And the Word was God

[SallyF]

John 1 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

This oft-pounced-on passage does not SAY that the "Word" is Jesus.

That notion is just one of the many things in Christianity where one must adopt a very serious tone and expression, and give sage noddings of the head, and declare with grave asseveration, that the passage MUST be referring to Jesus.

But, like many biblical passages, it's deliciously and deliberately non-specific: which adds a spicy tingle to the hide and seek played in the Great Game of Pretend called Christianity.

Given that the passage does not name Jesus, are there other heroes form the Jewish folklore that may have been considered the "Word" in Jesus' own time …?

[SallyF]

Member Difflugia wrote in another thread:

Matthew's whole infancy was written to make Jesus into Moses.

It looks suspiciously like the propagandists who wrote "John" were doing the same thing.

[tigger2]

Difflugia wrote:

There are only three cases of θεὸς appearing without a definite article in John, including 1:1. The other two are in [1:1c,] 1:18 (referring to Jesus) and 8:54, which refers to God the Father (exactly how is ambiguous, the sense could either mean "our God" or "our god [among the gods]").

Now you can answer my question. Where is there a nominative θεὸς in John, with or without an article, that doesn't refer to God the Father (or Jesus, since you're arguing that the only way to read John 1:1 is that Jesus and God are not identical)?

The point is that numerous distinguished trinitarian NT Grammar experts list (among a few other exceptions to the rule) 'prepositional' constructions as being ambiguous in article usage. That is, the use or non-use of the article in such usage is to be understood as EITHER definite or indefinite "only context can tell." These would include 'man of God,' 'son to me,' 'house for him,' etc.

We should also understand that when John uses a single count noun as a nominative (subject or P.N.), 'a' or 'an' is understood to be with it when translated into English.

John 4:19 - indefinite (“a prophet�)
John 6:70 - indefinite (“a devil�/“a slanderer�)
John 8:44 - indefinite (“a murderer�/“a manslayer�)
John 8:48 - indefinite (“a Samaritan�)
John 9:24 - indefinite (“a sinner�)
John 10:1 - indefinite (“a thief and a plunderer�)
John 10:33 - indefinite (“a man�)
John 18:35 - indefinite (“a Jew�)
John 18:37 (a) - indefinite (“a king�)
and more.

There are 17 uses of nominative theos in the Gospel of John and 13 in 1st John. John 1:18 uses 1 nominative theos (or possibly huios) and that refers to Jesus.

Of the 17 in John only one without the article appears to apply to God: John 8:54 ("god of you"). And if you will look at one of the exceptions above, you will see that it is 'prepositional': However, context makes it clear that 'the god' (the Father) is understood.

In 1st John all 13 uses of theos have the article and are applied to the Father, the only true God.

So out of 30 uses of theos by John, two actually apply to Jesus and 1 is anarthrous but is one of the exceptions to article usage. Not one with the article applies to Jesus! John, like all the other Gospel writers, always uses ho theos for God!

Note: John 1:18 is a disputed scripture. Trinitarian scholars and translators themselves are divided as to whether the original writing here was an anarthrous or articular “only-begotten son (huios)� or an anarthrous or articular “only-begotten theos.�

If it were an articular “only-begotten theos,� then, perhaps, we could render it as “the only-begotten God� (although the modifier “only-begotten� would preclude it being the eternal God who had no beginning). If, however, John did intend to write “only-begotten god,� to agree with the opening of his Prologue (“the Word was a god�), how would he write it in the NT Greek? The answer can only be an anarthrous “only-begotten theos�!

John always used the article with theos (ho theos) to mean 'God.' So we should consider the probability that he followed the same usage at John 1:1c (ho theos = God; theos = a god.)

[Difflugia]

There are 17 uses of nominative theos in the Gospel of John and 13 in 1st John.

