John 1:1 “Anarthrous Theos”: The big lie

[Mark2020]

John 1:1 Anarthrous Theos: The Big Lie

​

"and the Word was God"
​

​

[FONT=&quot](John 1:1 [TR]) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot](John 1:1 [NIV]) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The NWT renders it:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot](John 1:1 [NWT]) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]In [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the[/FONT][FONT=&quot] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The argument given for using “a god” is:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Since [/FONT][FONT=&quot]θεον [/FONT][FONT=&quot](in John 1:1b) is preceded by the definite article [/FONT][FONT=&quot]τον[/FONT][FONT=&quot], [/FONT][FONT=&quot]it is translated “God”, thus referring to the one true God.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]And Since[/FONT][FONT=&quot] θεος[/FONT][FONT=&quot] ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]in John 1:1c) isn’t preceded by a definite article (anarthrous), it is translated “a god”, thus implying that “the Word” or “[/FONT][FONT=&quot]ο λογος[/FONT][FONT=&quot]” is not God, only a god.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So, what should it be? "God" or "a god"?[/FONT]

Contents:
​

I) Brief introduction to cases in Greek
II) Let’s examine the argument that anarthrous θεος (without a definite article, θεος, θεον,&#8230 refers to “a god”
III) Let’s examine the opposite: Can "ο θεος" (with definite article) refer to “a god” and not “God”?
IV) But why is θεος anarthrous in John 1:1c ?
V) Conclusions



I) Brief introduction to cases in Greek

In English the words do not change according to their function in the sentence. So the word “God” as a subject, object, or after a preposition is the same. This isn’t the case in Greek. A word used as a subject is in nominative case. [FONT=&quot]While a word used as direct object and after some prepositions is in accusative case (like [/FONT][FONT=&quot]θεον [/FONT][FONT=&quot]in [/FONT][FONT=&quot]John [/FONT][FONT=&quot]1:1b). [/FONT]Sometimes nominative is used for objects (like [FONT=&quot]θεος [/FONT][FONT=&quot]in John 1:1c).[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Even the definite article takes different forms according to its function in the sentence.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So [/FONT][FONT=&quot]θεος [/FONT][FONT=&quot]and[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]θεον [/FONT][FONT=&quot]are the same word, but the difference is due to the function of each word in the sentence. One other common form is [/FONT][FONT=&quot]θεου[/FONT][FONT=&quot], which is the genitive case.[/FONT]



[FONT=&quot]II) Let’s examine the argument that anarthrous [/FONT][FONT=&quot]θεος [/FONT][FONT=&quot](without a definite article, θεος, θεον,&#8230 refers to “a god”:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
1-Actually reading John 1 in Greek, we find many uses of [FONT=&quot]θεος [/FONT][FONT=&quot]without the definite article (like in John 1:6,12,13,18a). Let’s check:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](John 1:18[/FONT][FONT=&quot]a[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [NIV]) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]No one has ever seen God[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](John 1:18[/FONT][FONT=&quot]a[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [TR]) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]θεον[/FONT][FONT=&quot] ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](John 1:18[/FONT][FONT=&quot]a[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [NWT]) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]No man has seen God at any time

[/FONT] We see that [FONT=&quot]θεον (the accusative form of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]θεος[/FONT][FONT=&quot])[/FONT][FONT=&quot] isn’t preceded by a definite article (το&#957[/FONT][FONT=&quot], and is translated God, even in NWT. Of course, rendering it “No one has ever seen a god” is meaningless.[/FONT] So this is an "Anarthrous theos" referring to God.


