The Anarthrous God of John 1.1

[TFTn5280]

Hey PneumaPsucheSoma, this is Thomas. I have been following your comments on the subtleties between articular nouns in the Greek language (nouns which are accompanied with the definite article, "the" in English) and anarthrous nouns (nouns unaccompanied by a definite article). I appreciate the effort you have put into helping others, myself included, understand the importance of those subtleties to a sound and solid interpretation of the New Testament. Thank you.

I have a question for you if you are willing to accommodate my asking. In the Gospel of John 1.1, John references God (Theos) two times, once in a prepositional phrase and the other in the structure of a predicate nominative. In the prepositional phrase "Theon" (Theos in the accusative case) is articular (ton Theon), but in the predicate nominative "Theos" is anarthrous. I will supply a very literal translation below so readers can see what I mean. May I ask you: What, in your estimation, is the significance of John electing to construct his statement this way; in other words, why the anarthrous Theos in this verse? I'll await your reply.

John 1.1: "In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God (articular noun), and God (anarthrous noun) was the Word."

 

[Lon]

Here is a very good article though it might be a bit technical for some, yet, it is all in English so one can wade through it and understand the gist of this translation as well as why it was necessary for John to have not included the definite article the second time as he does in the first part of the sentence.

In a nutshell, it is not an indefinite article, just not a definite one as to be one and the same as modalism.

So, neither modal, nor another god.

See also here: generally, anarthrous Greek nouns have a change in ending but context drives translation else we'd have no way to adequately convey a Greek point in English well.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The case that the subject is in is the nominative case.

A verb that equates the subject with something else, e.g., is, requires another noun in the nominative case, that is the predicate nominative.

"AMR is a man." "AMR" is the subject, "man" is the predicate nominative.

When using English, the subject and predicate nominative are found by their word order, the subject coming first.

However, when using Greek, word order is not as strict, in fact, in the Greek word order is used for emphasis moreso that some grammatical function. Accordingly, distinguishing the subject from the predicate nominative uses other means. For example, in the Greek having two nouns, if one of them has the definite article, that noun is the subject.

In the Greek having a word cast at the front of a clause is done for emphasis. A predicate nominative in front of a verb is an emphatic indication, as in John 1:1, wherein the English is usually rendered and the Word was God. If we look at the Greek, the word order is actually reversed, reading:

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
and God was the Word.

Note the definite article, so we know from the above that the Word is the subject and translate the Greek per that, and the Word was God.

Note also that θεός has no article and its placement. This placement points us to the quality and essence at play, that quality and essence could be rendered: What God was, the Word was. The absence of an article for θεός prevents us from identifying the Person of the Word (Our Lord Jesus Christ) with the Person of God the Father. This emphatic word order teaches Jesus Christ having all the attributes of divinity that God the Father has. Absence of the definite article teaches us that Our Lord is not God the Father.

Martin Luther observed how the lack of an article for theos and word order prevents Sabellianism and Arianism:

Spoiler

In Luther's Sermon for the Principal Christmas Service: Christ's Titles of Honor; His Coming: His Incarnation; and the Revelation of His Glory (taken from John 1:1-14)...

On Arianism
The Arian heretics intended to draw a mist over this clear passage and to bore a hole into heaven, since they could not surmount it, and said that this Word of God was indeed God, not by nature, however, but by creation. They said that all things were created by it, but it had also been created previously, and after that all things were created by it. This they said from their own imagination without any authority from the Scriptures, because they left the simple words of the Scriptures and followed their own fancies.

Therefore I have said that he who desires to proceed safely on firm ground, must have no regard for the many subtle and hair-splitting words and fancies, but must cling to the simple, powerful, and explicit words of Scripture, and he will be secure. We shall also see how St. John anticipated these same heretics and refuted them in their subterfuges and fabrications.

Therefore we have here in the Books of Moses the real gold mine, from which everything that is written in the New Testament concerning the divinity of Christ has been taken. Here you may see from what source the gospel of St. John is taken, and upon what it is founded; and therefore it is easy to understand.

This is the source of the passage in Ps. 33, 6: "By the Word of Jehovah the heavens were made." Solomon in beautiful words describes the wisdom of God, Prov. 3, 22, saying that this wisdom bad been in God before all things; and he takes his thoughts from this chapter of Moses. So almost all the prophets have worked in this mine and have dug their treasures from it.

But there are other passages by this same Moses concerning the Holy Ghost, as for example in Gen. 1,2: "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Thus the Spirit of God must also be something different from him who breathes him into existence, sends him forth, and yet he must be before all creatures. Again, Moses says in Gen. 1, 28-31: "God blessed the creatures, beheld them, and was pleased with them." This benediction and favorable contemplation of the creatures point to the Holy Ghost, since the Scriptures attribute to him life and mercy. But these passages are not so well developed as those which refer to the Son; consequently they are not so prominent. The ore is still halfway in the mines, so that these passages can easily be believed, if reason is so far in subjection as to believe that there are two persons. If anyone will take the time and trouble to compare the passages of the New Testament referring to the Holy Ghost with this text of Moses, he will find much light, as well as pleasure.

Now we must open wide our hearts and understanding, so as to look upon these words not as the insignificant, perishable words of man, but think of them as being as great as he is who speaks them. It is a Word which he speaks of himself, which remains in him, and is never separated from him. Therefore according to the thought of the Apostle, we must consider how God speaks with himself and to himself, and how the Word proceeds from within himself. However, this Word is not an empty sound, but brings with it the whole essence of the divine nature. Reference has been made in the Epistle to the brightness of his glory and the image of his person, which constitute the divine nature, so that it accompanies the image in its entirety and thus becomes the very image itself. In the same manner God of himself also utters his Word, so that the whole Godhead accompanies the Word and in its nature remains in, and essentially is, the Word.

Behold, here we see whence the Apostle has taken his language, when he calls Christ an image of the divine essence, and the brightness of divine glory. He takes it from this text of Moses, when he says that God spoke the Word of himself; this can be nothing else than an image that represents him, since every word is a sign which means something. But here the thing signified is by its very nature in the sign or in the Word, which is not in any other sign. Therefore he very properly calls it a real image or sign of his nature.

The word of man may also in this connection be used in a measure as an illustration; for by it the human heart is known. Thus we commonly say: I understand his heart or intentions, when we have only heard his words; as out of the fullness of the heart the mouth speaks, and from the word the heart is known, as though it were in the word. In consequence of this experience the heathen had a saying: Qualis quisque est talia loquitur. (As a man speaks, so is he). Again: Oratio est character animi (Speech is an image of the heart). When the heart is pure it utters pure words, when it is impure it utters impure words. With this also corresponds the gospel of Matthew, 12, 34, where Christ says: "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." And again, "How can ye, being evil, speak good things?" Also John the Baptist says, John 3, 31: "He that is of the earth is of the earth, and of the earth he speaketh." The Germans also have a proverb: "Of what the heart is full, overfloweth out of the mouth." The bird is known by its song, for it sings according to its nature. Therefore all the world knows that nothing represents the condition of the heart so perfectly and so positively as the words of the mouth, just as though the heart were in the word.

Thus it is also with God. His word is so much like himself, that the Godhead is wholly in it, and be who has the word has the whole Godhead. But this comparison has its limits. For the human word does not carry with it the essence or the nature of the heart, but simply its meaning, or is a sign of the heart, just as a woodcut or a bronze tablet does not carry with it the human being, but simply represents it. But here in God, the Word does not only carry with it the sign and picture, but the whole being, and is as full of God as he whose word or picture it is. If the human word were pure heart, or the intention of the heart, the comparison would be perfect. But this cannot be; consequently the Word of God is above every word, and without comparison among all creatures.

There have indeed been sharp discussions about the inner word in the heart of man, which remains within, since man has been created in the image of God. But it is all so deep and mysterious, and will ever remain so, that it is not possible to understand it. Therefore we shall pass on, and we come, now to our Gospel, which is in itself clear and manifest.

"In the beginning was the Word."

What beginning does the Evangelist mean except the one of which Moses says: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth?" That was the beginning and origin of creation. Other than this there was no beginning, for God had no beginning, but is eternal. It follows, therefore, that the Word is also eternal, because it did not have its origin in the beginning, but it was already in the beginning, John says. It did not begin, but when other things began it was already in existence; and its existence did not begin when all things began, but it was then already present.

How prudently the Evangelist speaks; for he does not say: "In the beginning the Word was made," but it was there,"and was not made". The origin of its existence is different from the beginning of creation. Furthermore he says: "In the beginning." Had he been made before the world, as the Arians maintain, he would not have been in the beginning, but he would have himself been the beginning. But John firmly and clearly maintains: "In the beginning was the Word," and he was not the beginning. Whence has St. John these words? From Moses, Gen. 1, 3 "God said, Let there be light." From this text evidently come the words: "In the beginning was the Word." For if God spoke, there had to be a Word. And if he spoke it in the beginning, when the creation began, it was already in the beginning, and did not begin with the creation.

