How to understand the rendering of God in John 1 without the preceding article ho?

Question

This article claims that God has been translated to 'a god' in the New World Translation as a result of the article 'ho' not proceeding the word God. Is this a valid argument or are there other areas in scripture or the Koine Greek language that allow this to be the case while also allowing 'a god' to be rendered as 'God'?

Excerpt:

Is the rendering “a god” consistent with the rules of Greek grammar? Some reference books argue strongly that the Greek text must be translated, “The Word was God.” But not all agree. In his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos.” He suggests: “Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’” (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) Thus, in this text, the fact that the word the·osʹ in its second occurrence is without the definite article (ho) and is placed before the verb in the sentence in Greek is significant. Interestingly, translators that insist on rendering John 1:1, “The Word was God,” do not hesitate to use the indefinite article (a, an) in their rendering of other passages where a singular anarthrous predicate noun occurs before the verb. Thus at John 6:70, JB and KJ both refer to Judas Iscariot as “a devil,” and at John 9:17 they describe Jesus as “a prophet.”

https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/Reasoning-From-the-Scriptures/Trinity/

Answer 1

I agree with the part of the OP quotation that says:

Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos.” He suggests: “Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’” (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87)

This also agree with Daniel Wallace - see the appendix below.

However, this very assertion militates against the translation in John 1:1c of "a god". Indeed, the qualitative idea demands the translation, "the Word was God (in nature)" precisely as Harner suggests.

The big problem with the NWT translation is its inconsistence about this very matter - in other places where we have anarthrous "theos", the same translators do NOT use "a god" such as:

• John 1:6 (NWT) - There came a man who was sent as a representative of God; his name was John [note - no "a" before "God" despite the lack of article]
• John 1:12 (NWT) - However, to all who did receive him, he gave authority to become God’s children [note - no "a" before "God" despite the lack of article]
• John 1:13 (NWT) - And they were born, not from blood or from a fleshly will or from man’s will, but from God [note - no "a" before "God" despite the lack of article]

I could quote dozens more. The point is clear - the NWT translators translate according to a pre-existing theology rather than according to the established rules of grammar - see appendix below.

APPENDIX - Grammar of "ho theos".

Concerning John 1:1c, Daniel B Wallace, in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, page 269, says this:

The most likely candidate for Θεὸς is qualitative. This is true both grammatically (for the largest proportion of pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives fall into this category) and theologically (both the theology of the Fourth Gospel and the NT as a whole). There is a balance between the Word's deity, which was already present in the beginning (Ἐν ἀρχῇ ... Θεὸς ἦν [1:1], and his humanity, which was added later (σὰρξ ἐγένετο [1:14]). The grammatical structure of these two statements mirrors each other; both emphasize the nature of the Word, rather than his identity. But Θεὸς was his nature from eternity (hence εἰμί is used), while σὰρξ was added at the incarnation (hence γίνομαι is used.)

The following quote is taken from an article by the esteemed NT linguist and editor, Bruce Metzger found here >> http://www.bible-researcher.com/metzger.jw.html

Some years ago Dr. Ernest Cadman Colwell of the University of Chicago pointed out in a study of the Greek definite article that, “A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb. … The opening verse of John’s Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite noun. The absence of the article [before θεος] does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb; it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it. The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John, for this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas [John 20:28, ‘My Lord and my God’].”

In a lengthy Appendix in the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ translation, which was added to support the mistranslation of John 1:1, there are quoted thirty-five other passages in John where the predicate noun has the definite article in Greek. 20 These are intended to prove that the absence of the article in John 1:1 requires that θεος must be translated “a god.” None of the thirty-five instances is parallel, however, for in every case the predicate noun stands after the verb, and so, according to Colwell’s rule, properly has the article. So far, therefore, from being evidence against the usual translation of John 1:1, these instances add confirmation to the full enunciation of the rule of the Greek definite article.

Answer 2

The following are arguments by a professor of NT Greek given to me years ago whose name I no longer remember. Over the years, I have rewritten most of it to make the arguments more concise and easier to understand, but his arguments remain the same.

First, Koine Greek normally drops the article in a prepositional phrase. The absence of the article in a prepositional phrase is normal and doesn't mean anything. It is the INCLUSION of the article in a prepositional phrase as we see in this verse that is unusual and thus means something.