[FONT=&quot]2-
[/FONT][FONT=&quot](Nahum 1:2[/FONT][FONT=&quot]a[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [NIV]) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The LORD [/FONT][FONT=&quot]is a jealous and avenging [/FONT][FONT=&quot]God[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](Nahum 1:2[/FONT][FONT=&quot]a[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [LXX]) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]θεος [/FONT][FONT=&quot]ζηλωτης και εκδικων [/FONT][FONT=&quot]κυριος[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
(Nahum 1:2[/FONT][FONT=&quot]a[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [HiSB]) [/FONT] אֵ֣ל קַנּ֤וֹא וְנֹקֵם֙ יְהוָ֔ה נֹקֵ֥ם יְהוָ֖ה
[FONT=&quot](Nahum 1:2[/FONT][FONT=&quot]a[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [NWT]) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Jehovah [/FONT][FONT=&quot]is [/FONT][FONT=&quot]a God [/FONT][FONT=&quot]exacting exclusive devotion and taking vengeance[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]So here YHVH ([/FONT]יְהוָ֖ה[FONT=&quot]) is [/FONT][FONT=&quot]θεος[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. Which is anarthrous!!![/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]3-
[/FONT][FONT=&quot](Isaiah 37:16 [NIV]) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]O LORD Almighty, God of Israel, enthroned between the cherubim, you alone are [/FONT][FONT=&quot]God [/FONT][FONT=&quot]over all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made heaven and earth.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](Isaiah 37:16 [LXX]) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]κυριε σαβαωθ ο θεος ισραηλ ο καθημενος επι των χερουβιν συ [/FONT][FONT=&quot]θεος [/FONT][FONT=&quot]μονος ει πασης βασιλειας της οικουμενης συ εποιησας τον ουρανον και την γην[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
(Isaiah 37:16 [HiSB]) [/FONT]יְהוָ֨ה צְבָא֜וֹת אֱלֹהֵ֤י יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ יֹשֵׁ֣ב הַכְּרֻבִ֔ים אַתָּה־ ה֤וּא הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ לְבַדְּךָ֔ לְכֹ֖ל מַמְלְכ֣וֹת הָאָ֑רֶץ אַתָּ֣ה עָשִׂ֔יתָ אֶת־ הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֶת־ הָאָֽרֶץ׃
[FONT=&quot](Isaiah 37:16 [NWT]) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]"O Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, sitting upon the cherubs, you alone are the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]true[/FONT][FONT=&quot] God [/FONT][FONT=&quot]of all the kingdoms of the earth. You yourself have made the heavens and the earth[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]

​

[FONT=&quot]Here, YHVH ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]LORD Almighty[/FONT][FONT=&quot],[/FONT][FONT=&quot] O Jehovah[/FONT][FONT=&quot]) is [/FONT][FONT=&quot]θεος[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. Again aranrthrous!!![/FONT]
Note that συ means "you", it isn’t an article.

[FONT=&quot]to be continued...
[/FONT]

 

[Mark2020]

[FONT=&quot]4-[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](Isaiah 41:4[/FONT][FONT=&quot]b[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [NIV]) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]I, the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]LORD[/FONT][FONT=&quot]--with the first of them and with the last--I am he."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](Isaiah 41:4[/FONT][FONT=&quot]b[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [LXX]) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]εγω [/FONT][FONT=&quot]θεος [/FONT][FONT=&quot]πρωτος και εις τα επερχομενα εγω ειμι[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
(Isaiah 41:4[/FONT][FONT=&quot]b[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [HiSB]) [/FONT]אֲנִ֤י יְהוָה֙ רִאשׁ֔וֹן וְאֶת־ אַחֲרֹנִ֖ים אֲנִי־ הֽוּא׃
[FONT=&quot](Isaiah 41:4[/FONT][FONT=&quot]b[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [NWT]) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]"I, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Jehovah[/FONT][FONT=&quot], the First One; and with the last ones I am the same."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Here, YHVH ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]the LORD[/FONT][FONT=&quot], [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Jehovah[/FONT][FONT=&quot]) is translated [/FONT][FONT=&quot]θεος[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. Again anarthrous!!![/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]5-
[/FONT][FONT=&quot](Jeremiah 23:23 [NIV]) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Am I only a [/FONT][FONT=&quot]God [/FONT][FONT=&quot]nearby, declares the LORD, "and not a God far away?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](Jeremiah 23:23 [LXX]) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]θεος [/FONT][FONT=&quot]εγγιζων εγω ειμι λεγει κυριος και ουχι θεος πορρωθεν[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
(Jeremiah 23:23 [HiSB]) [/FONT] הַאֱלֹהֵ֧י מִקָּרֹ֛ב אָ֖נִי נְאֻם־ יְהוָ֑ה וְלֹ֥א אֱלֹהֵ֖י מֵרָחֹֽק׃
[FONT=&quot](Jeremiah 23:23 [NWT]) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]"Am I a [/FONT][FONT=&quot]God [/FONT][FONT=&quot]nearby," is the utterance of Jehovah, "and not a God far away? "[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Again, YHVH ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]the LORD[/FONT][FONT=&quot], [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Jehovah[/FONT][FONT=&quot]) is [/FONT][FONT=&quot]θεος[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. Again anarthrous!!! No definite article!!!
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6-[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](Ezekiel 45:9 [NIV]) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]'This is what [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the Sovereign LORD [/FONT][FONT=&quot]says: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]…[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](Ezekiel 45:9 [LXX]) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]ταδε λεγει [/FONT][FONT=&quot]κυριος θεος [/FONT][FONT=&quot]…[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
(Ezekiel 45:9 [HiSB]) [/FONT] כֹּֽה־ אָמַ֞ר אֲדֹנָ֣י יְהוִ֗ה
[FONT=&quot](Ezekiel 45:9 [NWT]) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]"This is what [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the Sovereign Lord Jehovah [/FONT][FONT=&quot]has said, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]…[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]κυριος θεος[/FONT][FONT=&quot] ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]the Sovereign LORD[/FONT][FONT=&quot]) is anarthrous!!![/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Actually there are many other examples, but I think these examples are enough to show that Anarthrous theos ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]θεος[/FONT][FONT=&quot]) can refer to "God" too, and is not necessarily translated "a god".