But why does he not say: Before the beginning was the Word? This would have made the matter clearer, as it would seem; thus St. Paul often says: Before the creation of the world, etc. The answer is, because, to be in the beginning, and to be before, the beginning, are the same, and one is the consequence of the other. St. John, as an Evangelist, wished to agree with the writings of Moses, wished to open them up, and to disclose the source of his own words, which would not have been the case had he said: "Before" the beginning. Moses says nothing of that which was before the beginning, but describes the Word in the beginning, in order that he can the better describe the creation, which was made by the Word. For the same reason he also calls him a word, when he might as well have called him a light, life or something else, as is done later; for Moses speaks of a word. Now not to begin and to be in the beginning are the same as to be before the beginning.

But if the Word had been in the beginning and not before the beginning, it must have begun to be before the beginning, and so the beginning would have been before the beginning, which would be a contradiction, and would be the same as though the beginning were not the beginning. Therefore it is put in a masterly way: In the beginning was the Word, so as to show that it has not begun, and consequently must necessarily have been eternal, before the beginning.

"And the Word was with God."

Where else should it have been? There never was anything outside of God. Moses says the same thing when he writes: "God said, Let there be light." Whenever God speaks the word must be with him. But here he clearly distinguishes the persons, so that the Word is a different person than God with whom it was. This passage of John does not allow the interpretation that God had been alone, because it says that something had been with God, namely, the Word. If he had been alone, why would he need to say: The Word was with God? To have something with him, is not to be alone or by himself. It should not be forgotten that the Evangelist strongly emphasizes the little word "with." For he repeats it, and clearly expresses the difference in persons to gainsay natural reason and future heretics. For while natural reason can understand that there is but one God, and many passages of Scripture substantiate it, and this is also true, yet the Scriptures also strongly oppose the idea that this same God is only one person.

On Seballianism/Modalism

Thus arose the heresy of Sabellius, who said: The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are only one person. And again Arius, although he admitted that the Word was with God, would not admit that he was true God. The former confesses and teaches too great a simplicity of God; the latter too great a multiplicity. The former mingles the persons; the latter separates the natures. But the true Christian faith takes the mean, teaches and confesses separate persons and an undivided nature. The Father is a different person from the Son, but he is not another God. Natural reason can not comprehend this; it must be apprehended by faith alone. Natural reason produces error and heresy; faith teaches and maintains the truth; for it clings to the Scriptures, which do not deceive nor lie.

"And God was the Word."

Since there is but one God, it must be true that God himself is the Word, which was in the beginning before all creation. Some change the order of the words and read: And the Word was God, in order to explain that this Word not only is with God and is a different person, but that it is also in its essence the one true God with the Father. But we shall leave the words in the order in which they now stand: And God was the Word; and this is also what it means; there is no other God than the one only God, and this same God must also essentially be the Word, of which the Evangelist speaks; so there is nothing in the divine nature which is not in the Word. It is clearly stated that this Word is truly God, so that it is not only true that the Word is God, but also that God is the Word.

On how John refutes both in a single verse:
Decidedly as this passage opposes Arius, who teaches that the Word is not God, so strongly it appears to favor Sabellius; for it speaks as though it mingled the persons, and thereby revokes or explains away the former passage, which separates the persons and says: The Word was with God.

But the Evangelist intentionally arranged his words so as to refute all heretics. Here therefore he overthrows Arius and attributes to the Word the true essential of the Godhead by saying: And God was the Word; as though he would say: I do not simply say, the Word is God, which might be understood as though the Godhead was only asserted of him, and were not essentially his, as you, Arius, claim; but I say: And God was the Word, which can be understood in no other way than that this same being which every one calls God and regards as such, is the Word.

Again, that Sabellius and reason may not think that I side with them, and mingle the persons, and revoke what I have said on this point, I repeat it and say again:

"The same was in the beginning with God."

The Word was with God, with God, and yet God was the Word. Thus the Evangelist contends that both assertions are true: God is the Word, and the Word is with God; one nature of divine essence, and yet not one person only. Each person is God complete and entire, in the beginning and eternally. These are the passages upon which our faith is founded and to which we must hold fast. For it is entirely above reason that there should be three persons and each one perfect and true God, and yet not three Gods but one God.

Thus, as Martin Luther observed, Sabellianism cannot prevail given the lack of an article, and Arianism falls given the word order. Consider how John 1:1 would have to be rendered for these cases:


καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεός
“and the Word was the God”
(the Word was the Father: Sabellianism)

καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεός
“and the Word was a god”
(Arianism)

But we have the proper rendering:

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
“and the Word was God”

Our Lord Jesus Christ is God possessing all the attributes of that are possessed by God the Father, yet Our Lord is not the first Person of the Trinity. Amen!

AMR

 

[TFTn5280]

Here is a very good article though it might be a bit technical for some, yet, it is all in English so one can wade through it and understand the gist of this translation as well as why it was necessary for John to have not included the definite article the second time as he does in the first part of the sentence.

In a nutshell, it is not an indefinite article, just not a definite one as to be one and the same as modalism.

So, neither modal, nor another god.

See also here: generally, anarthrous Greek nouns have a change in ending but context drives translation else we'd have no way to adequately convey a Greek point in English well.

Thanks Lon, yes that is a very good article and gets to several things I hope to cover in this thread, given continued interest from readers.

 

[TFTn5280]

The case that the subject is in is the nominative case.

A verb that equates the subject with something else, e.g., is, requires another noun in the nominative case, that is the predicate nominative.

"AMR is a man." "AMR" is the subject, "man" is the predicate nominative.

When using English, the subject and predicate nominative are found by their word order, the subject coming first.

However, when using Greek, word order is not as strict, in fact, in the Greek word order is used for emphasis moreso that some grammatical function. Accordingly, distinguishing the subject from the predicate nominative uses other means. For example, in the Greek having two nouns, if one of them has the definite article, that noun is the subject.

In the Greek having a word cast at the front of a clause is done for emphasis. A predicate nominative in front of a verb is an emphatic indication, as in John 1:1, wherein the English is usually rendered and the Word was God. If we look at the Greek, the word order is actually reversed, reading:

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
and God was the Word.

Note the definite article, so we know from the above that the Word is the subject and translate the Greek per that, and the Word was God.

Note also that θεός has no article and its placement. This placement points us to the quality and essence at play, that quality and essence could be rendered: What God was, the Word was. The absence of an article for θεός prevents us from identifying the Person of the Word (Our Lord Jesus Christ) with the Person of God the Father. This emphatic word order teaches Jesus Christ having all the attributes of divinity that God the Father has. Absence of the definite article teaches us that Our Lord is not God the Father.

Martin Luther observed how the lack of an article for theos and word order prevents Sabellianism and Arianism:

Spoiler

In Luther's Sermon for the Principal Christmas Service: Christ's Titles of Honor; His Coming: His Incarnation; and the Revelation of His Glory (taken from John 1:1-14)...

On Arianism
The Arian heretics intended to draw a mist over this clear passage and to bore a hole into heaven, since they could not surmount it, and said that this Word of God was indeed God, not by nature, however, but by creation. They said that all things were created by it, but it had also been created previously, and after that all things were created by it. This they said from their own imagination without any authority from the Scriptures, because they left the simple words of the Scriptures and followed their own fancies.

Therefore I have said that he who desires to proceed safely on firm ground, must have no regard for the many subtle and hair-splitting words and fancies, but must cling to the simple, powerful, and explicit words of Scripture, and he will be secure. We shall also see how St. John anticipated these same heretics and refuted them in their subterfuges and fabrications.

Therefore we have here in the Books of Moses the real gold mine, from which everything that is written in the New Testament concerning the divinity of Christ has been taken. Here you may see from what source the gospel of St. John is taken, and upon what it is founded; and therefore it is easy to understand.

This is the source of the passage in Ps. 33, 6: "By the Word of Jehovah the heavens were made." Solomon in beautiful words describes the wisdom of God, Prov. 3, 22, saying that this wisdom bad been in God before all things; and he takes his thoughts from this chapter of Moses. So almost all the prophets have worked in this mine and have dug their treasures from it.

But there are other passages by this same Moses concerning the Holy Ghost, as for example in Gen. 1,2: "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Thus the Spirit of God must also be something different from him who breathes him into existence, sends him forth, and yet he must be before all creatures. Again, Moses says in Gen. 1, 28-31: "God blessed the creatures, beheld them, and was pleased with them." This benediction and favorable contemplation of the creatures point to the Holy Ghost, since the Scriptures attribute to him life and mercy. But these passages are not so well developed as those which refer to the Son; consequently they are not so prominent. The ore is still halfway in the mines, so that these passages can easily be believed, if reason is so far in subjection as to believe that there are two persons. If anyone will take the time and trouble to compare the passages of the New Testament referring to the Holy Ghost with this text of Moses, he will find much light, as well as pleasure.

