@Tenacious
Thank you for addressing my questions in a serious manner.
I would like to make some observations on Frank Luke's (from the Stack Exchange webstie) explanation on the Greek article.
He writes:
" . . . . While the Greek lacks the definite article on theos in the clause under discussion, that doesn't mean the English should be translated with an indefinite article. Greek and English do not enjoy a one-to-one relationship between their words. There are times in Greek when the article is present but not translated into English. Likewise, there are places where the article is not present in the Greek but the English requires it, or in this case, requires something to show the definiteness of the word.
Example 1: John 18:16 in Greek literally says: "...the disciple, the other, the one known to the high priest..." That's horrible English. So it gets translated (rightly) as "the other disciple, who was known to the high priest." As you can see the word order changed coming into English as well as two definite articles dropping out.I fully agree with paragraph 1. As for example 1 in the following paragraph, his arrived conclusion is correct. However, it should be pointed out that the construction of this verse is different from that of John 1.1c. We are dealing here with a genitive phrase, not purely nominative, as in John 1.1c.
In example 2, he writes: Example 2: John 1:1 contains another example of a time without an article in Greek but needed in English. It says, "en arche 'en o logos..." that is (literally) "In beginning was the Word." Notice that there is no definite article before arche. However, even the New World Translation puts the article there. That is how it should be. To leave it out would cause confusion in the English "In a beginning was the Word..." That implies that there were multiple beginnings to the universe, but that isn't what the Bible teaches. It's a difference in Greek and English. Likewise, the Septuagint of Genesis starts with en arche.
"en arche 'en o logos..." is a prepositional phrase, and in this type of clause, the definite article can be used in English, but not technically required. Again, the construct is different from the third clause of the same verse.
Luke adds: The reason the clause at the end of John 1:1 lacks the article deals with rules of Greek grammar....
The clause in question
(which uses a linking verb) literally reads kai theos 'en 'o logos
(literally "and God was the Word" but you won't find it translated that
way for good reason). Notice that the word order is switched around with
"God" at the front of the clause. Because the verb is a linking verb,
the subject and object use the same case ending, the nominative. With a
linking verb, the part of the clause that would be the object often drops
the article (even though it would use it otherwise), especially when it
is in front of the verb (as here). When the object of a clause is a
noun like this, it is called the "predicate nominative" and Colwell's Rule allows the translation to indicate the definiteness of the word even when the Greek lacks the article.
In
English, we don't put "the" in front of God to show definiteness. We
capitalize it. That's what Greek scholars recognize in this verse.
In addressing Frank Luke's conclusion here, I must say first that there is no hard rule of the Greek article that can be applied everywhere. Trinitarians though, have been trying to establish a Greek rule here from the moment that John penned his words. A prominent attempt from last century has been the one from E. C. Colwell, a Protestant. In the few decades after his composition, Colwell' rule was quoted by traditionalists as if it were God's own words. Surprisingly, in the last few decades, Colwell's study has lost some respectability. In fact, other scholars say outright that he was wrong. So, in the last 35 years or so, scholars have shifted from promoting a definite nuance for "theos" in John 1.1c in favor of a qualitative nuance for the predicate noun. Some diehards though, refuse to let Colwell's rule die a quiet death. I will point out three factors why Colwell is wrong.
First, context. The context of John chapter one indicates a marked difference between the Word and God. Verse 2 of the same chapter makes this clear: "This one (the Logos) was in the beginning with the God (that is, the Almighty One)." To imply that the Word was the equal of God by adding a definite nuance by means of English capitalization runs opposite to the repeated message by John, i.e. that the Logos was in good company with the supreme God.
Second, Xenophon's Anabasis has a "parallel" construction to that of Jn ch. 1.
Greek: εμπóριον δ’ ην το χωρíον market but was the placeWould you translate this clause following Colwell's rule: "and the place was Market"? A logical translation would then be: "and the place was a market.
Third, biblical Greek also disputes Colwell's conclusions.
At Acts 28.4 we find a similar grammatical construction to John 1.1c:
Πάντως φονεύς ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος = Certainly murderer is the man this.
Again, who would translate this clause as: "Surely this man is Murderer"?
No, most translators render this verse as the ESV does: "No doubt this man is a murderer." Other examples could be cited.
Thus, Luke's conclusion, along with that of Colwell's, are questionable.