to be continued...
[/FONT]

 

[Mark2020]

[FONT=&quot]III) Let’s examine the opposite:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Can [/FONT][FONT=&quot]"ο θεος"[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (with definite article) refer to “a god” and not “God”?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1-[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot](2 Corinthians 4:4 [NIV]) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The god [/FONT][FONT=&quot]of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](2 Corinthians 4:4 [TR]) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]εν οις [/FONT][FONT=&quot]ο θεος [/FONT][FONT=&quot]του αιωνος τουτου ετυφλωσεν τα νοηματα των απιστων εις το μη αυγασαι αυτοις τον φωτισμον του ευαγγελιου της δοξης του χριστου ος εστιν εικων του θεου[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](2 Corinthians 4:4 [NWT]) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]among whom [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the god [/FONT][FONT=&quot]of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Here, "the god", [/FONT][FONT=&quot]is [/FONT][FONT=&quot]ο θεος[/FONT][FONT=&quot], [/FONT][FONT=&quot]with definite article.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2-
[/FONT][FONT=&quot](Isaiah 36:19 [NIV]) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Where are [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the gods [/FONT][FONT=&quot]of Hamath and Arpad? Where are the gods of Sepharvaim? Have they rescued Samaria from my hand?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](Isaiah 36:19 [LXX]) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]που εστιν [/FONT][FONT=&quot]ο θεος [/FONT][FONT=&quot]αιμαθ και αρφαθ και που ο θεος της πολεως σεπφαριμ μη εδυναντο ρυσασθαι σαμαρειαν εκ χειρος μου[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](Isaiah 36:19 [NWT]) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Where are [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the gods [/FONT][FONT=&quot]of Ha'math and Ar'pad? Where are the gods of Seph·ar·va'im? And have they delivered Sa·mar'i·a out of my hand?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Here again, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]ο θεος[/FONT][FONT=&quot] with definite article refers to gods.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]From these examples, we can see that , [/FONT][FONT=&quot]ο θεος ,[/FONT][FONT=&quot]with definite article, can refer to “god” and not “God”[/FONT]


I think so far we have destroyed the "Anarthrous Issue"

to be continued...

 

[Mark2020]

[FONT=&quot]IV) But why is θεος anarthrous in John 1:1c ?

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] Simply put, if John had written: ho theos ēn ho logos (lit., “the God was the Word” making theos definite), he would have been teaching Oneness doctrine (or Modalism)! In other words, the passage would have indicated that “God” in 1:1b (the Father) and “God” in 1:1c (the Word) were the same Person! But semantically, theos is (qualitative), not definite (and surely not indefinite) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]

"Definite" nouns point to the specific identification of someone or something (thus, in 1:1b “the God” identifies the Father) while "qualitative" nouns point to the essence or nature of someone or something. The anarthrous theos indicates exactly as to what John was communicating: As to the Word’s nature (quality), He was fully God, but as to His Person (or specific identity), He was not identified as the Father, but personally distinct from Him: “The Word was with [pros] God.”[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

The Jehovah

 

[Mark2020]

[FONT=&quot]IV) But, why is θεος anarthrous in John 1:1c ? (cont'd)

[/FONT] From "Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament", Daniel B. Wallace.

