1

John 1:1c, Was the Word “God,” or “a god”?

(By: Lesriv Spencer - 2010. Update: Nov., 2023. For: scribd.com)

(Unless noted, Bible citations below are from the King James Version. Other quoted versions: ASV = American Standard
Version; Darby = The Holy Scriptures, by J.N.Darby; ESV = English Standard Version; JB = Jerusalem Bible; NAB = New
American Bible; NIV = New International Version; NKJV = New King James Version; NLT = New Living Translation; NRSV =
New Revised Standard Version; NWT = New World Translation; TM = The Message. Greek citations* are from The Greek
New Testament: SBL Edition “SBLGNT,” courtesy of Society of Biblical Literature and Logos Bible Software, Michael W.
Holmes, Editor, 2010. *In some computers it may be necessary to download Greek fonts to view the Greek
characters.)

Table of Contents (Click to follow link)

1. Introduction.
2. Why not simply adopt the majority view on John 1:1?
3. What does the Bible actually say about Jesus Christ?
4. Was “God” the one made flesh?
5. Do Scriptures allow for a secondary meaning of “god” and “savior”?
6. Could there be another “savior” other than God?
7. Is it possible to speak of divine beings existing alongside God?
8. The Greek article and predicate nouns.
9. Can the indefinite article (a) be legitimately added to John 1:1?
10. Predicate nouns without the article occurring before the verb as in John 1:1.
11. Are indefinite and qualitative renderings mutually exclusive?
12. What about claims that the article is not required at John 1:1c?
13. Do proper names invalidate the need of the article?
14. Does word order change the meaning of predicate nouns?
15. Wouldn’t the indefinite pronoun “τις” be used by John to say Jesus was a god?
16. Colwell's Rule and the indefinite article (“a”). Why the confusion?
17. In search of a counterbalance in interpretation.
18. The Apostle John's own conclusion on the Logos.
19. Concluding Remarks.
20. Bibliography.

1. Introduction:

Perhaps no other scripture of the Bible provokes as much discussion as John 1:1. Why is this so?
Simply because John 1:1 centers around the person of Jesus Christ, who is said to be “the Word”
in the verse. (This article is based on the premise that the term “Word” (Greek: logos) in the verse applies
to Jesus Christ. It does not address the subject of other assumptions on the “logos” discussed elsewhere.)

This information is provided for the benefit of anyone sincerely interested in expanding their
scope of a much discussed scripture. I have no affiliation to any religious group, nor do I attend
religious services of any kind. I do have a keen interest in the Scriptures and their import. Truth
matters to me, and I feel compelled to express some observations on the controversy
surrounding John 1:1.

Most English Bible versions at John 1:1 read like so: “In the beginning was the Word, and the
 2

Word was with God, and the Word was God.” In the original Greek, however, all letters appeared
in the form of “upper-case” or “capital” forms (uncials). In English, we use lower-case more often
than capital letters. So it is up to the translator to decide when to employ “capital” letters and
when not to. As a consequence, interpretation of the Bible text in some cases can come into play
in the translation process.

For most Christians, Christ is the object of worship, for he is said to be “God” himself, God
Almighty. For a smaller number of Christians, Christ is only seen as the “Son” of God, subordinate
to God, as a separate entity of God Almighty. The majority view accepts the Trinity teaching,
whereas the minority group who supports that Christ is always subject to God in power and
position rejects the Trinity as a pagan concept. In this article, I will not focus on the rightness or
wrongness of the Trinity doctrine per se, though the subject cannot be dismissed entirely when
considering this scripture. Instead, I will fix my attention on whether Greek grammar and/or
Biblical context may permit other renderings of John 1:1 in place of the traditional one shown
above.

2. Why not simply adopt the majority view on John 1:1?

First of all, it would be dangerous to adopt a majority view, if this one is in error. A majority view
held by scholars of itself does not automatically make a matter true. Why? Because scholars are
not infallible, nor immune to human tradition. Were they in Jesus' day? Scholars today may find
themselves in error just as some educated ones were in Jesus' day, as Matthew chapter 23
clearly demonstrates. (Matthew 15:9) We are warned that “the whole world lies under the power
of the evil one.” (1 John 5:19, NRSV) We should not dismiss religion as being beyond the scope of
Satan. We all need to be in guard of evil influence at all times, being careful of not becoming
“stone-blind” by “the god of this world.” (2 Corinthians 4:4, TM) Thus, a majority view does not
always represent the truth. The doctrinal foundation for Christians should be based, not by what
the majority believe, but rather, on what the Bible itself teaches.

