tigger 2
Well-Known Member
E.
John 1:1c in NT Greek (cont.):
The above lessons show that word order (predicate noun before the verb as found in the NT Greek of John 1:1c) does not change the meaning to an understood article (“the”) as Colwell’s Rule suggests or some nebulous ‘qualitative’ or ‘essence’ meaning as some other trinitarian scholars insist. [However, many of the examples of predicate nouns modified by “prepositions” (which are not proper examples because of uncertain article usage) do have understood definite articles. This does not apply to proper examples truly parallel to John 1:1c.]
Pay particular attention to two of the verses found in our list in D. above: John 6:70 and John 10:1.
John 6:70 “Jesus answered them…. and one of you [Judas] is a devil.” - KJV. Greek word order: “out of you one devil is.”
“One who sins belongs to the devil, like Cain (1 Jn 3:8, 12); or he is a devil himself, like Judas, the betrayer (Jn 6:70). .... Jesus’ enemies are called children [and sons] of the devil, i.e. those who share his nature and behavior (Jn 8:44) [Acts 13:10; 1 Jn 3:10].” - p. 472, vol. 3, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan.
So a man who is from [literally “out of,” ek] the Devil (1 Jn 3:8), and is a ‘son of the Devil’ (Acts 13:10), and who is “with the Devil (whether physically or figuratively) may also be called “a devil” (Jn 6:70)! So Judas, for example, could be described in NT terms: “Judas was with ho diabolos [the Devil], and diabolos was Judas.” And no matter how anyone wants to interpret it, it would be incredibly wrong to insist (as many trinitarians do about Jn 1:1c) that this meant Judas was literally, equally the Devil himself! Whether you translate it literally (“Judas was with the Devil, and Judas was a devil”) or ‘qualitatively’ (“Judas was with the Devil, and Judas had the ‘nature’ of the Devil”), it would mean essentially the same thing: Judas simply shared to some degree some (or one) of the qualities of the Devil, but he is not equally the Devil with Satan himself! No reasonable person would accept this as evidence for some mysterious ‘Satanity’! Compare this with John 1:1c.
John 10:1 John 10:1 has this word order, “that (one) thief is and robber” [the first predicate noun is before the verb and the second is after the verb!]. This is always translated as, “that one [or ‘he’] is a thief and a robber” (both indefinite!). It is never rendered, “that one is the Thief and a robber” [Colwell]. And it is never “qualitatively” rendered as “that one has the full essence of thiefness and is a robber.”
The word order does not change the meaning. The predicate noun is still indefinite.
The John 1:1c predicate noun (and its parallels), according to John's (and the other Gospel writers) grammar and usage turns out to be as indefinite as his other anarthrous predicate nouns (found after the verb).
When John wishes to show a count noun predicate noun which comes before its verb is the most superior person in that category, he adds the definite article. For example, John 1:21 is speaking of the prophet above all other prophets. At John 1:21 we see John the Baptist being asked "the prophet are you." We see that the predicate noun not only comes before the verb and the subject is after the verb as in John 1:1c. And how did John show this was intended to be The Prophet? Well, even though it comes before the verb, John added the definite article before it! "Ho prophetes ei su." Otherwise we would have understood it to mean "a prophet" just as it is in John 4:19 where "prophetes ei su" is rendered in English Bibles as "you are a prophet."
IF John had intended John 1:1c to mean "The Word was God," he would do the same thing to avoid any ambiguity: "Ho theos en ho Logos." The fact that he didn't is very significant.
Unfortunately, in spite of all the other parallels to John 1:1c which we have seen above in Lesson D, none of them in the writings of John include the predicate noun for "God/god." To see a parallel which uses theos we must go to the ancient Greek OT Septuagint.
3 Kings 18:27 in the ancient Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament (1 Kings 18:27 in English Bibles) has a parallel construction to John 1:1c. It has theos as a predicate noun without a definite article (anarthrous) and coming before the verb: “for God [or ‘a god’] he is.” But the Septuagint translation by Sir Lancelot Brenton (Zondervan Publishing) says “for he is a god.”!! Compare other translations of 1 Kings 18:27: “a god” is obviously intended here just as it is in John 1:1c.
I realize this is not from the writings of John, but it is the only way we'll find a similar use of the pre-verbal anarthrous predicate noun theos. But the many parallel uses of other predicate nouns by John prove the point anyway.