[FONT=&quot] a. Is [/FONT]Θεός[FONT=&quot] in John 1:1c Indefinite?[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
If [/FONT]θεός[FONT=&quot] were indefinite, we would translate it “a god” (as is done in the New World Translation [NWT]). If so, the theological implication would be some form of polytheism, perhaps suggesting that the Word was merely a secondary god in a pantheon of deities.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

(Isaiah 43:10 [NIV]) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]You are my witnesses, declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

The grammatical argument that the PN here is indefinite is weak. Often, those who argue for such a view (in particular, the translators of the NWT) do so on the sole basis that the term is anarthrous.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]b. Is [/FONT]Θεός[FONT=&quot] in John 1:1c Definite?[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
Grammarians and exegetes since Colwell have taken [/FONT]θεός[FONT=&quot] as definite in John 1:1c. However, their basis has usually been a misunderstanding of Colwell’s rule. They have understood the rule to say that an anarthrous pre-verbal PN will usually be definite (rather than the converse). But Colwell’s rule states that a PN which is probably definite as determined from the context which precedes a verb will usually be anarthrous. If we check the rule to see if it applies here, we would say that the previous mention of [/FONT]θεός [FONT=&quot](in 1:1b) is articular. Therefore, if the same person being referred to there is called [/FONT]θεός[FONT=&quot] in 1:1c, then in both places it is definite. Although certainly possible grammatically (though not nearly as likely as qualitative), the evidence is not very compelling. The vast majority of definite anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives are monadic, in genitive constructions, or are proper names, none of which is true here, diminishing the likelihood of a definite [/FONT]θεός[FONT=&quot] in John 1:1c.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]c. Is [/FONT]Θεός[FONT=&quot] in John 1:1c Qualitative?[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The most likely candidate for [/FONT]θεός[FONT=&quot] is qualitative. This is true both grammatically (for the largest proportion of pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives fall into this category) and theologically (both the theology of the Fourth Gospel and of the NT as a whole). There is a balance between the Word’s deity, which was already present in the beginning ([/FONT]ἐν ἀρχῇ [FONT=&quot]…[/FONT] θεὸς ἦν[FONT=&quot] [1:1], and his humanity, which was added later ([/FONT]σὰρξ ἐγένετο[FONT=&quot] [1:14]). The grammatical structure of these two statements mirrors each other; both emphasize the nature of the Word, rather than his identity. But [/FONT]θεός[FONT=&quot] was his nature from eternity (hence, [/FONT]εἰμὶ[FONT=&quot] is used), while [/FONT]σάρξ[FONT=&quot] was added at the incarnation (hence, [/FONT]γίνομαι[FONT=&quot] is used).[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Such an option does not at all impugn the deity of Christ. Rather, it stresses that, although the person of Christ is not the person of the Father, their essence is identical.

The idea of a qualitative [/FONT]θεός[FONT=&quot] here is that the Word had all the attributes and qualities that “the God” (of 1:1b) had. In other words, he shared the essence of the Father, though they differed in person. The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[Mark2020]

[FONT=&quot]V) Conclusions[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1. An anarthrous theos [/FONT][FONT=&quot](θεο&#962[/FONT][FONT=&quot] can actually refer to God.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
2. Articled theos [/FONT][FONT=&quot](ο θεο&#962[/FONT][FONT=&quot] does not always refer to God.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]3. θεος in John 1:1c is qualitative, not indefinite.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot](John 1:1 [TR]) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot](John 1:1 [NIV]) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]In the end, I’ll leave you with my favorite translation of this verse:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]John 1 Aramaic Bible in Plain English[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot](John 1:1)[/FONT]
In the origin The Word had been existing, and That Word had been existing with God, and That Word was himself God.

 

[Gaura Priya]

Jehovah is God!

 

[Looncall]

[FONT=&quot]V) Conclusions[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1. An anarthrous theos [/FONT][FONT=&quot](θεο&#962[/FONT][FONT=&quot] can actually refer to God.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
2. Articled theos [/FONT][FONT=&quot](ο θεο&#962[/FONT][FONT=&quot] does not always refer to God.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]3. θεος in John 1:1c is qualitative, not indefinite.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot](John 1:1 [TR]) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot](John 1:1 [NIV]) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]In the end, I’ll leave you with my favorite translation of this verse:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]John 1 Aramaic Bible in Plain English[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot](John 1:1)[/FONT]
In the origin The Word had been existing, and That Word had been existing with God, and That Word was himself God.

