@Wonderment
The claim that the
indefinite rendering "a god" does not violate standard Greek grammar
and that John 4:19 and Acts 28:4 prove this is misguided. The Greek
construction in John 1:1c is unique because it involves an anarthrous predicate
nominative before the verb, which is a key point in Colwell's analysis.
Colwell’s Rule states that when a predicate nominative precedes the verb, as in
John 1:1c, the lack of an article does not imply indefiniteness but rather
definiteness or a qualitative sense. This rule has been widely accepted and
applied by many scholars, even if later analyses like those of Harner focused
more on the qualitative aspect of nouns.
You suggest that Colwell's Rule is not widely
accepted. This claim is an oversimplification. While some scholars have
critiqued Colwell's rule, it remains a useful tool for understanding the Greek
grammatical structure. Colwell's work demonstrates that a predicate nominative
without an article preceding the verb is often definite. Therefore, in John
1:1c, the absence of the article before "theos" doesn’t imply "a
god," but rather a qualitative sense, affirming the Logos' divine
nature.
Your argument relies heavily on the notion that the
indefinite rendering "a god" in John 1:1 is linguistically and
theologically valid based on examples like John 4:19 and Acts 28:4. However,
these comparisons are misleading because the grammatical context of John 1:1
differs significantly from these examples. John 1:1c is not simply a
qualitative or indefinite predicate nominative in casual speech but a highly
theological statement meant to emphasize the nature of the Logos. In John 4:19, the Samaritan woman is
making a situational judgment, referring to Jesus as "a prophet." In
John 1:1, the theological focus on the Word's eternal divine nature contrasts
with the woman’s recognition of Jesus as "a prophet." Acts 28:4 is
not grammatically parallel either, as the context is entirely different.
The examples of John 4:19
and Acts 28:4 involve different grammatical structures. John 4:19 uses "προφήτης
εἶ" (you are a prophet), where the predicate noun
("prophet") follows the verb and lacks an article. This can be
translated as "a prophet" because it is describing a quality or
category that the woman attributes to Jesus based on her experience. However,
John 1:1c's construction, θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, is different because the
predicate noun θεὸς precedes the verb. This change in word order alters
the grammatical expectations. In this case, the anarthrous θεὸς functions
qualitatively, indicating that the Word possesses the full nature of God. The
absence of the article does not imply "a god" in the sense of a
lesser or separate deity but rather emphasizes the fully divine essence of the Word.
Colwell’s Rule has not been
discarded by the majority of scholars. While it is true that Colwell referred
to his work as a "theory," his conclusions regarding Greek syntax and
the use of the article have been foundational to biblical Greek studies. The
dismissal of Colwell’s Rule by some individuals is often rooted in theological
bias rather than objective linguistic analysis.
The structure of John 1:1, specifically “kai theos
ēn ho logos”, emphasizes the qualitative nature of the term "theos,"
meaning that the Word possesses the divine nature, not that the Word is a
separate or lesser god. The anarthrous "theos" here is best
understood qualitatively, as scholars like Harner, Dixon, and Wallace point
out. The translation "the Word was a god" introduces theological
ambiguity inconsistent with the broader Johannine context, which asserts a
clear monotheistic framework. Furthermore, the absence of the article does not
necessarily imply indefiniteness in Greek; rather, it emphasizes the nature of
the subject, which is divine in this case.
The suggestion that
qualitative and indefinite nouns overlap frequently in Greek is an
oversimplification. While there can be some overlap, the context and word order
in a sentence are critical for determining the correct interpretation. In John
1:1c, the lack of an article before θεὸς does not suggest indefiniteness
("a god") but rather a qualitative sense ("the Word was [fully]
divine"). This is supported by the context of the prologue of John,
where the Word is consistently portrayed as having divine attributes and
preexisting creation.