Now we must open wide our hearts and understanding, so as to look upon these words not as the insignificant, perishable words of man, but think of them as being as great as he is who speaks them. It is a Word which he speaks of himself, which remains in him, and is never separated from him. Therefore according to the thought of the Apostle, we must consider how God speaks with himself and to himself, and how the Word proceeds from within himself. However, this Word is not an empty sound, but brings with it the whole essence of the divine nature. Reference has been made in the Epistle to the brightness of his glory and the image of his person, which constitute the divine nature, so that it accompanies the image in its entirety and thus becomes the very image itself. In the same manner God of himself also utters his Word, so that the whole Godhead accompanies the Word and in its nature remains in, and essentially is, the Word.

Behold, here we see whence the Apostle has taken his language, when he calls Christ an image of the divine essence, and the brightness of divine glory. He takes it from this text of Moses, when he says that God spoke the Word of himself; this can be nothing else than an image that represents him, since every word is a sign which means something. But here the thing signified is by its very nature in the sign or in the Word, which is not in any other sign. Therefore he very properly calls it a real image or sign of his nature.

The word of man may also in this connection be used in a measure as an illustration; for by it the human heart is known. Thus we commonly say: I understand his heart or intentions, when we have only heard his words; as out of the fullness of the heart the mouth speaks, and from the word the heart is known, as though it were in the word. In consequence of this experience the heathen had a saying: Qualis quisque est talia loquitur. (As a man speaks, so is he). Again: Oratio est character animi (Speech is an image of the heart). When the heart is pure it utters pure words, when it is impure it utters impure words. With this also corresponds the gospel of Matthew, 12, 34, where Christ says: "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." And again, "How can ye, being evil, speak good things?" Also John the Baptist says, John 3, 31: "He that is of the earth is of the earth, and of the earth he speaketh." The Germans also have a proverb: "Of what the heart is full, overfloweth out of the mouth." The bird is known by its song, for it sings according to its nature. Therefore all the world knows that nothing represents the condition of the heart so perfectly and so positively as the words of the mouth, just as though the heart were in the word.

Thus it is also with God. His word is so much like himself, that the Godhead is wholly in it, and be who has the word has the whole Godhead. But this comparison has its limits. For the human word does not carry with it the essence or the nature of the heart, but simply its meaning, or is a sign of the heart, just as a woodcut or a bronze tablet does not carry with it the human being, but simply represents it. But here in God, the Word does not only carry with it the sign and picture, but the whole being, and is as full of God as he whose word or picture it is. If the human word were pure heart, or the intention of the heart, the comparison would be perfect. But this cannot be; consequently the Word of God is above every word, and without comparison among all creatures.

There have indeed been sharp discussions about the inner word in the heart of man, which remains within, since man has been created in the image of God. But it is all so deep and mysterious, and will ever remain so, that it is not possible to understand it. Therefore we shall pass on, and we come, now to our Gospel, which is in itself clear and manifest.

"In the beginning was the Word."

What beginning does the Evangelist mean except the one of which Moses says: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth?" That was the beginning and origin of creation. Other than this there was no beginning, for God had no beginning, but is eternal. It follows, therefore, that the Word is also eternal, because it did not have its origin in the beginning, but it was already in the beginning, John says. It did not begin, but when other things began it was already in existence; and its existence did not begin when all things began, but it was then already present.

How prudently the Evangelist speaks; for he does not say: "In the beginning the Word was made," but it was there,"and was not made". The origin of its existence is different from the beginning of creation. Furthermore he says: "In the beginning." Had he been made before the world, as the Arians maintain, he would not have been in the beginning, but he would have himself been the beginning. But John firmly and clearly maintains: "In the beginning was the Word," and he was not the beginning. Whence has St. John these words? From Moses, Gen. 1, 3 "God said, Let there be light." From this text evidently come the words: "In the beginning was the Word." For if God spoke, there had to be a Word. And if he spoke it in the beginning, when the creation began, it was already in the beginning, and did not begin with the creation.

But why does he not say: Before the beginning was the Word? This would have made the matter clearer, as it would seem; thus St. Paul often says: Before the creation of the world, etc. The answer is, because, to be in the beginning, and to be before, the beginning, are the same, and one is the consequence of the other. St. John, as an Evangelist, wished to agree with the writings of Moses, wished to open them up, and to disclose the source of his own words, which would not have been the case had he said: "Before" the beginning. Moses says nothing of that which was before the beginning, but describes the Word in the beginning, in order that he can the better describe the creation, which was made by the Word. For the same reason he also calls him a word, when he might as well have called him a light, life or something else, as is done later; for Moses speaks of a word. Now not to begin and to be in the beginning are the same as to be before the beginning.

But if the Word had been in the beginning and not before the beginning, it must have begun to be before the beginning, and so the beginning would have been before the beginning, which would be a contradiction, and would be the same as though the beginning were not the beginning. Therefore it is put in a masterly way: In the beginning was the Word, so as to show that it has not begun, and consequently must necessarily have been eternal, before the beginning.

"And the Word was with God."

Where else should it have been? There never was anything outside of God. Moses says the same thing when he writes: "God said, Let there be light." Whenever God speaks the word must be with him. But here he clearly distinguishes the persons, so that the Word is a different person than God with whom it was. This passage of John does not allow the interpretation that God had been alone, because it says that something had been with God, namely, the Word. If he had been alone, why would he need to say: The Word was with God? To have something with him, is not to be alone or by himself. It should not be forgotten that the Evangelist strongly emphasizes the little word "with." For he repeats it, and clearly expresses the difference in persons to gainsay natural reason and future heretics. For while natural reason can understand that there is but one God, and many passages of Scripture substantiate it, and this is also true, yet the Scriptures also strongly oppose the idea that this same God is only one person.

On Seballianism/Modalism

Thus arose the heresy of Sabellius, who said: The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are only one person. And again Arius, although he admitted that the Word was with God, would not admit that he was true God. The former confesses and teaches too great a simplicity of God; the latter too great a multiplicity. The former mingles the persons; the latter separates the natures. But the true Christian faith takes the mean, teaches and confesses separate persons and an undivided nature. The Father is a different person from the Son, but he is not another God. Natural reason can not comprehend this; it must be apprehended by faith alone. Natural reason produces error and heresy; faith teaches and maintains the truth; for it clings to the Scriptures, which do not deceive nor lie.

"And God was the Word."

Since there is but one God, it must be true that God himself is the Word, which was in the beginning before all creation. Some change the order of the words and read: And the Word was God, in order to explain that this Word not only is with God and is a different person, but that it is also in its essence the one true God with the Father. But we shall leave the words in the order in which they now stand: And God was the Word; and this is also what it means; there is no other God than the one only God, and this same God must also essentially be the Word, of which the Evangelist speaks; so there is nothing in the divine nature which is not in the Word. It is clearly stated that this Word is truly God, so that it is not only true that the Word is God, but also that God is the Word.

On how John refutes both in a single verse:
Decidedly as this passage opposes Arius, who teaches that the Word is not God, so strongly it appears to favor Sabellius; for it speaks as though it mingled the persons, and thereby revokes or explains away the former passage, which separates the persons and says: The Word was with God.

But the Evangelist intentionally arranged his words so as to refute all heretics. Here therefore he overthrows Arius and attributes to the Word the true essential of the Godhead by saying: And God was the Word; as though he would say: I do not simply say, the Word is God, which might be understood as though the Godhead was only asserted of him, and were not essentially his, as you, Arius, claim; but I say: And God was the Word, which can be understood in no other way than that this same being which every one calls God and regards as such, is the Word.

Again, that Sabellius and reason may not think that I side with them, and mingle the persons, and revoke what I have said on this point, I repeat it and say again:

"The same was in the beginning with God."

The Word was with God, with God, and yet God was the Word. Thus the Evangelist contends that both assertions are true: God is the Word, and the Word is with God; one nature of divine essence, and yet not one person only. Each person is God complete and entire, in the beginning and eternally. These are the passages upon which our faith is founded and to which we must hold fast. For it is entirely above reason that there should be three persons and each one perfect and true God, and yet not three Gods but one God.

Thus, as Martin Luther observed, Sabellianism cannot prevail given the lack of an article, and Arianism falls given the word order. Consider how John 1:1 would have to be rendered for these cases:


καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεός
“and the Word was the God”
(the Word was the Father: Sabellianism)

καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεός
“and the Word was a god”
(Arianism)

But we have the proper rendering:

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
“and the Word was God”

Our Lord Jesus Christ is God possessing all the attributes of that are possessed by God the Father, yet Our Lord is not the first Person of the Trinity. Amen!

AMR

Thanks AMR, I agree with you: "theos" is positioned emphatically ahead of the predicate; its subject being "o logos," as determined by the article. That so, could we not translate the verse thus? "In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God. GOD was the Word as well (kai)! He was in beginning with the God" (vs 1-2).

 

[patrick jane]

This thread should be a playground for PPS and his English Phd

 

[KingdomRose]

Hey PneumaPsucheSoma, this is Thomas. I have been following your comments on the subtleties between articular nouns in the Greek language (nouns which are accompanied with the definite article, "the" in English) and anarthrous nouns (nouns unaccompanied by a definite article). I appreciate the effort you have put into helping others, myself included, understand the importance of those subtleties to a sound and solid interpretation of the New Testament. Thank you.