... whatever. it still makes no sense.

 

[Pegg]

John 1:1 Anarthrous Theos: The Big Lie

​

"and the Word was God"
​

​

[FONT=&quot](John 1:1 [TR]) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot](John 1:1 [NIV]) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The NWT renders it:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot](John 1:1 [NWT]) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]In [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the[/FONT][FONT=&quot] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The argument given for using “a god” is:[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Since [/FONT][FONT=&quot]θεον [/FONT][FONT=&quot](in John 1:1b) is preceded by the definite article [/FONT][FONT=&quot]τον[/FONT][FONT=&quot], [/FONT][FONT=&quot]it is translated “God”, thus referring to the one true God.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]And Since[/FONT][FONT=&quot] θεος[/FONT][FONT=&quot] ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]in John 1:1c) isn’t preceded by a definite article (anarthrous), it is translated “a god”, thus implying that “the Word” or “[/FONT][FONT=&quot]ο λογος[/FONT][FONT=&quot]” is not God, only a god.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So, what should it be? "God" or "a god"?[/FONT]

the fact that the Greek language of the first century did not have an indefinite article (“a” or “an&#8221 does leave the matter open to question, there is no doubt about that. I've always said it could be written either way and still be correct for the greek language.

I want to take a different approach for a change. Bare with me for a moment, We all know that the trinity doctrine began to developed 3/4th century...imagine if we had a non greek translation of the earliest manuscripts from around that time.....we could compare how the translators from before the trinity era understood John 1:1 by how they translated it.






I have some good news for you Mark.... we have such an early translation of the greek from which to compare.





The translation is written in Sahidic dialect of Coptic. The Coptic language was spoken in Egypt in the centuries immediately following Jesus’ earthly ministry, and the Sahidic dialect was an early literary form of the language. Both the Greek Septuagint and the Christian Greek Scriptures were being translated into Coptic during the 3d century C.E., its based on the oldest greek manuscripts.

Its unique because it reflects an understanding of Scripture dating from before the fourth century, which was when the Trinity became official doctrine. And Coptic grammar is very similar to English grammar in one important aspect....it uses both definite and indefinite articles in the same way our english does.




So do you want to see how the the verse is translated into Coptic in the pre-trinitarian era?


In the beginning existed the Word
and the Word existed with the God
and a god was the Word

Coptic versions on wiki

Coptic translation of John 1:1-14


All we need to know is how the early christian translators understood what John meant.... and now we do. :yes:

 

[Mark2020]

Coptic John 1:1

Bohairic dialect:
(John 1:1)
ϧⲉⲛ `ⲧⲁⲣⲭⲏ ⲛⲉ ⲡⲓⲥⲁϫⲓ ⲡⲉ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲡⲓⲥⲁϫⲓ ⲛⲁϥⲭⲏ ϧⲁⲧⲉⲛ ⲫϯ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲛⲉ ⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩϯ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲓⲥⲁϫⲓ

Sahidic dialect:
(John 1:1)
ϨΝ ΤΕϨΟΥΕΙΤΕ ΝΕϤϢΟΟΠ ΝϬΙ ΠϢΑϪΕ ΑΥШ ΠϢΑϪΕ ΝΕϤϢΟΟΠ ΝΝΑϨΡΜ ΠΝΟΥΤΕ ΑΥШ ΝΕΥΝΟΥΤΕ ΠΕ ΠϢΑϪΕ.

Unlike Greek, Coptic has an indefinite article. However, this indefinite article doesn't correspond to the 'a' in English, as will be seen here.
Both Bohairic and Sahidic have the indefinite article ⲟⲩ, though in Sahidic it is contracted with ΝΕ into ΝΕΥ.

Actually this strengthens our understanding of the Qualitative [as in Greek].
We will see why:

One of the uses of the indefinite article in Coptic language is to denote a qualitative noun.

Qualitative, as in Greek, points to nature, essence or quality, not identity.