Your argument is the same without it, but 1 John (and 2 John and 3 John) were likely written by a different author than John's Gospel. From the New Oxford Annotated Bible introduction to 1 John:

The anonymous author was identified as the fourth evangelist by the end of the second century CE (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.17; Muratorian Canon, lines 26–31; Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.16.5). Since the Gospel was attributed to John the son of Zebedee, early Christian writers concluded that he wrote 1 John near the end of a long life (Jn 21.22–23). Modern scholars have a more complex view of the development of the Johannine community and its writings. The opening verses of 1 John employ a first-person plural “we� as witnesses to the truth revealed in Jesus (1 Jn 1.1–4). That “we� probably refers to a circle of teachers faithful to the apostolic testimony of the Beloved Disciple and the evangelist. A prominent member of that group composed this instruction as well as the letters 2 and 3 John.

John always used the article with theos (ho theos) to mean 'God.' So we should consider the probability that he followed the same usage at John 1:1c (ho theos = God; theos = a god.)

I do consider it, as I said before. I simply don't consider it alone. I consider it possible, if for no other reason than I think it's reasonably likely that the Prologue (1:1-18) was added later by another author with a different Christology than the evangelist.

The main deficiency that I see in your argument is that the construct in 1:1c is unique. Your argument is based on the apparent intent when John does use a definite article, but what you need to show is that when John lacks a definite article with a predicate nominative, then an indefinite article is always assumed. My understanding of the Koine, and here I must rely on the scholarship of others, is that had John constructed the Greek the way you think it should be with a definite article (καὶ � θεὸς ἦν � λόγος), it would be ambiguous as to which was the subject and which the predicate. Perhaps you're right and a Koine reader would know to read based on word order, such that καὶ � λόγος ἦν � θεὸς would be what John would have written had he meant "and the Word was God." The only ones I see making that argument, however, are Witnesses. Once again, I don't think you're necessarily wrong, but I also don't think the case has been made that you're necessarily (or even probably) right.

I'll leave you with a relevant paragraph from Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology:

The translation "the Word was God" has been challenged by the Jehovah's Witnesses, who translate it "the Word was a god," implying that the Word was simply a heavenly being but not fully divine. They justify this translation by pointing to the fact that the definite article(Gk. ho, "the") does not occur before the Greek word theos ("God"). They say therefore that theos should be translated "a god." However, their interpretation has been followed by no recognized Greek scholar anywhere, for it is commonly known that the sentence follows a regular rule of Greek grammar, and the absence of the definite article merely indicates that "God" is the predicate rather than the subject of the sentence. (A recent publication by the Jehovah's Witnesses now acknowledges the relevant grammatical rule but continues to affirm their position on John 1:1 nonetheless.)

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 22 by tigger2]

Which says to me …

Given that we are reading biased, biographical propaganda with magic stuff happening in it …

And not a soul demonstrates that any version of "God" had anything to do with so much as a word of it …

And the biblical Jehovah is as real as a fairy or Osiris or Krishna …

It says to me that the propagandists were being deliberately guileful.

They could have used names.

All gods have names.

They could have used a name instead of "The Word".

But no …

We have smoke and mirrors and peek-a-boo and Christian chicanery.

I suspect that the propagandists were trying to sell their guy to the pro-Moses Pharisee faction as a new Moses, in the promotional pamphlet known as "John".

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 23 by Difflugia]

Difflugia apparently has not understood that I have written about two different things in my posts: 1. John's use of the article with nominative theos whenever 'God' is intended, and 2. the not so 'unique' use of constructions truly parallel to that of John 1:1c (anarthrous Greek p.n. before verb with p.n. translated as indefinite with indefinite article.)

Yes, we don't need to analyze first John, but I find that many NT Greek scholars do include it among the writings of the writer of the fourth Gospel. And I wonder what edition he has of the New Oxford Annotated Bible. My copy says in the intro to 1 John: "The close kinship between these letters (1-3 John) and the Fourth Gospel in vocabulary, literary style, and theological ideas indicates that they came from the same pen." - The New Oxford Annotated Bible With The Apocrypha, Oxford University Press, 1977.