I have a question for you if you are willing to accommodate my asking. In the Gospel of John 1.1, John references God (Theos) two times, once in a prepositional phrase and the other in the structure of a predicate nominative. In the prepositional phrase "Theon" (Theos in the accusative case) is articular (ton Theon), but in the predicate nominative "Theos" is anarthrous. I will supply a very literal translation below so readers can see what I mean. May I ask you: What, in your estimation, is the significance of John electing to construct his statement this way; in other words, why the anarthrous Theos in this verse? I'll await your reply.

John 1.1: "In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God (articular noun), and God (anarthrous noun) was the Word."

Let's devote our attention to the third clause of John 1:1: kai theos en ho logos (word-for-word: "and god was the word"), per Bible scholar Jason BeDuhn in his book, Truth in Translation, pp.113-134.

When we consider this third clause, "we are confronted with the problem of the 'missing' article before theos ('god').

"Greek has only a DEFINITE article, like our 'the'; it does not have an indefinite article, like our 'a' or 'an.' So, generally speaking, a Greek definite noun will have a form of the definite article (ho), which will become 'the' in English. A Greek indefinite noun will appear without the definite article, and will be properly rendered in English with 'a' or 'an'. We are not 'adding a word' when we translate Greek nouns that do not have the definite article as English nouns with the indefinite article. We are simply obeying the rules of English grammar that tell us that we cannot say 'Snoopy is dog,' but must say 'Snoopy is a dog.' For example, in John 1:1c, the clause we are investigating, ho logos is 'the word,' as all translations accurately have it. If it was written simply logos, without the definite article ho, we would have to translate it as 'a word.'

"Similarly, when we have a form of ho theos, as we do in John 1:1b and 1:2, we are dealing with a definite noun that we would initially ('lexically') translate as 'the god'; but if it is written simply theos, as it is in John 1:1c, it is an INDEFINITE noun that would normally be translated as 'a god'. To complete our translation into English, we need to take into consideration the fact that English has BOTH a common noun 'god' and a proper noun 'God.' We use the proper noun 'God' like a name, without either a definite or indefinite article, even though a name is a definite noun. As a definite noun, 'God' corresponds to the Greek ho theos (lexically 'the god'), which also is used often as the proper noun 'God' in both the New Testament and other Greek literature from the same time. So in John 1:1b and 1:2 it is perfectly accurate to drop the 'the' from 'god' and say that the Word was 'with God' (literally 'with the god'). But what about the INDEFINITE theos in John 1:1c? This does not correspond to the English definite proper noun 'God,' but to the indefinite noun 'a god'.

"In Greek, if you leave off the article from theos in a sentence like the one in John 1:1c, then your readers will assume you mean 'a god.' The kind of sentence wwe are dealing with is one with a be-verb, where the predicate noun (theos) is in the same noun form (the same 'case') as the subject noun (ho logos). In this subject ('nominative') form, the definite article is really indispensable for making the noun definite. Its absence makes theos quite different than the definite ho theos, as different as 'a god' is from 'God' in English. In other words, John uses the INDEFINITE theos in a manner distinct from his use of the DEFINITE ho theos. This is fairly clear not only from the distinct forms the word takes but also from the context in which those distinct forms are used. John says on the one hand that the Word 'was with' ho theos, 'God,' but on the other hand that the Word 'was' theos, 'a god.' It is striking, therefore, that most of the translations we are comparing [KJV, NASB, NAB, NRSV, NIV, NWT, AB, TEV, LB] take no notice of this careful distinction, and translate the different words as if they were exactly the same.

"If John had wanted to say 'the Word was God,' as so many English translations have it, he could have very easily done so by simply adding the definite article 'the' (ho) to the word 'god' (theos, making it 'the god' and therefore 'God.' He could have simply written ho logos en ho theos (word-for-word: 'the word was the god'), or ho logos ho theos en (word-for-word: 'the word the god was'). But he didn't. If John didn't, why do the translators?"



:think::nono::idunno:

 

[TFTn5280]

This thread should be a playground for PPS and his English Phd

Hey Patrick, how ya doin? Yes, I think here, if any where, is a great example of why the Greek should still matter, even to English readers in a world of myriad English translations from which to choose. Here "Christians" should agree that the noun in question (Theos) functions anarthrously in a qualitative manner and in no way indefinitely. New Testament Greek, as you probably know, does not have indefinite equivalents to "a" and "an" in English. That does not mean, however, that an anarthrous noun cannot function indefinitely in Greek constructs, but the recognition of such is one of semantics over syntax: "context" determines how the noun functions in a statement and not so much sentence structure. Anyway, I look forward to PPS's contribution to this thread.

Blessings,

 

[TFTn5280]

Let's devote our attention to the third clause of John 1:1: kai theos en ho logos (word-for-word: "and god was the word"), per Bible scholar Jason BeDuhn in his book, Truth in Translation, pp.113-134.

When we consider this third clause, "we are confronted with the problem of the 'missing' article before theos ('god').

"Greek has only a DEFINITE article, like our 'the'; it does not have an indefinite article, like our 'a' or 'an.' So, generally speaking, a Greek definite noun will have a form of the definite article (ho), which will become 'the' in English. A Greek indefinite noun will appear without the definite article, and will be properly rendered in English with 'a' or 'an'. We are not 'adding a word' when we translate Greek nouns that do not have the definite article as English nouns with the indefinite article. We are simply obeying the rules of English grammar that tell us that we cannot say 'Snoopy is dog,' but must say 'Snoopy is a dog.' For example, in John 1:1c, the clause we are investigating, ho logos is 'the word,' as all translations accurately have it. If it was written simply logos, without the definite article ho, we would have to translate it as 'a word.'

"Similarly, when we have a form of ho theos, as we do in John 1:1b and 1:2, we are dealing with a definite noun that we would initially ('lexically') translate as 'the god'; but if it is written simply theos, as it is in John 1:1c, it is an INDEFINITE noun that would normally be translated as 'a god'. To complete our translation into English, we need to take into consideration the fact that English has BOTH a common noun 'god' and a proper noun 'God.' We use the proper noun 'God' like a name, without either a definite or indefinite article, even though a name is a definite noun. As a definite noun, 'God' corresponds to the Greek ho theos (lexically 'the god'), which also is used often as the proper noun 'God' in both the New Testament and other Greek literature from the same time. So in John 1:1b and 1:2 it is perfectly accurate to drop the 'the' from 'god' and say that the Word was 'with God' (literally 'with the god'). But what about the INDEFINITE theos in John 1:1c? This does not correspond to the English definite proper noun 'God,' but to the indefinite noun 'a god'.

"In Greek, if you leave off the article from theos in a sentence like the one in John 1:1c, then your readers will assume you mean 'a god.' The kind of sentence wwe are dealing with is one with a be-verb, where the predicate noun (theos) is in the same noun form (the same 'case') as the subject noun (ho logos). In this subject ('nominative') form, the definite article is really indispensable for making the noun definite. Its absence makes theos quite different than the definite ho theos, as different as 'a god' is from 'God' in English. In other words, John uses the INDEFINITE theos in a manner distinct from his use of the DEFINITE ho theos. This is fairly clear not only from the distinct forms the word takes but also from the context in which those distinct forms are used. John says on the one hand that the Word 'was with' ho theos, 'God,' but on the other hand that the Word 'was' theos, 'a god.' It is striking, therefore, that most of the translations we are comparing [KJV, NASB, NAB, NRSV, NIV, NWT, AB, TEV, LB] take no notice of this careful distinction, and translate the different words as if they were exactly the same.

"If John had wanted to say 'the Word was God,' as so many English translations have it, he could have very easily done so by simply adding the definite article 'the' (ho) to the word 'god' (theos, making it 'the god' and therefore 'God.' He could have simply written ho logos en ho theos (word-for-word: 'the word was the god'), or ho logos ho theos en (word-for-word: 'the word the god was'). But he didn't. If John didn't, why do the translators?"



:think::nono::idunno:

Hi KingdomRose, the "scholar" you have quoted does not take into account the anarthrous nature of certain Greek noun constructs (see my post to patrick jane for a limited explanation or read the articles posted by Lon and AMR for more detailed introductions to this topic). Instead he erroneously concludes that the noun is automatically indefinite in nature since it is unaccompanied by an article. In doing so, he presents what amounts to a circular argument. May I ask that you please follow this thread as it unfolds and thereby gain some insight into the nature of anarthrous nouns in Greek constructs? In doing so, you will at least gain awareness of why BeDuhn's argument is fallacious. I will certainly treat you respectfully throughout, even if disagreeing with you substantively.

 

[patrick jane]

It is highly likely that PPS will avoid this thread for fear of exposing his lack of Greek skills

 

[Lon]

"If John had wanted to say 'the Word was God,' as so many English translations have it, he could have very easily done so by simply adding the definite article 'the' (ho) to the word 'god' (theos, making it 'the god' and therefore 'God.' He could have simply written ho logos en ho theos (word-for-word: 'the word was the god'), or ho logos ho theos en (word-for-word: 'the word the god was'). But he didn't. If John didn't, why do the translators?"