Examples:
1-
(1 John 1:5 [NIV]) God is light
(1 John 1:5 [coptic]) ⲫϯ ⲟⲩⲟⲩⲱⲓⲛⲓ ⲡⲉ (efnouti ou'ou'oini pe)
(1 John 1:5 [TR]) ο θεος φως εστιν

We see that the Greek word for light (φως) is anarthrous (without article). It is qualitative.
We don't translate it "God is a light", but simply "God is light".

In Coptic, the word ⲟⲩⲟⲩⲱⲓⲛⲓ has an indefinite article ⲟⲩ.
We can see that the noun here is qualitative not indefinite, despite the use of the indefinite article.

2-
(1 John 4:8 [NIV]) God is love.
(1 John 4:8 [coptic]) ⲫϯ ⲟⲩⲁⲅⲁⲡⲏ ⲡⲉ (efnouti ouaghapi pe)
(1 John 4:8 [TR]) ο θεος αγαπη εστιν

Again Greek αγαπη is anarthrous (no article).
Coptic ⲟⲩⲁⲅⲁⲡⲏ has the indefinite article ⲟⲩ.

God is love (not "a love")
The nouns αγαπη/ⲟⲩⲁⲅⲁⲡⲏ here are qualitative too.

So we've seen that the Coptic language strengthens our understanding that θεος in John 1:1c is qualitative.

I think thus far we have destroyed the Coptic Anarthrous issue too.

But let's go one step further:
It is noted from the link supplied in the previous post to the Coptic version, that the author of the website stopped at verse 14.

Anyone wonders why?

Here's why:
If we proceed to verse 18, we will find:

Bohairic:
(John 1:18) ⲫϯ `ⲙⲡⲉ `ϩⲗⲓ ⲛⲁⲩ `ⲉⲣⲟϥ `ⲉⲛⲉϩ ⲡⲓⲙⲟⲛⲟⲅⲉⲛⲏⲥ `ⲛⲛⲟⲩϯ ⲫⲏ ⲉⲧⲭⲏ ϧⲉⲛ ⲕⲉⲛϥ `ⲙⲡⲉϥⲓⲱⲧ `ⲛⲑⲟϥ ⲡⲉⲧⲁϥⲥⲁϫⲓ
ⲡⲓⲙⲟⲛⲟⲅⲉⲛⲏⲥ `ⲛⲛⲟⲩϯ : The only begotten God
Yes, there is a definite article ⲡⲓ.
It's basically like the Greek μονογενης θεος but with a definite article.

Sahidic:
(John 1:18) ΠΝΟΥΤΕ ΜΠΕΛΑΑΥ ΝΑΥ ΕΡΟϤ ΕΝΕϨ. ΠΝΟΥΤΕ ΠϢΗΡΕ ΝΟΥШΤ ΠΕΤϢΟΟΠ ϨΝ ΚΟΥΝϤ ΜΠΕϤΕΙШΤ Π ΕΤΜΜΑΥ ΠΕ ΝΤΑϤϢΑϪΕ ΕΡΟϤ.

ΠΝΟΥΤΕ ΠϢΗΡΕ ΝΟΥШΤ: God the Son the One and Only
ΠΝΟΥΤΕ: God with the definite article Π.

So we can see that both the Bohairic and Sahidic versions show the Divinity of the Son.


(John 1:1 [NIV])
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ​

 

[Mark2020]

Whistle while you spam

dededede

I've simply got enough of the boring "anarthrous issue " that we keep seeing over and over on this board, so I tried to answer it and show that it is a just big lie.
Note that only the two posts with references (the website and the book) are copied. The rest is my work.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Folks, look at the word order:

(John 1:1 [TR]) [FONT=&quot]εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot](John 1:1 [NIV]) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]

The reason why in Greek is "and God was the Word" is translated "the Word was God" is because "the Word" has an article and "God" doesn't.

Both words are in the nominative case, which means that either word could be the subject of the sentence. But since "Logos" is both nominative and has the article, the writer signals which word is the subject - "the Word was God."

If "God" had the article - as well as "Word," then word order determines the subject. Then the sentence would read "God was the Word" which is not only theologically problematic but it doesn't flow with the rest of the sentence, which is focused on defining what the Word is.... not what God is.

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

I agree with you, Mark.

 

[Shermana]

Colwell's "rule" is not a rule. There are no other cases where it actually applies, plenty of cases where it definitely does NOT apply, and it was made up just for John 1:1C, and few if any outside of Evangelicals accept it.