The prepositional phrase "εν αρχη" for example, does not contain an article, but is still properly translated "in the beginning." The prepositional phrase "προς τον θεον," however, does include the article (τον). Since it would have been grammatically proper not to include it, then the INCLSION of the article here means something. In general, the inclusion of an article in Greek when it is not expected means the writer is being specific. There are three things this could mean, depending on the construction:

a. It could mean that the Word was a LESSER god than the Father who is the τον θεον (the God) in the previous clause.

b. Or, it could mean that the Word was the Father.

c. Or, it could mean that the Word was fully God, but was NOT the same person as Father.

So, the question is this, how do we determine which is meant?

If John had written the clause: και ο λογος ην θεος, it would mean that "the Word was 'A' god." That is, the Word was a LESSER god than the Father. The reason is that since λογος is the subject and appears first, there is no grammatical reason to leave the article off of θεος, thus the absence of the article means something (since even if it was given the article, it would STILL be the predicate). Therefore, the absence of the article would mean "A" god. In other words, since the inclusion of the article would not change the grammatical function of θεος, the exclusion of the article 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 grammatical function would tell us there is a difference in specificity: the λογος is not the same individual as the Father.

Further, if it does not have an article, the position of θεος at the end of the sentence would tell us there is a difference in emphasis (θεος is being “de-emphasized”): In such a construction, λογος would then be less of a god than the Father. Thus, "και ο λογος ην θεος" could ONLY mean "the Word was a god." BUT, John did NOT use this construction.

If John had written the clause: και ο λογος ην ο θεος, it would mean that "the Word was THE God." In other words, the Word was exactly the same person as the Father. This would mean only one person is being represented throughout the text, not two. The Father and the Son would then be nothing more than manifestations of the same person. They would not be separate individuals. It would mean here is one personality who simply appears at times in different forms. This would then lend support to the modalist argument. The inclusion of the article with θεος would make it specific and make θεος the subject: In such a construction, the λογος would be exactly the same individual as the Father (the exact same θεος just mentioned in the previous clause). Since both nouns have the article, θεος is grammatically locked into occurring after λογος. If it were moved in front of λογος, it would change its grammatical function, and become the subject. Thus, in this construction, the position of θεος would not mean anything. It MUST appear there. Thus, the clause "και ο λογος ην ο θεος" can only mean "Jesus was THE God (the exact same individual as the Father)." BUT, John did NOT use this construction.

By writing it as και θεος ην ο λογος, John does two critical and deliberate things. First, he leaves the article off of θεος, thus indicating that Word is NOT the same individual as the father. Second, he places θεος to the front of the clause which places extra emphasis on the Word. By doing that, John makes it clear by the increase in emphasis, that the absence of the article does NOT mean "lesser." Since the absence of the article does not mean "a lesser god," it leaves us with only one choice as to what is meant: The Word is not exactly the same individual as the "τον θεον" of the second clause, but every bit as much GOD as the "τον θεον" of the second clause. Thus, the absence of the article tells us that the θεος of the third clause is NOT the same individual as the τον θεον of the second clause. The position tells us that the absence of the article does NOT mean "lesser." By placing θεος in a position of emphasis, John is doing the equivalent of bolding it, underlining it, and adding an exclamation point: "The Word was God!"

Now we see why John included the article in the prepositional phrase "προς τον θεον." He was being very specific. The Word is WITH a SPECIFIC being called "The God" (τον θεον). In the next clause, John then lets us know that the Word was completely EQUAL with "The God" in divinity, but through the careful use of the articles John has clued us in that the Word is not the same individual as The God of the previous clause.

One of the objections raised to the divinity of Jesus is that λογος means “the mind, wisdom, intelligence, or plan of God” and nothing more. It is argued that λογος is not an individual but simply a way of describing the “mind” or “wisdom” of God (this was a common philosophy of the Gnostics). Thus, the λογος was not an individual, but simply the wisdom of God, not a “God” made flesh, but the wisdom of God or the mind of God made flesh. That means He did not exist prior to His birth (as God). Prior to his physical birth, this theory suggests that he was merely an idea, or a plan in the MIND of God and that IDEA became a man.

John's construction of this verse is so carefully crafted that it is often called the most concise theological statement ever made. In this one short verse, the Holy Spirit wrote through John a sentence that took me all of this time and space to explain. The Holy Spirit's deliberate use of grammar leaves us only ONE possible conclusion: Jesus is completely and totally God in every way that the Father is God, but Jesus is NOT the same individual as the Father.

