• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Five Lessons explaining the usage/grammar of John for John 1:1c.

tigger2

Active Member
As mentioned earlier, when all honest exceptions (those listed by numerous trinitarian Greek grammar scholars) are removed, all the other clauses parallel to John 1:1c in John's writings are indefinite ('a prophet,' 'a king,' 'a sinner,' etc.) and have the indefinite article added in all English translations. However, there is no other parallel to John 1:1c in the NT which uses theos as a predicate noun. Still, if we go to the ancient Greek translation of the OT, we find that it is used in at least two cases.

3 Kings 18:27 in the ancient Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament (1 Kings 18:27 in English Bibles) has a very similar construction to John 1:1c. It has theos as a predicate noun without a definite article and coming before the 'be' verb: “for [theos] he is.” If this were in the NT and referred to the Messiah, it certainly would be mistranslated as 'God he is' by all the trinitarian translators.' (But those who carefully examined all parallels in John's writings would know better.)

So the Septuagint translation by Sir Lancelot Brenton (Zondervan Publishing) says, “for he is a god” at 3 Kings 18:27!! Compare other translations of 1 Kings 18:27: “a god” is obviously intended here! This is a clear (and very significant) “violation” of “Colwell’s Rule”!

We find the same thing at Judges 6:31 - The Septuagint reads 'if theos he is' and renders it "If he be a god..."

These are both parallel to theos in John 1:1c and are rendered "a god" (as English translators should also have done at John 1:1c!)
 
Last edited:

tigger2

Active Member
All the uses of the word “prophet” in which John used the predicate noun (“prophet”) before the verb are (1) John 1:21, (2) John 4:19, and (3) John 9:17. According to Colwell’s Rule, then, it would be senseless for John to have used the article with “prophet” since it is automatically “understood” to be there! In other words, Colwell’s Rule (as “interpreted” by some trinitarians, at least) would have “prophet” written without a definite article and translated as “the Prophet” (not “a prophet”)! So, let’s examine every usage of “prophet” when used this way by John.

(1) John 1:21 reads literally in the original NT Greek: “The prophet are you?”. Why would John have used the article (“the”) here when Colwell’s Rule virtually precludes it? He used the definite article because John did not know of Colwell’s “rule” or anything even remotely similar.

He used it because the article was needed even though the predicate noun came before the verb. At the very least John wanted us to be absolutely certain of what he meant and, therefore, had to use the definite article. By not using it, there would surely have been doubt (unless Colwell’s Rule had really existed) as to whether he intended “a prophet” or “the Prophet.” So John used the article to make sure we understood that John the Baptist was being asked if he were the Prophet. (Not only do all trinitarian Bibles make “the Prophet” definite at John 1:21, but many - including NIV, TEV, GNB, REB, NKJV, JB, NJB, NASB, AT, NAB [1970 & 1991 editions], LB, KJIIV, Moffatt, and Phillips - actually CAPITALIZE “Prophet” and, thereby, show the truly one-of-a-kind nature intended by this term: truly comparable to “God” vs. “a god.”) Compare the articular post-verb “the Prophet” at Jn 7:40.

The Prophet,” of course, referred to the Messiah (see p. 894, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, W. E. Vine, 1983 printing; p. 130, Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1982, Bethany House Publ.; and pp. 765, 770, 984, New Bible Dictionary, 2nd ed., 1982, Tyndale House Publ.). So this is a title which properly applies to Jesus (even though John the Baptist was the one being questioned at this point) and was understood in the highest, one-of-a-kind sense: “The Prophet of prophets.”


Dr. William Barclay, highly-respected trinitarian NT scholar tells us about ‘the Prophet’ of Jn 1:21 -

“[The Jews] waited and longed for the emergence of the prophet who would be the greatest of all prophets, the Prophet par excellence. But once again John denied that this honor was his.” - The Gospel of John, vol. 1, revised ed., The Daily Study Bible Series, 1975.


This verse (Jn 1:21 - “The Prophet”) probably, then, provides the best comparison with the “God”/”a god” understanding of the Bible writers. “The Prophet” of John 1:21 is a title for a prophet who is “The Prophet of prophets” in the highest, one-of-a-kind sense just as The God is “The God of gods” in the highest, one-of-a-kind sense.