John 1:1c in NT Greek (cont.):
The above lessons show that word order (predicate noun before the verb as found in the NT Greek of John 1:1c) does not change the meaning to an understood article (“the”) as Colwell’s Rule suggests or some nebulous ‘qualitative’ or ‘essence’ meaning as some other trinitarian scholars insist. [However, many of the examples of predicate nouns modified by “prepositions” (which are not proper examples because of uncertain article usage) do have understood definite articles. This does not apply to proper examples truly parallel to John 1:1c.]
Pay particular attention to two of the verses found in our list in D. above: John 6:70 and John 10:1.
John 6:70 “Jesus answered them…. and one of you [Judas] is a devil.” - KJV. Greek word order: “out of you one devil is.”
“One who sins belongs to the devil, like Cain (1 Jn 3:8, 12); or he is a devil himself, like Judas, the betrayer (Jn 6:70). .... Jesus’ enemies are called children [and sons] of the devil, i.e. those who share his nature and behavior (Jn 8:44) [Acts 13:10; 1 Jn 3:10].” - p. 472, vol. 3, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan.
So a man who is from [literally “out of,” ek] the Devil (1 Jn 3:8), and is a ‘son of the Devil’ (Acts 13:10), and who is “with the Devil (whether physically or figuratively) may also be called “a devil” (Jn 6:70)! So Judas, for example, could be described in NT terms: “Judas was with ho diabolos [the Devil], and diabolos was Judas.” And no matter how anyone wants to interpret it, it would be incredibly wrong to insist (as many trinitarians do about Jn 1:1c) that this meant Judas was literally, equally the Devil himself! Whether you translate it literally (“Judas was with the Devil, and Judas was a devil”) or ‘qualitatively’ (“Judas was with the Devil, and Judas had the ‘nature’ of the Devil”), it would mean essentially the same thing: Judas simply shared to some degree some (or one) of the qualities of the Devil, but he is not equally the Devil with Satan himself! No reasonable person would accept this as evidence for some mysterious ‘Satanity’! Compare this with John 1:1c.
John 10:1 John 10:1 has this word order, “that (one) thief is and robber” [the first predicate noun is before the verb and the second is after the verb!]. This is always translated as, “that one [or ‘he’] is a thief and a robber” (both indefinite!). It is never rendered, “that one is the Thief and a robber” [Colwell]. And it is never “qualitatively” rendered as “that one has the full essence of thiefness and is a robber.”
The word order does not change the meaning. The predicate noun is still indefinite.
The John 1:1c predicate noun (and its parallels), according to John's (and the other Gospel writers) grammar and usage turns out to be as indefinite as his other anarthrous predicate nouns (found after the verb).
When John wishes to show a count noun predicate noun which comes before its verb is the most superior person in that category, he adds the definite article. For example, John 1:21 is speaking of the prophet above all other prophets. At John 1:21 we see John the Baptist being asked "the prophet are you." We see that the predicate noun not only comes before the verb and the subject is after the verb as in John 1:1c. And how did John show this was intended to be The Prophet? Well, even though it comes before the verb, John added the definite article before it! "Ho prophetes ei su." Otherwise we would have understood it to mean "a prophet" just as it is in John 4:19 where "prophetes ei su" is rendered in English Bibles as "you are a prophet."
IF John had intended John 1:1c to mean "The Word was God," he would do the same thing to avoid any ambiguity: "Ho theos en ho Logos." The fact that he didn't is very significant.
Unfortunately, in spite of all the other parallels to John 1:1c which we have seen above in Lesson D, none of them in the writings of John include the predicate noun for "God/god." To see a parallel which uses theos we must go to the ancient Greek OT Septuagint.
3 Kings 18:27 in the ancient Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament (1 Kings 18:27 in English Bibles) has a parallel construction to John 1:1c. It has theos as a predicate noun without a definite article (anarthrous) and coming before the verb: “for God [or ‘a god’] he is.” But the Septuagint translation by Sir Lancelot Brenton (Zondervan Publishing) says “for he is a god.”!! Compare other translations of 1 Kings 18:27: “a god” is obviously intended here just as it is in John 1:1c.
I realize this is not from the writings of John, but it is the only way we'll find a similar use of the pre-verbal anarthrous predicate noun theos. But the many parallel uses of other predicate nouns by John prove the point anyway.