In linguistic terms, the
qualitative use of a noun emphasizes the nature or essence of the subject. In
John 1:1, θεὸς describes the Word’s divine nature, not a lower or
separate category of being. The argument that "a god" is an
acceptable translation relies on an incorrect understanding of Greek syntax and
ignores the context of John's Gospel, which is monotheistic and affirms the
divinity of Christ.
But IMHO instead
of playing with this definite-indefinite stuff, which goes with John 1:1c, 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.
You cite examples from other languages, such as French
and Spanish, where indefinite or qualitative translations are used. However,
the grammatical rules of those languages do not necessarily apply to Koine
Greek. The Greek construction in John 1:1c does not demand an indefinite
article like "a god," as the context of the passage is not
introducing a new or different god but affirming the divine nature of the Logos
within the framework of Jewish monotheism.
Your reliance on the Sahidic Coptic translation to argue for "a
god" in John 1:1c is problematic. Scholars like Jason BeDuhn have
pointed out that the Coptic translation can be understood qualitatively,
meaning "divine" rather than "a god." The
Coptic translators were not advocating an Arian view, and the use of the
indefinite article reflects grammatical distinctions in Coptic, not Greek.
While some translations render John 1:1c as "the
Word was divine," most mainstream scholars reject the translation "a
god" as inconsistent with both the grammatical structure of the Greek
and the theological context of John's Gospel. The vast majority of scholars
affirm that John 1:1c expresses the divine nature of the Logos, rather than
presenting the Word as a separate, lesser deity.
The argument that
"upwards of a hundred Bible versions" translate John 1:1 as "a
god" or "divine" is misleading. The overwhelming majority of
biblical translations, across various denominations and theological traditions,
render John 1:1c as "the Word was God." This is not a result of
theological bias but a consistent application of Greek grammar, context, and
theological interpretation. Versions that deviate from this, such as the New
World Translation, are often criticized for theological motives rather than
linguistic accuracy.
The suggestion that many
scholars or translations reject Colwell's Rule or support the indefinite
rendering "a god" is inaccurate. Prominent scholars like Wallace,
Harner, and Dixon continue to support the qualitative interpretation of θεὸς in John 1:1c. Harner and Dixon, who have analyzed the
qualitative nature of anarthrous predicate nouns, affirm that the Word shares
in the divine essence, not that it is a separate, lesser god.
The argument that Jesus
being called "a god" aligns with the biblical concept of the Son of
God is a theological misunderstanding. In Jewish monotheism, the title
"Son of God" is not used to suggest that Jesus is merely a lesser or
subordinate deity. Instead, it affirms His unique relationship with the Father
and His participation in the divine nature. The context of John's Gospel
emphasizes the Logos's preexistence and divine status, aligning with the
doctrine of the Trinity, not with a polytheistic or henotheistic framework.
The comparison to John
8:48, where Jesus is called a Samaritan without an article, is irrelevant to
the discussion of John 1:1. In John 8:48, the term "Samaritan" is
being used as an insult, reflecting a different context and usage. The absence
of an article in this case has no bearing on the theological and grammatical
structure of John 1:1, where the focus is on the nature and identity of the
Word.
You claim that scholars are biased in defending the
traditional Trinitarian view. However, scholarly methodology is based on
linguistic evidence, not theological agendas. The qualitative reading of John
1:1c aligns with the monotheistic framework of John's Gospel and the broader
New Testament. It reflects the understanding that the Logos is fully divine
without being identical to the Father, which fits the broader Christian
theological tradition.
The consistent use of nomina sacra (sacred
abbreviations) for both the Father and the Son in early manuscripts, as you
mentioned, shows that early Christians understood Jesus as sharing fully in the
divine nature. This practice undermines the argument that the Logos is merely "a
god."
Moreover, your argument suggests that because certain
translations use qualitative or indefinite renderings in other contexts, John
1:1c could also be translated as "a god." This overlooks the
fact that the theological implications of John 1:1 are far more significant than
in the examples you provide. Translating the phrase as "a god"
introduces theological henotheism, which is entirely foreign to John's
monotheistic worldview.