(2) John 4:19 reads literally in the original Greek: “I am beholding that prophet are you.” This time John did not use the article with “prophet.” So, Colwell’s Rule shows that “prophet” should be translated into English with an understood “the” because the predicate noun “prophet” came before the verb, right? WRONG! Look at any translation.

In the Bible translations I have examined (including KJV, RSV, NRSV, TEV, GNB, NEB, REB, NIV, NASB, JB, and NJB) it is always translated: “I see you are a prophet.” (None of those translations have capitalized “prophet” at this scripture.) This is identical to the const-ruction in John 1:1c. (Not only does the predicate noun come before the verb, but the subject comes after the verb exactly as in John 1:1c.) https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/John%204:19


Now let’s examine the only other instance where John uses “prophet” as a predicate noun coming before the verb.

(3) John 9:17 reads literally in the Greek: “The [man] but said that ‘prophet he is.’” Again Colwell’s Rule insists (according to some trinitarian interpretations) that the predicate noun “prophet” be translated with an “understood” definite article. So all trinitarian translations of this verse must say: “The man said, ‘He is the Prophet.’” Right? Wrong again! Look at any Bible translation of John 9:17.

In the 16 different translations I have examined it is always translated: “The man said, ‘He is a prophet.’” Notice that even the context is not decisive in this case! John 9:17 - Bible Gateway

So a person must ask himself, why would the Apostle John use the article with an important title for Jesus (“The Prophet”) at John 1:21 and not use it with an even more important (according to most trinitarian misinterpretations) title for Jesus (theos) at John 1:1c ? If “prophet” must have the article with it before it can be translated “the Prophet” (John 1:21) even though it is a predicate noun coming before the verb, and it is consistently translated “a prophet” (John 4:19 and John 9:17) in trinitarian translations when it does not have the article with it, then it should certainly be no surprise to any NT Greek scholar or translator when an honest translator renders the identical construction at John 1:1c as “and the Word was a god”! A study of all John’s writings simply does not allow for the trinitarian interpretation: “and the Word was God (or ‘the God’)”!
 

tigger2

Active Member
John 8:34

πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν δοῦλος ἐστιν τῆς ἁμαρτίας.

Every doer of the sin slave is of the sin.


'Slave' (doulos) is anarthrous and so normally indefinite, but it is modified by the genitive ('of the sin') which makes doulos EITHER indefinite OR definite. (I have found that such constructions are usually, but not always, definite.) Even if you don't believe the many trinitarian NT Greek grammarians who admit this exception for preposition/genitive examples, here is further evidence:

We can see that such a construction (noun modified by a preposition/genitive) is irregular by the differing translations of Joh 8:34:

Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. - KJV.
Everyone who sins is a slave to sin. - NIV.
Everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. - NASB.

Everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin. - ESV.
Every one that committeth sin is the bondservant of sin. - ASV.
Everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. - NRSV.
Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. - KJ21.
Everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin. - HCSB.

Everyone who commits sin is the bondservant of sin. - WEB

Everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin. - CSB.


It should be apparent that this construction (preposition/genitive-modified anarthrous nominative) is properly listed as an improper example for considering the anarthrous noun to be definite or indefinite.

But proper examples truly parallel to John 1:1c are indefinite ("a king," a prophet," "a god," etc.).
 

tigger2

Active Member
There are 228 predicate nouns in the writings of John. Many of them precede the verb in the Greek text. These are the constructions which many Trinitarians claim make the predicate noun definite (e.g., the prophet) or 'qualitative' (?).

All Verses by John Where the Predicate Noun Precedes Its Verb

an. Jn 1:1 (verse under study)
an. John 1:12 - prep.
an. Jn 1:14 - plural (amount)
art. Jn 1:21 ("the Prophet" - NASB)
an. Jn 1:49 (b) - prep.
an. Jn 2:9 - accusative, not p.n