:think::nono::idunno:

:doh: Already answered by AMR and in the links I gave :sigh:

 

[Wick Stick]

John 1.1: "In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God (articular noun), and God (anarthrous noun) was the Word."

I may not be a Greek expert, but I took a Greek class or two (and stayed in a Holiday Inn Express once!) In my class, they taught us that Koine Greek doesn't have nouns, it has substantives.

...disagreeing with you substantively.

But, maybe you knew that...

Anyhow, since substantives can be read as nouns OR adjectives, I wouldn't mind a translation of:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was divine.

That probably slaughters someone's sacred cow. Oh well... anybody want a hamburger?

Jarrod

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

GOD was the Word as well (kai)!

If you read the portions from Luther's sermon in my post you will see him affirming this.

AMR

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

The case that the subject is in is the nominative case.

A verb that equates the subject with something else, e.g., is, requires another noun in the nominative case, that is the predicate nominative.

"AMR is a man." "AMR" is the subject, "man" is the predicate nominative.

When using English, the subject and predicate nominative are found by their word order, the subject coming first.

However, when using Greek, word order is not as strict, in fact, in the Greek word order is used for emphasis moreso that some grammatical function. Accordingly, distinguishing the subject from the predicate nominative uses other means. For example, in the Greek having two nouns, if one of them has the definite article, that noun is the subject.

In the Greek having a word cast at the front of a clause is done for emphasis. A predicate nominative in front of a verb is an emphatic indication, as in John 1:1, wherein the English is usually rendered and the Word was God. If we look at the Greek, the word order is actually reversed, reading:

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
and God was the Word.

Note the definite article, so we know from the above that the Word is the subject and translate the Greek per that, and the Word was God.

Note also that θεός has no article and its placement. This placement points us to the quality and essence at play, that quality and essence could be rendered: What God was, the Word was. The absence of an article for θεός prevents us from identifying the Person of the Word (Our Lord Jesus Christ) with the Person of God the Father. This emphatic word order teaches Jesus Christ having all the attributes of divinity that God the Father has. Absence of the definite article teaches us that Our Lord is not God the Father.

Martin Luther observed how the lack of an article for theos and word order prevents Sabellianism and Arianism:

Spoiler

In Luther's Sermon for the Principal Christmas Service: Christ's Titles of Honor; His Coming: His Incarnation; and the Revelation of His Glory (taken from John 1:1-14)...

On Arianism
The Arian heretics intended to draw a mist over this clear passage and to bore a hole into heaven, since they could not surmount it, and said that this Word of God was indeed God, not by nature, however, but by creation. They said that all things were created by it, but it had also been created previously, and after that all things were created by it. This they said from their own imagination without any authority from the Scriptures, because they left the simple words of the Scriptures and followed their own fancies.

Therefore I have said that he who desires to proceed safely on firm ground, must have no regard for the many subtle and hair-splitting words and fancies, but must cling to the simple, powerful, and explicit words of Scripture, and he will be secure. We shall also see how St. John anticipated these same heretics and refuted them in their subterfuges and fabrications.

Therefore we have here in the Books of Moses the real gold mine, from which everything that is written in the New Testament concerning the divinity of Christ has been taken. Here you may see from what source the gospel of St. John is taken, and upon what it is founded; and therefore it is easy to understand.

This is the source of the passage in Ps. 33, 6: "By the Word of Jehovah the heavens were made." Solomon in beautiful words describes the wisdom of God, Prov. 3, 22, saying that this wisdom bad been in God before all things; and he takes his thoughts from this chapter of Moses. So almost all the prophets have worked in this mine and have dug their treasures from it.

But there are other passages by this same Moses concerning the Holy Ghost, as for example in Gen. 1,2: "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Thus the Spirit of God must also be something different from him who breathes him into existence, sends him forth, and yet he must be before all creatures. Again, Moses says in Gen. 1, 28-31: "God blessed the creatures, beheld them, and was pleased with them." This benediction and favorable contemplation of the creatures point to the Holy Ghost, since the Scriptures attribute to him life and mercy. But these passages are not so well developed as those which refer to the Son; consequently they are not so prominent. The ore is still halfway in the mines, so that these passages can easily be believed, if reason is so far in subjection as to believe that there are two persons. If anyone will take the time and trouble to compare the passages of the New Testament referring to the Holy Ghost with this text of Moses, he will find much light, as well as pleasure.

Now we must open wide our hearts and understanding, so as to look upon these words not as the insignificant, perishable words of man, but think of them as being as great as he is who speaks them. It is a Word which he speaks of himself, which remains in him, and is never separated from him. Therefore according to the thought of the Apostle, we must consider how God speaks with himself and to himself, and how the Word proceeds from within himself. However, this Word is not an empty sound, but brings with it the whole essence of the divine nature. Reference has been made in the Epistle to the brightness of his glory and the image of his person, which constitute the divine nature, so that it accompanies the image in its entirety and thus becomes the very image itself. In the same manner God of himself also utters his Word, so that the whole Godhead accompanies the Word and in its nature remains in, and essentially is, the Word.

Behold, here we see whence the Apostle has taken his language, when he calls Christ an image of the divine essence, and the brightness of divine glory. He takes it from this text of Moses, when he says that God spoke the Word of himself; this can be nothing else than an image that represents him, since every word is a sign which means something. But here the thing signified is by its very nature in the sign or in the Word, which is not in any other sign. Therefore he very properly calls it a real image or sign of his nature.

The word of man may also in this connection be used in a measure as an illustration; for by it the human heart is known. Thus we commonly say: I understand his heart or intentions, when we have only heard his words; as out of the fullness of the heart the mouth speaks, and from the word the heart is known, as though it were in the word. In consequence of this experience the heathen had a saying: Qualis quisque est talia loquitur. (As a man speaks, so is he). Again: Oratio est character animi (Speech is an image of the heart). When the heart is pure it utters pure words, when it is impure it utters impure words. With this also corresponds the gospel of Matthew, 12, 34, where Christ says: "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." And again, "How can ye, being evil, speak good things?" Also John the Baptist says, John 3, 31: "He that is of the earth is of the earth, and of the earth he speaketh." The Germans also have a proverb: "Of what the heart is full, overfloweth out of the mouth." The bird is known by its song, for it sings according to its nature. Therefore all the world knows that nothing represents the condition of the heart so perfectly and so positively as the words of the mouth, just as though the heart were in the word.

Thus it is also with God. His word is so much like himself, that the Godhead is wholly in it, and be who has the word has the whole Godhead. But this comparison has its limits. For the human word does not carry with it the essence or the nature of the heart, but simply its meaning, or is a sign of the heart, just as a woodcut or a bronze tablet does not carry with it the human being, but simply represents it. But here in God, the Word does not only carry with it the sign and picture, but the whole being, and is as full of God as he whose word or picture it is. If the human word were pure heart, or the intention of the heart, the comparison would be perfect. But this cannot be; consequently the Word of God is above every word, and without comparison among all creatures.

There have indeed been sharp discussions about the inner word in the heart of man, which remains within, since man has been created in the image of God. But it is all so deep and mysterious, and will ever remain so, that it is not possible to understand it. Therefore we shall pass on, and we come, now to our Gospel, which is in itself clear and manifest.

"In the beginning was the Word."

What beginning does the Evangelist mean except the one of which Moses says: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth?" That was the beginning and origin of creation. Other than this there was no beginning, for God had no beginning, but is eternal. It follows, therefore, that the Word is also eternal, because it did not have its origin in the beginning, but it was already in the beginning, John says. It did not begin, but when other things began it was already in existence; and its existence did not begin when all things began, but it was then already present.

How prudently the Evangelist speaks; for he does not say: "In the beginning the Word was made," but it was there,"and was not made". The origin of its existence is different from the beginning of creation. Furthermore he says: "In the beginning." Had he been made before the world, as the Arians maintain, he would not have been in the beginning, but he would have himself been the beginning. But John firmly and clearly maintains: "In the beginning was the Word," and he was not the beginning. Whence has St. John these words? From Moses, Gen. 1, 3 "God said, Let there be light." From this text evidently come the words: "In the beginning was the Word." For if God spoke, there had to be a Word. And if he spoke it in the beginning, when the creation began, it was already in the beginning, and did not begin with the creation.

But why does he not say: Before the beginning was the Word? This would have made the matter clearer, as it would seem; thus St. Paul often says: Before the creation of the world, etc. The answer is, because, to be in the beginning, and to be before, the beginning, are the same, and one is the consequence of the other. St. John, as an Evangelist, wished to agree with the writings of Moses, wished to open them up, and to disclose the source of his own words, which would not have been the case had he said: "Before" the beginning. Moses says nothing of that which was before the beginning, but describes the Word in the beginning, in order that he can the better describe the creation, which was made by the Word. For the same reason he also calls him a word, when he might as well have called him a light, life or something else, as is done later; for Moses speaks of a word. Now not to begin and to be in the beginning are the same as to be before the beginning.