3. What does the Bible actually say about Jesus Christ?

Simply put, Jesus is depicted as “Son of God,” not “God the Son.” (Luke 1:35, NRSV) There is a vast
difference in meaning between these two expressions. There are more than two hundred
references (200x) in the New Testament which explicitly declare that Jesus Christ is the “Son of
God,” or that ‘God is the Father of Jesus Christ’.1 This in itself is very significant. Yet, Christendom
chooses instead to dwell on a few debatable texts which are said to describe Jesus as God. The
Catholic book, The New World Dictionary-Concordance to the New American Bible, acknowledges: “The
term God is only applied to Jesus in only a few texts, and even their interpretation is under
dispute (Jn 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Tit. 2:13; 2 Pet. 1:1).”2 Other sources add John 1:1 to this list. None of
these ‘disputed’ texts are explicit in declaring Jesus' equality with God. In Scripture, Jesus’ place in
the broad picture is one of sonship, namely, as Son of God, not God. Furthermore, the word “son”
is never used to describe God, or Holy Spirit.
1 For a list of instances, see: The Preacher’s Outline and Sermon Bible, “John”, Chattanooga: Leadership Ministries Worldwide, 1998, 27.
2 The New World Dictionary-Concordance to the New American Bible. New York: World Publishing, 1970, 213.
 3

Bible writers always note Jesus’ orientation as one of subordination to the Father rather than
Christ being at the center of it all. He affirmed: “The Father is superior to myself.” (John 14:28, The
Authentic New Testament) Jesus himself made it clear to others: “I seek, not mine own will, but the will
of the Father which hath sent me.” (John 5:30; Luke 22:42; Cp. with John 8:16,29) Christ even asked
others to worship his Father. (John 4:23) And Jesus stated that he ‘lived because of the Father, and
those who feed on Christ will live because of him.’ (John 6:57) The Grand Creator has no need to
feed of anyone – ever. After all, he is Almighty God. But he gave life, power and authority to his
Son, Jesus Christ, offering Him as the “bread of God” so others can feed and live of him. (John 5:26;
Matthew 28:18; John 6:33) Furthermore, Jesus spoke of his Father as ‘his God’ and as ‘the God of
everyone else.’ (John 20:17) The Bible indicates that “the only God,” as Jesus himself called him,
revealed things to Christ. (John 5:44, NKJV; NIV; 12:49; Mark 13:32; Revelation 1:1) If Jesus was all-
knowing like we imagine God to be, there would be no need for someone else to give him any
secret information, and much less, what to do with it.

Christ is in the Bible described as “the image of the invisible God [not God], the firstborn of all
creation.” (Colossians 1:15); the “mediator between God and men.” (1 Timothy 2:5) Of course, it is
possible to spin these clear statements to make them say something else, but would it be wise to
do so? Someone who plays the role of “mediator” cannot be one of the two parties involved, be it
God or mankind. Otherwise, mediatorship in itself would be a meaningless empty word. Scripture
calls Christ, ‘the Word of God,’ not “God.” (Revelation 19:13) This implies that as God’s Spokesman
(Logos), Jesus can readily ‘mediate’ between God and mankind.

Even after Jesus’ ascension to heaven, he is depicted as second-in-command only to God. As One
‘reflecting God's bright glory, and stamped with God's own character...[having] sat down at the
right hand of the Majesty on high.’ (Hebrews 1:3, Moffatt3) “For it was God's good pleasure to let
all completeness [“fullness of the Godness,” Colossians 2:9, McReynolds4] dwell in him [Christ].”
(Colossians 1:19, Knox5) Thus we read at Ephesians 1:3, “Blessed be the God and Father of our
Lord Jesus Christ.”

Ultimately, “The Son also himself shall be placed in subjection to him [God] who put all things in
subjection to him, that God may be all in all.” (1 Corinthians 15:28, Darby6) When Christ ‘was sent to
do his Father's will,’ ‘he was invested with much power and authority.’ After accomplishing his
God-given mission, God “supereminently exalted Him to the highest rank and power.” (John 6:38;
Ephesians 1:20,21; Philippians 2:9, Wuest7) “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1
Peter 1:3) Adherents of mainstream churches cannot picture the Christ as one holding the rank of
second-in-command in the Universe after God. They view the concept as denigratory to his
Godship. However, the Bible does not.