an. Jn 3:6 (a) - plural (amount)
an. Jn 3:6 (b) - abstract #
an. Jn 3:29 - participle
-an. Jn 4:9 (a)
an. Jn 4:9 (b) (adj.?)
#an. Jn 4:19
an. Jn 4:24 - abstr. # - NO VERB
an. Jn 5:27 - prep.
art. Jn 6:51 (b) - prep.
an. Jn 6:63 - abstract
-an. Jn 6:70
an. Jn 8:31 - prep.
an. Jn 8:33 - prep.
an. Jn 8:34 - prep.
an. Jn 8:37 - prep.
an. Jn 8:39 - prep.
an. Jn 8:42 - prep.
an. Jn 8:44 (a)
an. Jn 8:44 (b) - no subject
#an. Jn 8:48
an. Jn 8:54 (a) - abstract
an. Jn 8:54 (b) - prep.
an. Jn 9:5 - prep
an. Jn 9:8 (a) - no subject
an. Jn 9:17 - no subject
-an. Jn 9:24
an. Jn 9:25 - no subject
an. Jn 9:27 - prep.
an. Jn 9:28 (a) - prep.
-an. Jn 10:1
an. Jn 10:2 - prep.
an. Jn 10:8 - plural
an. Jn 10:13 - no subject
art. Jn 10:21 - prep.
-an. Jn 10:33
an. Jn 10:34 - plural
an. Jn 10:36 - prep.
an. Jn 11:49 - prep.
an. Jn 11:51 - prep.
an. Jn 12:6 - prep
an. Jn 12:36 - prep.
an. Jn 12:50 - abstract
an. Jn 13:35 - (poss. pronoun)
art. Jn 15:1 (b) (the farmer)
an. Jn 15:14 - prep.
an. Jn 17:17 - abstract
an. Jn 18:26 - prep.
-an. Jn 18:35
#an. Jn 18:37 (a)
?an. Jn 18:37 (b) - no subject (except in TR and in 1991 Byzantine text)
an. Jn 19:21 - prep.an.
art. Jn 20:15 (the gardener)
art. Jn 21:7 (a) (the lord)
art. Jn 21:7 (b) (the lord)
art. Jn 21:12 (the lord)


an. 1 Jn 1:5 (b) - abstract #
an. 1 Jn 2:2 - prep.
an. 1 Jn 2:4 - participle
an. 1 Jn 3:2 - prep.
an. 1 Jn 3:15 - participle
an. 1 Jn 4:8 - abstract
an. 1 Jn 4:16 - abstract
an. 1 Jn 4:20 - no subject
an. 1 Jn 5:17 - abstract

art. 2 Jn :6 (b) (the commandment)

an. Rev. 1:20 (a) - prep.
an. Rev. 1:20 (b) - numeral
an. Rev. 2:9 - accusative, not p.n.
an. Rev. 3:9 - accusative, not p.n.
an. Rev. 13:18 - prep.
an. Rev. 14:4 - no subject/plural
an. Rev. 17:9 - numeral
an. Rev. 17:10 - numeral
an. Rev. 17:11 - numeral
an. Rev. 17:12 - numeral
an. Rev. 17:14 - prep.
an. Rev. 17:15 - plural
an. Rev. 18:7 - no subject
art. Rev. 19:8 - prep. (the righteous deeds)
art. Rev. 19:9 - prep. (the true words)
an. Rev. 19:10 (a) - prep.
art. Rev. 20:14 - numeral (the death)
an. Rev. 21:22 - prep.
art. Rev. 21:23 - prep. - NO VERB (the lamp)
an. Rev. 22:9 - prep.
_________________

91 total (excluding John 1:1c)

an.” - before the verse number means “anarthrous” or “without a definite article” in
the NT Greek.
art.” - before the verse number means “articular” or “with a definite article” in the NT Greek.

From my original John 1:1c study (DEF)

In the above if the predicate noun (p.n.) has no article, it has "an." (anarthrous) written before it. "Art." (articular) means the article ("the") is with it (making it an improper example for a John 1:1c - type rule, of course). Other improper examples have "prep.," "abstract," "numeral," etc. written after them.

"Prep." indicates that the p.n. has a phrase modifying it (prepositional), e.g., 'slave to me', etc. (or a genitive noun) 'son of man', etc. "Abstract #": the p.n. is abstract and/or an indeterminate amount (today these are often called 'non-count nouns'). "No subject" means the subject is clearly understood but only by the verb form used. "Participle" means the subject is not present and only imperfectly identified by a participle ("having," "saying," etc.).

The proper examples are indefinite and are rendered into English as indefinite nouns with the English indefinite article. ('a prophet,' 'a man,' 'a god,' etc.).

If we credit John for using NT Greek as we see he did in his writings, John 1:1c must be translated as "and the Word was a god."!!
 
Last edited:
Top