But if the Word had been in the beginning and not before the beginning, it must have begun to be before the beginning, and so the beginning would have been before the beginning, which would be a contradiction, and would be the same as though the beginning were not the beginning. Therefore it is put in a masterly way: In the beginning was the Word, so as to show that it has not begun, and consequently must necessarily have been eternal, before the beginning.

"And the Word was with God."

Where else should it have been? There never was anything outside of God. Moses says the same thing when he writes: "God said, Let there be light." Whenever God speaks the word must be with him. But here he clearly distinguishes the persons, so that the Word is a different person than God with whom it was. This passage of John does not allow the interpretation that God had been alone, because it says that something had been with God, namely, the Word. If he had been alone, why would he need to say: The Word was with God? To have something with him, is not to be alone or by himself. It should not be forgotten that the Evangelist strongly emphasizes the little word "with." For he repeats it, and clearly expresses the difference in persons to gainsay natural reason and future heretics. For while natural reason can understand that there is but one God, and many passages of Scripture substantiate it, and this is also true, yet the Scriptures also strongly oppose the idea that this same God is only one person.

On Seballianism/Modalism

Thus arose the heresy of Sabellius, who said: The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are only one person. And again Arius, although he admitted that the Word was with God, would not admit that he was true God. The former confesses and teaches too great a simplicity of God; the latter too great a multiplicity. The former mingles the persons; the latter separates the natures. But the true Christian faith takes the mean, teaches and confesses separate persons and an undivided nature. The Father is a different person from the Son, but he is not another God. Natural reason can not comprehend this; it must be apprehended by faith alone. Natural reason produces error and heresy; faith teaches and maintains the truth; for it clings to the Scriptures, which do not deceive nor lie.

"And God was the Word."

Since there is but one God, it must be true that God himself is the Word, which was in the beginning before all creation. Some change the order of the words and read: And the Word was God, in order to explain that this Word not only is with God and is a different person, but that it is also in its essence the one true God with the Father. But we shall leave the words in the order in which they now stand: And God was the Word; and this is also what it means; there is no other God than the one only God, and this same God must also essentially be the Word, of which the Evangelist speaks; so there is nothing in the divine nature which is not in the Word. It is clearly stated that this Word is truly God, so that it is not only true that the Word is God, but also that God is the Word.

On how John refutes both in a single verse:
Decidedly as this passage opposes Arius, who teaches that the Word is not God, so strongly it appears to favor Sabellius; for it speaks as though it mingled the persons, and thereby revokes or explains away the former passage, which separates the persons and says: The Word was with God.

But the Evangelist intentionally arranged his words so as to refute all heretics. Here therefore he overthrows Arius and attributes to the Word the true essential of the Godhead by saying: And God was the Word; as though he would say: I do not simply say, the Word is God, which might be understood as though the Godhead was only asserted of him, and were not essentially his, as you, Arius, claim; but I say: And God was the Word, which can be understood in no other way than that this same being which every one calls God and regards as such, is the Word.

Again, that Sabellius and reason may not think that I side with them, and mingle the persons, and revoke what I have said on this point, I repeat it and say again:

"The same was in the beginning with God."

The Word was with God, with God, and yet God was the Word. Thus the Evangelist contends that both assertions are true: God is the Word, and the Word is with God; one nature of divine essence, and yet not one person only. Each person is God complete and entire, in the beginning and eternally. These are the passages upon which our faith is founded and to which we must hold fast. For it is entirely above reason that there should be three persons and each one perfect and true God, and yet not three Gods but one God.

Thus, as Martin Luther observed, Sabellianism cannot prevail given the lack of an article, and Arianism falls given the word order. Consider how John 1:1 would have to be rendered for these cases:


καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεός
“and the Word was the God”
(the Word was the Father: Sabellianism)

καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεός
“and the Word was a god”
(Arianism)

But we have the proper rendering:

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
“and the Word was God”

Our Lord Jesus Christ is God possessing all the attributes of that are possessed by God the Father, yet Our Lord is not the first Person of the Trinity. Amen!

AMR

TFTn5280...

This is an incredibly direct and concise summary from AMR, as you can tell. In the simple concision of the Greek language, John 1:1 is Spirit-authored to innately eliminate Arian, Sabellian, or Unitarian propositions; and that from word order in a language in which word order doesn't matter much, unlike English.

One further thing to consider is that ALL Greek nouns are anarthrous; meaning they inherently refer to qualitative characteristics and dys/functional activity of the noun.

For instance, a table that is holding up a vase and candle along with all manner of dishes for dining, is not "tabling" as a verb in "doing" that "holding up" of those items. It is merely functioning according to its designed purpose and role as its nature of existence. Such a table has the innate quality or character with that latent and intrinsic functionality and activity AS its "-ness" as a noun.

English relies upon adjectives and other structures for expression of such things. And the English indefinite article is nowhere near the same expression as the anarthrous Greek construct.

By adding the article to a Greek noun, it is much more than just particularizing a specific noun of a kind. It can and does include that, but there are layers beyond that simplistic distinction. The article makes the noun a stand-alone concept in a way that is exponentially beyond just particularizing an object; and giving a personification to the object that points to its sub-standing reality of existence (hypostasis).

The Greek article facilitates (and represents) a noun to be "packaged together" with another word or a phrase to be a complete idea of something or someone as a whole and fully defined concept in one's thoughts, as a view or picture of a total entity in the mind. The article is able to turn nearly any part of speech into a noun, and therefore, a concept.

And this is only a glimpse. Anarthrous nouns are qualitative and nearly infinite, while English nouns are quantitative and very finite. Add the article, and the significance of both is exponentially heightened in a manner befitting the expression of the divine.

I'll outline more as the thread progresses; but the bottom line is that English nouns don't represent Greek nouns well at all. Anarthrous Greek nouns don't equate to indefinite article English nouns; and though both have an articular form, the English is merely for language flow in contrast to the indefinite article. Neither (in English) has much stand-alone meaning, and definitions aren't what drive low-context languages anyway.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Let's devote our attention to the third clause of John 1:1: kai theos en ho logos (word-for-word: "and god was the word"), per Bible scholar Jason BeDuhn in his book, Truth in Translation, pp.113-134.

When we consider this third clause, "we are confronted with the problem of the 'missing' article before theos ('god').

"Greek has only a DEFINITE article, like our 'the'; it does not have an indefinite article, like our 'a' or 'an.' So, generally speaking, a Greek definite noun will have a form of the definite article (ho), which will become 'the' in English. A Greek indefinite noun will appear without the definite article, and will be properly rendered in English with 'a' or 'an'. We are not 'adding a word' when we translate Greek nouns that do not have the definite article as English nouns with the indefinite article. We are simply obeying the rules of English grammar that tell us that we cannot say 'Snoopy is dog,' but must say 'Snoopy is a dog.' For example, in John 1:1c, the clause we are investigating, ho logos is 'the word,' as all translations accurately have it. If it was written simply logos, without the definite article ho, we would have to translate it as 'a word.'

"Similarly, when we have a form of ho theos, as we do in John 1:1b and 1:2, we are dealing with a definite noun that we would initially ('lexically') translate as 'the god'; but if it is written simply theos, as it is in John 1:1c, it is an INDEFINITE noun that would normally be translated as 'a god'. To complete our translation into English, we need to take into consideration the fact that English has BOTH a common noun 'god' and a proper noun 'God.' We use the proper noun 'God' like a name, without either a definite or indefinite article, even though a name is a definite noun. As a definite noun, 'God' corresponds to the Greek ho theos (lexically 'the god'), which also is used often as the proper noun 'God' in both the New Testament and other Greek literature from the same time. So in John 1:1b and 1:2 it is perfectly accurate to drop the 'the' from 'god' and say that the Word was 'with God' (literally 'with the god'). But what about the INDEFINITE theos in John 1:1c? This does not correspond to the English definite proper noun 'God,' but to the indefinite noun 'a god'.

"In Greek, if you leave off the article from theos in a sentence like the one in John 1:1c, then your readers will assume you mean 'a god.' The kind of sentence wwe are dealing with is one with a be-verb, where the predicate noun (theos) is in the same noun form (the same 'case') as the subject noun (ho logos). In this subject ('nominative') form, the definite article is really indispensable for making the noun definite. Its absence makes theos quite different than the definite ho theos, as different as 'a god' is from 'God' in English. In other words, John uses the INDEFINITE theos in a manner distinct from his use of the DEFINITE ho theos. This is fairly clear not only from the distinct forms the word takes but also from the context in which those distinct forms are used. John says on the one hand that the Word 'was with' ho theos, 'God,' but on the other hand that the Word 'was' theos, 'a god.' It is striking, therefore, that most of the translations we are comparing [KJV, NASB, NAB, NRSV, NIV, NWT, AB, TEV, LB] take no notice of this careful distinction, and translate the different words as if they were exactly the same.

"If John had wanted to say 'the Word was God,' as so many English translations have it, he could have very easily done so by simply adding the definite article 'the' (ho) to the word 'god' (theos, making it 'the god' and therefore 'God.' He could have simply written ho logos en ho theos (word-for-word: 'the word was the god'), or ho logos ho theos en (word-for-word: 'the word the god was'). But he didn't. If John didn't, why do the translators?"