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/def-part-2.html

6 But notice what Colwell himself really said. Colwell published his rule in a 1933 JBL article entitled, "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament." In that article he wrote: "A predicate nominative [or predicate noun] which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a `qualitative' noun solely because of the absence of the article; if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun in spite of the absence of the article." - p. 20, JBL, 1933, vol. 52.

Nowhere did Colwell ever say that all (nor even most) predicate nouns that precede the verb in NT Greek are definite nouns. Not any inviolable rule of NT Greek grammar, but context alone, says Colwell, must guide the translator in such cases. And, as we have already seen (and according to some of the best trinitarian scholars themselves - see the QUAL study), the context of John 1:1 makes it clear that if the Word were with the God of the Bible he could not himself be that God. Even context alone makes it certain that John meant "the Word was a god."

7 But let's return to the trinitarian misinterpretation of Colwell's Rule: "a predicate noun that has no definite article must be considered definite anyway when it comes before the verb in NT Greek."

One of the first things a beginning student of New Testament Greek learns is that word order has very little, if any, significance as far as the meaning is concerned. (This is especially true when one is examining nominative case nouns - see the THEON study.) For example, respected NT Greek authorities, Dr. Alfred Marshall and Prof. J. Gresham Machen tell us in their NT Greek primers that, unlike English, NT Greek does not use word order to convey meanings but instead uses the individual endings on each word (inflections).

"The English translation must be determined by observing the [Greek word] endings, not by observing the [word] order." - New Testament Greek for Beginners, Machen, p. 27. (cf. New Testament Greek Primer, Marshall, pp. 7, 22 and p. 417, A. T. Robertson.)

And in a later example illustrating predicate nouns Prof. Machen gave this example: "ho apostolos anthropos estin [word-for-word translation: `the apostle man is']," and he translated that sentence (which has an anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb as in John 1:1c) as "the apostle is a man." - p. 50, New Testament Greek For Beginners, The Macmillan Company, 1951. Also see p. 148, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, where trinitarians Dana and Mantey translate an example they admit is parallel to John 1:1c as "And the place was a market," The Macmillan Company (see PRIMER pp. 1-2 for similar examples).[6]

8 But even if you haven't even begun studying NT Greek, you can prove the trinitarian misinterpretation of Colwell's Rule to be completely false simply by actually going through the Gospel of John in a Greek-English Interlinear New Testament and finding all the places where a predicate noun precedes the be verb. (Skim through and find all the `be' verbs, then see if there is a predicate noun that has no definite article coming before that verb. Then check all Bible translations to see if that predicate noun is translated with a definite article or not.) - For a detailed examination of all proper examples (those most equivalent to Jn 1:1c) see the Appendix of this paper.

 

[Mark2020]

Colwell's "rule" is not a rule...

And who cares about Colwell's rule?

 

[Shermana]

Just thought I'd add to what Wallace was saying about it, he doesn't seem to know the difference between "Some kind of Polytheism" and Henotheism which Israelite faith is. I wonder if he's aware that "Elohim" is translated as "Angels" in the Septuagint for Psalm 8:5. Or that it says "god of the gods" in Psalm 136:2.

[FONT="]a. Is [/FONT]Θεός[FONT="] in John 1:1c Indefinite?[/FONT][FONT="]
If [/FONT]θεός[FONT="] were indefinite, we would translate it “a god” (as is done in the New World Translation [NWT]). If so, the theological implication would be some form of polytheism, perhaps suggesting that the Word was merely a secondary god in a pantheon of deities.[/FONT]

Without Colwell's "rule", you are left with merely Theological issues, not grammatical. And just because your Theology doesn't allow the concept of other "gods", doesn't mean you're right. It's a gross misunderstanding to say there are no other gods, versus "The" god of whom there is no equal or superior or one before. What need is there for the article then?
So as you can see, this "Grammarian" Daniel Wallace's only complaint is Theological. He even wants to use "Divine", but where else would Theos possibly translate as "Divine"?

 

[Mark2020]

Just thought I'd add to...

You don't know what you are talking about.
I think you didn't even read the topic. You just answer giving useless material.

