in John 1:1c remains consistent across linguistic traditions. The claim that the Coptic translation supports the Watchtower's theology misrepresents both the linguistic evidence and the historical theology of the Coptic Church, which has always affirmed the full divinity of Christ.
DeleteFinally, the argument that "other righteous persons and angels are called gods" in Scripture does not diminish the uniqueness of the Word in John 1:1. While judges or angels are occasionally referred to as "gods" metaphorically or functionally, these instances do not equate to the divine nature ascribed to the Word in John's Gospel. The Word is not merely "godlike" or a representative of God but fully shares in the divine essence, as evidenced by the prologue’s description of His role in creation and revelation. I would rather put the emphasis on whether, assuming an audience with a Hellenic polytheistic cultural background, it was surely the most adequate thing for the apostles to use the word θεός to apply the Son, if they only wanted to state that "godlike, only such a powerful spiritual being, who is the creature and representative of the one God", when many other expressions would have been available for this, like θεῖος, ἡμίθεος, ἥρως, θεϊκός, θεϊνός, θεώτερος. Btw. originally δαίμων simply used to mean an inferior deity, whether good or bad, not a demon, an evil spirit.
More argument by assertion ,more circular logic,I'm right because I'm right,very unpursuasive. You can't sim ply assert that your position is true and use that assertion as a battering ram ,you are just being argumentative and not making an argument, the Logos is shown to be with ho theos the supreme God according to strong's that is am identitarian statement about the one ho Logos is with again an identitarian statement, so we have two distinct Identities the God and the Logos, these two Identities are clearly mutually exclusive ,for instance when the Logos became human see John ch.1:14 the God he was with did not become human,so obviously the Logos is not identical to the God he was with therefore he is a different God,the God he was with is definitely a God, if he is equally God to the God he was with then we have the spectre of bitheism, the God he was with is a unipersonal God if there is also a polypersonal God to whom we owe latreo then the problem of polytheism is further compounded, so the fact that theos is qualitative does not prove that the Logos is equally God to the God he was with the simpler explanation is that we have another example of theos being used poetically for an exalted representative of the God,at John ch.10:34 our Lord himself used theos in such a poetic sense citing psalm 82 At John ch.1:18 the coptic calls the Logos the begotten God very identitarian rather merely qualitative he is a begotten God as distinct from the God he was with who is an begotten God
ReplyDelete