:think::nono::idunno:

Must be a JW.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Let's devote our attention to the third clause of John 1:1: kai theos en ho logos (word-for-word: "and god was the word"), per Bible scholar Jason BeDuhn in his book, Truth in Translation, pp.113-134.

John 1:1

εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Normally Koine Greek drops the article in a prepositional phrase. Such absence of the article in a prepositional phrase is normal, and does not attach special meaning when absent. However, the inclusion of the article in a prepositional phrase is unusual, and thus means something to be noted.

So in John 1:1, the prepositional phrase εν αρχη doesn't contain an article, but is yet still properly translated "in the beginning." But the prepositional phrase προς τον θεον, does include the article (τον). Since it was proper to not include it, the inclusion here means something. In general, the inclusion of an article when it is not expected means the writer is being specific (a particular individual who is God). In order to fully understand how that effects this verse, we must examine the last clause.

Koine Greek distinguishes the role a noun plays in a sentence by changing its case. Generally, if the noun is the subject, it is in the nominative case. If it is the direct object, it is in the accusative case. Yet, there is a class of Koine Greek verbs that do not take a direct object, rather they take a predicate. In this situation you will have two nouns that are the same case (nominative), one being the subject, the other the predicate. Given the same nominative case, we have to rely upon some rules to determine which is the subject, and which is the predicate.

(1) If both nouns have articles attached, the first is the subject, the second is the predicate.
(2) If neither of the nouns have articles attached, the first is the subject, the second is the predicate.
(3) If but one of the nouns has an attached article, the noun with the article is the subject, and the noun without the article is the predicate.

So in the phrase in John 1:1, και θεος ην ο λογος observe that the noun λογος has an article (o) and the noun θεος does not (και here means "and"). Thus o λογος is the subject, while θεος is the predicate. When translated into English, given that λογος is the subject, we place the subject first, properly translating And the word was God.

As I discussed in my previous post, depending upon the construction of the Greek phrase, three possible interpretations could be made:

(a) the Word was a lesser god than the God the Father (τον θεον in the previous clause); or
(b) the Word was God the Father; or
(c) the Word was fully God, but was not the Father.

Considering interpretative possibility (a):
If Apostle John had written και ο λογος ην θεος , it would mean the Word was a god (a lesser being). Why? Recalling my previous discussion and the rules above, since λογος is the subject, and is ordered first, there is no Koine Greek grammatical reason to omit the article of θεος, thus its absence must mean something, especially since as I have shown, if the article were present theos (θεος) would still be the predicate. Accordingly, the absence of the article would mean "a" god. Given that the inclusion of the article would not change the grammatical function of θεος, its exclusion must therefore change the meaning of θεος. The absence of the article in a position where the inclusion of the article would not change the word's (θεος) grammatical function would inform the reader that the writer intended a difference in specificity—the λογος is not the same individual as God the Father.

Also, if the noun does not have an article, the position of θεος—at the end of the sentence—informs the reader there is a difference in emphasis juxtaposing the de-emphasis of θεος : λογος is less of a god than God the Father. So και ο λογος ην θεος can only mean the Word was a god. But, we know that the Apostle John did not use this construction.

Considering interpretative possibility (b):
If the Apostle John had written και ο λογος ην ο θεος , it would mean "the Word was the God (the Word was exactly the same Person as God the Father). This would mean no Trinity, one Person, with Father and Son being but manifestations of the one same God. Inclusion of the article (ο) with θεος would make θεος specific—the λογος was exactly the same individual as the Father (the exact same θεος just mentioned in the previous clause). With both nouns having the article, θεος is grammatically fixed to occur after λογος. Hence, the clause και ο λογος ην ο θεος can only mean Jesus was the God (the exact same individual as the God the Father). But, we know that the Apostle John did not use this construction.

Considering interpretative possibility (c):
In fact, the Apostle John wrote και θεος ην ο λογος and in so doing John intends two important and clearly indicated things. Firstly, John omits the article for θεος , indicating that the Word is not the same Person as the God the Father. Secondly, John places θεος at the beginning of the clause, thereby giving greater emphasis on the word θεος. In so doing, the Apostle John makes it abundantly clear by the increased emphasis that the absence of the article does not mean lesser. Given that this absence of the article does not mean lesser god, there is but one and only one possibility of what it can mean—not the exact same Person as the τον θεον of the second clause, but the same essence of God as the τον θεον of the second clause. In other words, while both are co-equally the same essence, the θεος of the third clause is not the same Person as theτον θεον of the second clause, so the Word was God. John's inclusion of the article in προς τον θεον specifies the Word as a specific being, the God, τον θεον. In the next clause John teaches that the Word was equal to the God in divinity, but by careful use of articles also teaches that the Word is not the same Person as the God (the Father).

Against anticipated Gnostic interpretations of λογος to mean but the mind, wisdom, intelligence, or plan of God, John restates that the λογος was with God in John 1:2:

οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν
"And this one was in the beginning with God."

The “this one” references the subject of the previous verse, λογος in all its three clauses. John here writes in a manner that can only be interpreted as meaning the λογος is a Person who is extraordinarily the ultimate summation of the wisdom of God. By twice stating that the λογος was with God, the Apostle John makes it clear the fact that the Word is with God as a volition, as in when we might say to another "I am with you, brother!". Obviously, only a living Person can express such a volition.

Not only is this Person with God, this Person is also God Himself, meaning λογος existed prior to His birth as we are so taught in John 17:5.

Beloved, the Apostle John's less than twenty words written in John 1:1 is probably the most succinct theological statement ever written.

Lastly, as to your reliance upon BeDuhn's work, which I am very familiar with and have read, I will only say that despite his quest to remove bias from bible translation topics, BeDuhn's own bias is regularly ignored as he proceeds to take issue (erroneously, too) with how the Koine Greek is used. By his own admission he purposefully chose controverial passages to be provocative, and he achieved his aim admirably. Fortunately, that is not how translation of the ancient biblical languages is done. Thus, I have little interest in discussing the scant books the JWs loudly appeal to for their views, preferring to stand on the shoulders of the many scholars that have come before me as to matters of Biblical Greek and Hebrew. Minority views are just that, minority views. For me, matters of orthodoxy are determined by the church militant, which through its saints has spoken plainly and decidedly against NWT translation methodologies and their associated ilk. Just as I have often stated to not a few here at this site who revel in their peculiar minority views, as if they were somehow more embued by the Holy Spirit than the many others who disagree with them, I would call upon you to beware of the appeal of being in the minority. Most often, being the voice crying in the wilderness plays well to one's vanities and puffs one up, all the while unaware of the slippery slope towards more and more grievous error one has set themselves upon.

AMR

 

[TFTn5280]

TFTn5280...

This is an incredibly direct and concise summary from AMR, as you can tell. In the simple concision of the Greek language, John 1:1 is Spirit-authored to innately eliminate Arian, Sabellian, or Unitarian propositions; and that from word order in a language in which word order doesn't matter much, unlike English.

One further thing to consider is that ALL Greek nouns are anarthrous; meaning they inherently refer to qualitative characteristics and dys/functional activity of the noun.

For instance, a table that is holding up a vase and candle along with all manner of dishes for dining, is not "tabling" as a verb in "doing" that "holding up" of those items. It is merely functioning according to its designed purpose and role as its nature of existence. Such a table has the innate quality or character with that latent and intrinsic functionality and activity AS its "-ness" as a noun.

English relies upon adjectives and other structures for expression of such things. And the English indefinite article is nowhere near the same expression as the anarthrous Greek construct.

By adding the article to a Greek noun, it is much more than just particularizing a specific noun of a kind. It can and does include that, but there are layers beyond that simplistic distinction. The article makes the noun a stand-alone concept in a way that is exponentially beyond just particularizing an object; and giving a personification to the object that points to its sub-standing reality of existence (hypostasis).

The Greek article facilitates (and represents) a noun to be "packaged together" with another word or a phrase to be a complete idea of something or someone as a whole and fully defined concept in one's thoughts, as a view or picture of a total entity in the mind. The article is able to turn nearly any part of speech into a noun, and therefore, a concept.

And this is only a glimpse. Anarthrous nouns are qualitative and nearly infinite, while English nouns are quantitative and very finite. Add the article, and the significance of both is exponentially heightened in a manner befitting the expression of the divine.

I'll outline more as the thread progresses; but the bottom line is that English nouns don't represent Greek nouns well at all. Anarthrous Greek nouns don't equate to indefinite article English nouns; and though both have an articular form, the English is merely for language flow in contrast to the indefinite article. Neither (in English) has much stand-alone meaning, and definitions aren't what drive low-context languages anyway.

Yes, I just really want to thank AMR for his post, and thanks as well for including the excerps from Martin Luther's sermon. I appreciate the certainty, the simplicity, and the clarity with which Luther writes. That kind of confidence must only come from great "knowing" of the text. And thank you, PneumaPsucheSoma, for your very clear analogy of the table, its functionality not being verbal in nature as it up-holds but latent and intrinsic to its designed it-ness AS a table: I can in no way summarize your description of Greek nouns; for contained in those few short paragraphs is far more substance than I may ever think, given a very long lifetime to do so. Wow! is probably the closest I can get to pulling it all together. Thanks!

