peacefulpete, in reference to acqsed12345 notes on Joh 1.1: "That is a well researched piece. I'm sure you are correct that the Christ was understood as an emanation of God."
There are a lot of good points mentioned by acqsed1234 on the subject. However, he seems to rely too much on scholar's opinions, which frequently are flawed from the start. Religion is like politics, a very sensitive subject to discuss.
Like politics, each side presents their side, while ignoring the other side which may have a valid opinion, no less. A case in point, I am amazed to see how some U-tubers present the Russians pummeling Ukraine to the point that one is forced to ask, why then it is not over yet. The truth is that the Ukrainians have done a lot of damage to Russia as well. The point is that both sides have zealous defenders vouching for their agenda.
In the case of bible scholars they frequently make hasty assumptions, pushing their religious agenda without telling their readers there is a counterpart to the story at hand. They rarely do this with malice, but humans as they are, they leave a lot of things off the table.
In acqsed's12345 link, https://justpaste.it/c7etj, he brings out that mainstream scholars use the so-called Colwell's Rule to express their belief which expresses that a predicate nominative without the article preceding a noun with the article does not need the article in order to be definite. Hence, 'the Word is God, not a god.' Although this is sweet music to Trinitarians everywhere, the fact is that Colwell's article does not prove the definiteness of such nouns. He started his study with the simple mission to undermine those who deviated from the traditional rendering @Joh 1.1. He assumed that those nouns were definite to begin with. He even excluded qualitative nouns. Really? This is a major blunder. Also, it should be noted that Colwell's Rule has lost steam among scholars over the years. I would not be surprised if it surpasses the 50% mark loss. The reason is simple: Other scholars have successfully refuted Colwell's article, and some ignore it altogether. They have concluded that Colwell's Rule is not a rule at all, just a flawed "theory" with a great appeal to those seeking to make Christ the God almighty. Btw, Colwell himself applied the word "theory" to his article. In all, Colwell's premise belongs in the heap of trash. That's how bad it is! If you don't like this dismissed as trash, at least treat it as "a theory," as Colwell himself did.
A second blunder made by some scholars is the tendency to group non-nominative nouns with other groups of nouns, genitive, accusative, monadic, etc.: "beginning" (1:2), "life" (1:4), "from God" (1:16), or "John" (1:16) -- For instance, acqsed notes that in John 1:6, 12, 13, and 18, "theos" appears without an article and is consistently translated as "God." This list appears among acqsed's notes. But take a closer look at their grammatical composition, and you will find that none matches the grammatical structure of Joh 1.1. Whether this list suggested by numerous individuals is caused by ignorance or by dishonest intention, I leave others to decide. The thing is that "mainstream scholars" who are cited as authoritative, they themselves explain that these notable differences could alter the interpretation analysis of many verses. The point is that the lists of verses frequently brought up by traditionalists as proof that the final part of the verse as it appears in KJV is correct, are inherently wrong to start with, if not dishonest.
One person responsible for this fraud is no other than Robert H. Countess. He spent a complete chapter and a long list of scriptures at the end of the book which provided purportedly "proof" that the NWT was evil. With all that drama, he himself conceded that nominatives nouns are different from genitives, accusatives, etc., which were the basis for his mischievous intention to destroy the reputation of the NWT. How dishonest is a "scholar" willing to go so far, and still have the audacity to keep calling himself a Presbyterian Christian? Yet, gullible victims keep falling for their antics. His popular book sold by the tens of thousands. Since the Trinity is nowhere explicit in the Bible, their supporters end up committing a lie in the name of "scholarship" in order to prop up their doctrine of choice.
A third major blunder committed by traditionalists on the subject of Joh 1.1 has to be the notion that a qualitative noun cannot be indefinite at all. No overlapping, so they claim. Wrong again!
English speakers are often unaware that their language, beautiful as it is, falls short in comparison to the Greek in precision of grammar. For instance, Joh 4.19 reports the encounter of a Samaritan woman with Jesus at the well. It just so happens that she determined that Jesus was no mere man, for he knew details of her life that only a prophet, or divine person could reveal. After all, the Bible account (in Acts) states that Jesus was endowed with God's spirit.
Incidentally, this verse has a similar grammatical structure with Joh 1.1, unlike most of those in Countess' list. Now the woman before Jesus, according to the Greek text, says, word for word: "I see that prophet are you." Greek has no article before the predicate noun "prophet." By not using the article before "prophet," it is clear that the woman was not pointing out Christ as the promised prophet of previous generations. She is simply expressing a quality she perceived about Jesus, that he had a special prophetic ability like no other human being she had encountered. Thus, she could call him out as "a prophet." The account shows that it was later when she realized Jesus was a man from God.