Answer 3

There is always more to the proverbial elephant than one will find in just one of its limbs or appendages. Old Hermit has given a good synopsis of the use of Greek articles, to which I would like to add a less-often-considered aspect, also based on Greek.

The word "logos" in Greek, translated here as "Word" in English, must be better understood before assumptions are made.

1. The original Greek text did not have uppercase and lowercase characters. According to Wikipedia: "Like Latin and Cyrillic, Greek originally had only a single form of each letter; it developed the letter case distinction between uppercase and lowercase in parallel with Latin during the modern era." (The modern era is defined as after the Middle Ages.) Greek had only uppercase at the time of the writing of the New Testament, so there was no "Logos" versus "logos" by which to imply personhood.

2. The word "logos" in Greek has broad application. You can verify this by looking at how it is translated in one of hundreds of other passages. It could mean cause, answer, doctrine, saying, teaching, response, word, decree, mandate, speech, account, reason, etc.

With the breadth of the word's potential meaning, "word" was chosen as among the more neutral possibilities here in John 1. However, consider the impact upon personhood it might make if it had been translated as "answer."

For example:

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

If God = the answer, does that mean that the answer is a person?

Remember, no capitalization here in the Greek hints at personhood, which is why "answer" is not capitalized in this rendition. But, even if one were to capitalize it, as in "Answer," what practical difference would this have made? It might be like saying "God is the Help we all need." Capitalizing emphasizes the subject complement without limiting it to full equivalency with the subject. (Obviously, God is more than merely "Help.")

As Alex and others rightly point out, Jesus taught plainly that the Father was the only true God (John 17:1-3), that the Father was Jesus' own God, as well as our God (John 20:17), and that the Father was the One we should worship, just as the Jews did in Jesus' day (John 4:21-24). Jesus never told anyone to worship the Son of Man / Son of God. He instructed us to worship the Father, pray to the Father, etc. If the Father, as Jesus said, is "the only true God," any other God would, by default, be a false god. That said, God (the Father) was "in Christ" (2 Corinthians 5:19), shrouding His divinity in humanity.

If the "word" is a representation of the only true God, then it must necessarily represent the Father, which, in verse 14, takes on human flesh. The Greek word translated as "became" in verse 14 needs proper attention as well, because it does not have a true equivalent in English. "Became" has been misunderstood. Malachi 3:6 says that God does not change, so it would be impossible for God to change into Man, and the word "became" does not do proper justice to the original meaning here.

One misunderstanding quickly leads to another. It is important that John 1:1 be considered in conjunction with all of the other evidences from parallel passages, and vice versa, and with a more in-depth understanding of the original Greek.

Answer 4

What appears to be missed here in all of the above answers is the meaning of the word "theos" (God/god). It think Philip Harner's explanation showing that in Jn. 1:1c the predicate is "qualitative" is correct, same as Daniel. Wallace. However, what is missed here is that "qualitative" means having all of the qualities of the Greek TERM "theos," not having all of the qualities of the particular Person called "the God" in this verse (Yahweh, the Father). This necessitates defining the term "theos" precisely. And that requires a carful analysis of the entire scope of its usage. When this is done, it is apparent that the term "theos" does NOT in any way indicate a particular ontological nature, because it is used of Yahweh, His Son, pagan deities (who are demons), and on at least two occasions it is used of human rulers. The core meaning of this term is "Sovereign," a being who holds sovereignty. Compare Psalm 45:6-7 where 2 Persons are called "God," yet the one is also the "God" of the other called "God." The Psalm explains that "God, your God" has anointed the other person to be "God" in His Kingdom.

It is therefore wrong from Trinitarians to claim that John 1:1c indicates "deity" for Logos (as a non-personal ontological nature) because they are not applying all the qualities of the TERM "theos" to Logos but rather applying ontological qualities of one particular Person (Yahweh) to the Logos.

The explanation given by Biblasia (apparently a Biblical Unitarian) also fails to take into account that "Logos" was a proper name for Jesus as stated plainly in Rev. 19:13. Also, since "theos" is always a concrete, personal noun, the qualitative sense here of the predicate theos must include ALL that the term "theos" includes. This is first and foremost a PERSON, and secondly a person who holds sovereignty. The qualitative sense of a predicate never allows one to pick and choose certain abstract or ontological characteristics while ignoring the primary meaning of the term, a PERSON holding SOVEREIGNTY. Biblical Unitarians cannot escape the fact that in John 1:1 the Apostle both distinguishes Logos from "the God," yet applies all of the qualities inherent in the term "theos" to Logos.