Difflugia post #23 wrote:

"The main deficiency that I see in your argument is that the construct in 1:1c is unique."

[If you would read my post carefully, you would see that the nine examples I gave are truly parallel to John 1:1c (anarthrous predicate nominative before the verb) and are translated with indefinite articles. There are many more.]

"Your argument is based on the apparent intent when John does use a definite article, but what you need to show is that when John lacks a definite article with a predicate nominative, then an indefinite article is always assumed."

[That is exactly what my abbreviated list and my studies (links previously given) show. Can you show me as many proper examples of the definite article being required in truly parallel examples of John 1:1c?]

"My understanding of the Koine, and here I must rely on the scholarship of others, is that had John constructed the Greek the way you think it should be with a definite article (καὶ � θεὸς ἦν � λόγος), it would be ambiguous as to which was the subject and which the predicate. Perhaps you're right and a Koine reader would know to read based on word order, such that καὶ � λόγος ἦν � θεὸς would be what John would have written had he meant "and the Word was God." The only ones I see making that argument, however, are Witnesses. Once again, I don't think you're necessarily wrong, but I also don't think the case has been made that you're necessarily (or even probably) right."

[The only reason the predicate noun is most often indefinite is that is it the way we normally use p.n.s (from specific to indefinite): "the girl is a nurse" not "a nurse is the girl." There's no predicate noun rule for this, it's just common usage.

Notice that when the writer of the 4th Gospel wanted the article understood, he actually wrote it down: John 1:21; 20:15; 21:7a; 21:7b; 21:12. John 1:21, is especially relevant. If he hadn't used the definite article ('the prophet are you'), the understanding would have been "are you a prophet?" Compare John 4:19 ('prophet are you'). ]

"The only ones I see making that argument, however, are Witnesses."

[Other non-trinitarians also use that fact. Even a few trinitarians are brave enough to make a partial admission (including the various exceptions for ambiguous examples - list available in my studies):

W. E. Vine, (although, for obvious reasons, he and the rest of the trinitarian scholars listed here, choose not to accept it as the proper interpretation) admits that the literal translation of John 1:1c is: “a god was the Word�. - p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983 printing.

Professor C. H. Dodd, director of the New English Bible project, also admits this is a proper literal translation:

“A possible translation [for John 1:1c] ... would be, ‘The Word was a god.’ As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.� - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, vol. 28, Jan. 1977.

Rev. J. W. Wenham wrote in a footnote in his The Elements of New Testament Greek: “Therefore as far as grammar alone is concerned, such a sentence could be printed: θεὸς �στιν � λόγος, which would mean either, ‘The Word is a god’, or, ‘The Word is the god’.� - p. 35, Cambridge University Press, 1965.

(Of course if you carefully examine the studies given in my links, you will find that the grammar really shows that ‘The Word is [or “was� in John 1:1c] a god’ is what John intended.)

Prof. Murray J. Harris also admits that grammatically John 1:1c may be properly translated, ‘the Word was a god,’ Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.

And Dr. J. D. BeDuhn in his Truth in Translation states about John 1:1c:

“ ‘And the Word was a god.’ The preponderance of evidence from Greek grammar… supports this translation.� - p. 132, University Press of America, Inc., 2003.

Dr. Robert Young admits that a more literal translation of John 1:1c is “and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word� - p. 54, (‘New Covenant’ section), Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, 1977 printing.

And respected trinitarian scholar, author, and Bible translator, Dr. William Barclay wrote: “You could translate [John 1:1c], so far as the Greek goes: ‘the Word was a God’.� - p. 205, Ever yours, edited by C. L. Rawlins, Labarum Publ., 1985.

You see, in ancient times many of God’s servants had no qualms about using the word “god� or “gods� for godly men, kings, judges, and even angels.]