You see in Greek, you drop the article whenever you want to denote an attribute about someone. “The Greek equivalent of an indefinite article is the lack of an article," so states The Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek. Since the construction of this clause is the same as that of Joh 1.1, it bears that such predicates like the one in Joh 4.19 can either be translated as "prophet" or "a prophet." However, English demands the indefinite article here. It is not good English to have the Samaritan say, "I see that you are prophet." One must translate as the NIV does: “'Sir', the woman said, 'I can see that you are a prophet.'" Either way, the translated choice must reflect the fact that the predicate noun must not be understood as DEFINITE here. Most versions abide by this simple principle.
Greek simply denotes the qualitativeness of a noun by dropping the definite article, as the Grammar above noted. What about Joh 1.1? The same principle applies: One can translate, the 'Word was god,' or 'the Word was a god.' Please note that I used a small "g" to describe the Word. This was not done to disrespect Christ, my Savior. It is just that in English, when you add a big "G" to God, in essence you are making the predicate noun definite when the original does not say: καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεὸς (Sabellianism). Now most readers will understand that by describing Christ as "God" in English, the whatever version is equating him as one and the same with God. Notwithstanding, Joh 1.1c and verse 2 clearly makes a distinction between the Word, and the God he was with.
But in translation either one is grammatically plausible, so long as one understands that what is said of the Word is a description, and not an identification with the person he was with.
Latin-based languages are more akin to Greek than English is in this area of discussion. Take for innstance, Joh 4.19 in French: We can either read: “Je
vois que tu es prophète." Or, “Je
vois que tu es un
prophète." The French word for prophet in one instance does not have an article, but in the second, it does.
So, to understand John 1.1c correctly we have to stop thinking that a literal translation is always best. This is a clear example. Greek has no indefinite article, but English does. Thus a good translator will point out the Greek construction somehow in the modern language. Qualitative and indefinite nouns often overlap, and if a grammarian does not concede this principle, it's time for the reader to get another grammar.
Daniel B. Wallace, a grammarian,btw, states that Joh 4.19 must be understood in the indefinite-qualitative sense. Although Wallace did not express the same thing about Joh 1.1, it does not mean that it cannot be described likewise. acqsed mentions Harner & Dixon as two scholars expressing that Joh 1.1c must be understood in a qualitative sense. He takes this as final. What holds them back from admitting so is no other reason than THEOLOGY. Yes, folks, there is nothing in the books anywhere that states that an indefinite noun cannot be also qualitative, or viceversa. John 4.19 is proof of that. Jesus was perceived as having prophetic powers (qualitative), if so, he was a prophet (indefinite) all the same.
In John 1.1 the Word was god, or divine (in a qualitative sense), or, you could say that he also was a god (indefinite). Does not Scripture say repeatedly that Jesus was the Son of God? Ask any non-Christian what does Son of God mean? Do not be surprised if the receptor of the question understands that the statement implies he was divine, a son of God. Trinitarians say this conclusion is impossible, since theology is the culprit that holds them back from publicly acknowledging this principle.
Take a look at Acts 28.4, the islanders of Malta came to the conclusion that the recent arrival, a man named Paul, by surviving a viper bite, concluded:
Literal: Certainly murderer is the man this > Translation: No doubt this man is a murderer. (ESV)
This construction is a grammatical parallel to John 1.1. This refutes without a doubt that one can translate John 1.1 with an indefinite article. Those unwilling to admit that this passage is grammatically similar to John 1.1 must first remove the veil from their face.
Colwell's rule would demand the translation No doubt this man is Murderer, and the understanding that Paul was The Murderer of world fame. Preposterous!
And finally, I keep reading that the Word was the eternal God because he was from the beginning @ Joh 1.1. Nonsense! I can say rightly say that my Son was in the garden @3pm. The statement "was" in this case represents a relatively short period, not forever. The Devil was a murderer from the beginning. (Joh 8.44) Yes, the Devil is ancient in time speak, but not eternal. The Greek word for verb "was "appears hundreds of times in the NT, and by far, most instances indicate an unspecified action of duration from the past, either recent or far back. It does NOT indicate eternity at all by grammar considerations. One must interpret if Jesus was eternal based on statements like this: "I live because of the Father." > Christ: "the beginning of the creation of the God."
Review of Wallace's Greek Grammar:
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5072584379465728/review-wallaces-grammar