Finally, your dismissal of Colwell's rule as outdated
or flawed is misleading. While Colwell's rule has been debated, it still holds
significant value in understanding Greek grammar, especially in cases like John
1:1c. The rule's application to this verse helps clarify that the absence of
the article before "theos" does not imply an indefinite meaning
but rather points to the qualitative nature of the term.
The attempt to undermine
the standard translation of John 1:1 as "the Word was God" is based
on a misunderstanding of Greek grammar, syntax, and theological context. The
qualitative nature of "θεὸς" in John 1:1c affirms the full divinity
of the Word, not a lesser status. The scholarly consensus supports this
interpretation, and attempts to translate the verse as "a god"
reflect theological bias rather than linguistic accuracy.
In conclusion, translating John 1:1c as "the Word
was God" aligns with both the linguistic and theological context of the
passage. The rendering "a god" not only misinterprets the Greek
grammar but also introduces unnecessary theological confusion inconsistent with
John's intention to affirm the divine nature of the Word.
@slimboyfat
Doesn't it rally bother you that those are not Philo's words, but Schäfer's interpretations? You really can't touch the original body of text without some liberal modernist author telling you what to think about it?
@Earnest
Your argument hinges on the
assumption that English readers might confuse "the Word was God"
(John 1:1c) with an implication of "the Word was *the God," conflating
the Logos with the Father due to a presumed lack of distinction between
definite and indefinite nouns. But in Greek, John makes a clear distinction between
"ho theos" (the God) in 1:1b and the anarthrous "theos" in
1:1c. The absence of the article in 1:1c is not random but serves a specific
grammatical function. Theos is used qualitatively here to describe the nature
or essence of the Word, meaning that the Word possesses full divinity without
being identical to the Father. Translating it as "the Word was God"
properly reflects this qualitative distinction.
English readers do not need
to infer a definite article in John 1:1c because "God" in this
context already implies the nature of the Logos, not a separate deity. The
traditional rendering, although not inserting "the" before
"God," accurately conveys the qualitative sense in line with John's
theology. To translate it as "a god" or even "the God"
would mislead readers into thinking of either henothism or modalism, which
John's Gospel clearly rejects.
In John 1:1b, the phrase "πρὸς τὸν θεόν" (pros ton theon) has a definite article "ton" (the God), which distinguishes it as a reference to the Father. In John 1:1c, "θεὸς" (theos) lacks the article. However, this absence does not imply "a god" but rather serves a qualitative function, indicating the Word's divine nature. The lack of the article emphasizes the nature or quality of divinity rather than pointing to a specific god. If it causes the kind of issue you mentioned, it is not due to the traditional rendering of John 1:1c, it should not be touched upon, but to 1:1b, which indeed should be translated as "and the Word was with the God".
Translating John 1:1c as "the Word was God" affirms the Logos' full participation in divinity without confusing the Logos with the Father, who is referred to as "the God" in 1:1b. The problem with the translation "the Word was a god" (as in the NWT) is that it introduces henotheistic overtones, suggesting the existence of multiple gods, which is incompatible with the monotheism that undergirds John's Gospel. You argue that English readers would confuse the two references to God, but this confusion only arises if they misunderstand the qualitative nature of "theos" in 1:1c. The phrase "the Word was God" (without the definite article) emphasizes what the Word is—fully divine—without implying that the Word is "the God" (the Father). Translators do not supply "the" in John 1:1c because that would misrepresent the qualitative nature intended in the Greek.
As for the NEB's "what
God was, the Word was," this is a valid paraphrase emphasizing the same
theological point: the Logos shares fully in divine essence. However, "the
Word was God" retains this meaning in a more concise form, and any
perceived confusion arises not from the translation but from a misunderstanding
of how Greek articles function to convey essence rather than identity.
Therefore, while
translating John 1:1c as "the Word was God" accurately captures the
qualitative nature of the Logos, it does not confuse the Logos with the Father,
as John's Gospel is careful to distinguish between the persons of the Trinity
while affirming their shared divine essence.