 

[Mark2020]

[FONT=&quot]Tha[/FONT][FONT=&quot]t's the problem of having to take only part of the quote.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

[FONT="]
a. Is [/FONT]Θεός[FONT="] in John 1:1c Indefinite?[/FONT][FONT="]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
If [/FONT]θεός[FONT=&quot] were indefinite, we would translate it “a god” (as is done in the New World Translation [NWT]). If so, the theological implication would be some form of polytheism, perhaps suggesting that the Word was merely a secondary god in a pantheon of deities.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

(Isaiah 43:10 [NIV]) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]You are my witnesses, declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

The grammatical argument that the PN here is indefinite is weak. Often, those who argue for such a view (in particular, the translators of the NWT) do so on the sole basis that the term is anarthrous. Yet they are inconsistent, as R. H. Countess pointed out:[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
In the New Testament there are 282 occurrences of the anarthrous [/FONT]θεός. At sixteen places NWT has either a god, god, gods, or godly. Sixteen out of 282 means that the translators were faithful to their[FONT=&quot] translation principle only six percent of the time. …[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The first section of John-1:1–18-furnishes a lucid example of NWT arbitrary dogmatism. [/FONT]Θεός[FONT=&quot] occurs eight times-verses 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, 18-and has the article only twice-verses 1, 2. Yet NWT six times translated “God,” once “a god,” and once “the god.”[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
If we expand the discussion to other anarthrous terms in the Johannine Prologue, we notice other inconsistencies in the NWT: It is interesting that the New World Translation renders [/FONT]θεός[FONT=&quot] as “a god” on the simplistic grounds that it lacks the article. This is surely an insufficient basis. Following the “anarthrous = indefinite” principle would mean that [/FONT]ἀρχῇ[FONT=&quot] should be “a beginning” (1:1, 2), [/FONT]ζωὴ[FONT=&quot] should be “a life” (1:4), [/FONT]παρὰ θεοῦ[FONT=&quot] should be “from a god” (1:6), [/FONT]Ἰωάννης [FONT=&quot]should be “a John” (1:6), [/FONT]θεόν[FONT=&quot] should be “a god” (1:18), etc. Yet none of these other anarthrous nouns is rendered with an indefinite article. One can only suspect strong theological bias in such a translation.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
According to Dixon’s study, if [/FONT]θεός[FONT=&quot] were indefinite in John 1:1, it would be the only anarthrous pre-verbal PN in John’s Gospel to be so. Although we have argued that this is somewhat overstated, the general point is valid: The indefinite notion is the most poorly attested for anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives. Thus, grammatically such a meaning is improbable. Also, the context suggests that such is not likely, for the Word already existed in the beginning. Thus, contextually and grammatically, it is highly improbable that the Logos could be “a god” according to John. Finally, the evangelist’s own theology militates against this view, for there is an exalted Christology in the Fourth Gospel, to the point that Jesus Christ is identified as God (cf. 5:23; 8:58; 10:30; 20:28, etc.).[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[Shermana]

Isaiah 43:10 is a tricky verse. "Before me there is no god formed", no problem there, since he is the "god of the gods". The "And after me there is none" means, there will be no other like me.

http://concordances.org/hebrew/310.htm "After"

Otherwise, Psalm 136:2 contradicts. Also your source seems to fail to understand that personal names are not the same.

Young's Literal Translation
Ye are My witnesses, an affirmation of Jehovah, And My servant whom I have chosen, So that ye know and give credence to Me, And understand that I am He, Before Me there was no God formed, And after Me there is none.

 

[Mark2020]

Isaiah 43:10 is a tricky verse....

Your poor arguments only show how weak your position is.
I understand, my friend, since your cool anarthrous argument is destroyed. RIP.

Anyway,
(Isaiah 43:10 [HiSB]) אַתֶּ֤ם עֵדַי֙ נְאֻם־ יְהוָ֔ה וְעַבְדִּ֖י אֲשֶׁ֣ר בָּחָ֑רְתִּי לְמַ֣עַן תֵּ֠דְעוּ וְתַאֲמִ֨ינוּ לִ֤י וְתָבִ֙ינוּ֙ כִּֽי־ אֲנִ֣י ה֔וּא לְפָנַי֙ לֹא־ נ֣וֹצַר אֵ֔ל וְאַחֲרַ֖י לֹ֥א יִהְיֶֽה׃ ס
(Isaiah 43:10 [KJV]) Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
You just had to add your words "like me" to suit you.