Jarrod if you are still on board, I would just simply ~ and respectfully ~ ask, Given all that, why would you want to translate it "divine" rather than "God"? Anarthrous though it may be, it is quite definite what John is attempting to convey. Add to that the chiastic structure of the statement ~ Word, God, God, Word (the chiasm is actually even broader than that: this being at the heart of it) ~ I don't see how it could possibly be correctly translated / interpreted otherwise. Thanks all the same for the suggestion. You're spot on on one thing: Greek nouns certainly are substativals! Sure, lets have that hamburger anyway. What'da ya say?

 

[TFTn5280]

John 1:1

εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Normally Koine Greek drops the article in a prepositional phrase. Such absence of the article in a prepositional phrase is normal, and does not attach special meaning when absent. However, the inclusion of the article in a prepositional phrase is unusual, and thus means something to be noted.

So in John 1:1, the prepositional phrase εν αρχη doesn't contain an article, but is yet still properly translated "in the beginning." But the prepositional phrase προς τον θεον, does include the article (τον). Since it was proper to not include it, the inclusion here means something. In general, the inclusion of an article when it is not expected means the writer is being specific (a particular individual who is God). In order to fully understand how that effects this verse, we must examine the last clause.

Koine Greek distinguishes the role a noun plays in a sentence by changing its case. Generally, if the noun is the subject, it is in the nominative case. If it is the direct object, it is in the accusative case. Yet, there is a class of Koine Greek verbs that do not take a direct object, rather they take a predicate. In this situation you will have two nouns that are the same case (nominative), one being the subject, the other the predicate. Given the same nominative case, we have to rely upon some rules to determine which is the subject, and which is the predicate.

(1) If both nouns have articles attached, the first is the subject, the second is the predicate.
(2) If neither of the nouns have articles attached, the first is the subject, the second is the predicate.
(3) If but one of the nouns has an attached article, the noun with the article is the subject, and the noun without the article is the predicate.

So in the phrase in John 1:1, και θεος ην ο λογος observe that the noun λογος has an article (o) and the noun θεος does not (και here means "and"). Thus o λογος is the subject, while θεος is the predicate. When translated into English, given that λογος is the subject, we place the subject first, properly translating And the word was God.

As I discussed in my previous post, depending upon the construction of the Greek phrase, three possible interpretations could be made:

(a) the Word was a lesser god than the God the Father (τον θεον in the previous clause); or
(b) the Word was God the Father; or
(c) the Word was fully God, but was not the Father.

Considering interpretative possibility (a):
If Apostle John had written και ο λογος ην θεος , it would mean the Word was a god (a lesser being). Why? Recalling my previous discussion and the rules above, since λογος is the subject, and is ordered first, there is no Koine Greek grammatical reason to omit the article of θεος, thus its absence must mean something, especially since as I have shown, if the article were present theos (θεος) would still be the predicate. Accordingly, the absence of the article would mean "a" god. Given that the inclusion of the article would not change the grammatical function of θεος, its exclusion must therefore change the meaning of θεος. The absence of the article in a position where the inclusion of the article would not change the word's (θεος) grammatical function would inform the reader that the writer intended a difference in specificity—the λογος is not the same individual as God the Father.

Also, if the noun does not have an article, the position of θεος—at the end of the sentence—informs the reader there is a difference in emphasis juxtaposing the de-emphasis of θεος : λογος is less of a god than God the Father. So και ο λογος ην θεος can only mean the Word was a god. But, we know that the Apostle John did not use this construction.

Considering interpretative possibility (b):
If the Apostle John had written και ο λογος ην ο θεος , it would mean "the Word was the God (the Word was exactly the same Person as God the Father). This would mean no Trinity, one Person, with Father and Son being but manifestations of the one same God. Inclusion of the article (ο) with θεος would make θεος specific—the λογος was exactly the same individual as the Father (the exact same θεος just mentioned in the previous clause). With both nouns having the article, θεος is grammatically fixed to occur after λογος. Hence, the clause και ο λογος ην ο θεος can only mean Jesus was the God (the exact same individual as the God the Father). But, we know that the Apostle John did not use this construction.

Considering interpretative possibility (c):
In fact, the Apostle John wrote και θεος ην ο λογος and in so doing John intends two important and clearly indicated things. Firstly, John omits the article for θεος , indicating that the Word is not the same Person as the God the Father. Secondly, John places θεος at the beginning of the clause, thereby giving greater emphasis on the word θεος. In so doing, the Apostle John makes it abundantly clear by the increased emphasis that the absence of the article does not mean lesser. Given that this absence of the article does not mean lesser god, there is but one and only one possibility of what it can mean—not the exact same Person as the τον θεον of the second clause, but the same essence of God as the τον θεον of the second clause. In other words, while both are co-equally the same essence, the θεος of the third clause is not the same Person as theτον θεον of the second clause, so the Word was God. John's inclusion of the article in προς τον θεον specifies the Word as a specific being, the God, τον θεον. In the next clause John teaches that the Word was equal to the God in divinity, but by careful use of articles also teaches that the Word is not the same Person as the God (the Father).

Against anticipated Gnostic interpretations of λογος to mean but the mind, wisdom, intelligence, or plan of God, John restates that the λογος was with God in John 1:2:

οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν
"And this one was in the beginning with God."

The “this one” references the subject of the previous verse, λογος in all its three clauses. John here writes in a manner that can only be interpreted as meaning the λογος is a Person who is extraordinarily the ultimate summation of the wisdom of God. By twice stating that the λογος was with God, the Apostle John makes it clear the fact that the Word is with God as a volition, as in when we might say to another "I am with you, brother!". Obviously, only a living Person can express such a volition.

Not only is this Person with God, this Person is also God Himself, meaning λογος existed prior to His birth as we are so taught in John 17:5.

Beloved, the Apostle John's less than twenty words written in John 1:1 is probably the most succinct theological statement ever written.

Lastly, as to your reliance upon BeDuhn's work, which I am very familiar with and have read, I will only say that despite his quest to remove bias from bible translation topics, BeDuhn's own bias is regularly ignored as he proceeds to take issue (erroneously, too) with how the Koine Greek is used. By his own admission he purposefully chose controverial passages to be provocative, and he achieved his aim admirably. Fortunately, that is not how translation of the ancient biblical languages is done. Thus, I have little interest in discussing the scant books the JWs loudly appeal to for their views, preferring to stand on the shoulders of the many scholars that have come before me as to matters of Biblical Greek and Hebrew. Minority views are just that, minority views. For me, matters of orthodoxy are determined by the church militant, which through its saints has spoken plainly and decidedly against NWT translation methodologies and their associated ilk. Just as I have often stated to not a few here at this site who revel in their peculiar minority views, as if they were somehow more embued by the Holy Spirit than the many others who disagree with them, I would call upon you to beware of the appeal of being in the minority. Most often, being the voice crying in the wilderness plays well to one's vanities and puffs one up, all the while unaware of the slippery slope towards more and more grievous error one has set themselves upon.

AMR

Wow, I had no idea what a rich topic I had opened up (he says almost ashamedly)! Thanks, AMR!!

 

[Apple7]

Hey PneumaPsucheSoma, this is Thomas. I have been following your comments on the subtleties between articular nouns in the Greek language (nouns which are accompanied with the definite article, "the" in English) and anarthrous nouns (nouns unaccompanied by a definite article). I appreciate the effort you have put into helping others, myself included, understand the importance of those subtleties to a sound and solid interpretation of the New Testament. Thank you.

I have a question for you if you are willing to accommodate my asking. In the Gospel of John 1.1, John references God (Theos) two times, once in a prepositional phrase and the other in the structure of a predicate nominative. In the prepositional phrase "Theon" (Theos in the accusative case) is articular (ton Theon), but in the predicate nominative "Theos" is anarthrous. I will supply a very literal translation below so readers can see what I mean. May I ask you: What, in your estimation, is the significance of John electing to construct his statement this way; in other words, why the anarthrous Theos in this verse? I'll await your reply.

John 1.1: "In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God (articular noun), and God (anarthrous noun) was the Word."

Surely you jest...PPSBS being cognizant on the finer details of Greek?

Since when did that occur?

We are still awaiting his promised 'manuscript' from circa three whole years ago regarding his new comprehension of The Trinity....and, at that time, he didn't even know what a substantive was...

Most assuredly, anything that he imparts is a repackagement from what he googles from the web...

 

[TFTn5280]

Surely you jest...PPSBS being cognizant on the finer details of Greek?

Since when did that occur?

We are still awaiting his promised 'manuscript' from circa three whole years ago regarding his new comprehension of The Trinity....and, at that time, he didn't even know what a substantive was...

Most assuredly, anything that he imparts is a repackagement from what he googles from the web...

You just spoke a great deal more truth about yourself than you did PneumaPsucheSoma. Duly noted. Now that you've buzzed the tower, please just fly away. Thanks, T