3 Moffatt, James. The Bible – A New Translation, Harper & Row, Publishers, New York, Evanston and London, 1935.
4 McReynolds, Paul R. The Word Study Greek-English New Testament, Carol Stream, IL.: Tyndale, 1999.
5 Knox, Ronald. The Knox Bible. Oil City, PA.: Baronius Press, 2012.
6 Darby, J. N., The Holy Scriptures, Ontario, 1988, Fourth Edition.
7 The New Testament – An Expanded Translation, Kenneth S. Wuest, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Reprint 1981.
 4

4. Was “God” the one made flesh?

Jesus spoke of himself over 80 times in the Gospels as “the Son of man,” indicative of his “human”
nature while on earth, in direct conflict with the “God-man” description often proclaimed by
traditionalists. (Matthew 8:20, etc.) According to Hebrews 2:9, Jesus “was made a little lower than
the angels” so he could taste death for everyone. God could not ever become “lower than the
angels” he created. Furthermore, if Jesus was really made lower than the angels, then he could not
have been all of God at the same time, as often claimed. Instead, John 1:14 clearly tells us that it
was ‘the Word who became flesh,’ not God. The doctrine of “The Incarnation” as commonly taught
actually twists the meaning of John 1:14, because the verse never expressed that ‘God became
flesh.’ Instead, it says “the Word” did. Plain and simple! 2 John 7 only confirms this. In other words,
the Logos, Jesus Christ, became “human,” or “a human being.” Another scripture often misused to
prove that God was made flesh is 1 Timothy 3:16, but originally this text did not say, “God was
manifest in the flesh,” as it reads in a few Bible versions, since such reading is defective. Other
translations of the Bible have corrected this blatant error found in altered manuscripts, saying
instead, in harmony with earlier manuscripts: “He [or, “Who”] was manifested in the flesh,”
pointing to ‘Christ as the One being manifested in the flesh.’ (For a consideration of 1 Timothy 3:16,
see scribd.com, under “Lesriv Spencer.”)

When the birth of God's Son was announced, Jesus was given, in addition to his personal name, a
prophetic name: Em-man'u-el = “God with us.” (Matthew 1:23) Some see a description of Jesus’ deity
in these words, but it should be noted that the expression (of God being with someone) was quite
common in Bible times. On several occasions during Biblical history, it was said that ‘God was with
his people,’ or that ‘God was with some servant of his.’ (2 Samuel 5:10; 2 Chronicles 1:1; 13:12; Isaiah
8:10; Zechariah 8:23; Acts 7:9) The point is that God can be with mankind (i.e., with us) by means of his
representatives. He can be with his people by simply leading his attention toward them, by
guiding them, and fulfilling his will through them. The same idea is portrayed prophetically in the
last book of the Bible of ‘God being with mankind.’ (Revelation 21:3) Even then, mankind will never
reach equality with God. In all, it is through Jesus Christ that God accomplishes his will of the
salvation of mankind.

Nonetheless, some believe that Jesus Christ was both “God” and “man” at the same time because
he manifested superhuman power. But the Bible shows that God was the source of his power.
(John 8:28, 29; Acts 10:38) Yes, “God anointed Jesus… with power.” This explains why Scripture can
cogently say right after: “God was with him [Jesus],” not that ‘God was him.’ Since ‘God was with
Christ,’ everyone could finally see what God is like through Christ. (John 5:19; 12:45) In fact, the
Father and the Son are spoken of being “one” in will and purpose. (John 10:30) One could say that
taking a solemn ‘look at Jesus is like looking at God himself.’ (John 14:9 - Like the popular saying goes:
“Like father, like son.”) Being in God's image, he can certainly make ‘the Father known’ unlike no one
else. (Colossians 1:15; John 1:18) “Everything of God gets expressed in him, so you can see and hear
him clearly.” (Col. 2:9, TM) There is no doubt then, that this Logos was powerfully divine.

That said, Jesus never claimed he was God, or the Father in flesh. He declared: “He who does not
 5

honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.” (John 5:23, NIV) And: “You believe in God;
believe also in me.” (John 14:1, NIV) Consequently, we must all ‘honor the Son as we honor the
Father.’ After God presented “the only begotten Son” as “Savior” to the world, and after ‘placing
everything under the power of Christ, the Son himself must submit to the power of God.’ (Matthew
20:23; 1 Cor. 15:27,28) When the Inspired Writers spoke of God's Son in Scripture they saw fitting to
employ the loftiest language available to describe this prominent Divine Being, but never to the
point of being equated with God.

A few centuries after Christ's death, a state of confusion arose due to pagan influence where many
strongly argued about Jesus' identity. The controversy was finally won by those supporting the
doctrine that Christ was equal to the Father. However, those victors went beyond Scripture. On
the one hand, the people of his time never gave Jesus the place befitting of Christ, that is, of
“Lord” and “Savior,” while nominal Christian followers who centuries later adopted the Trinity
doctrine did the opposite, by attributing to the Son a position only belonging to God, one that
Jesus never claimed. The picture of the person of Christ emerging from the pages of the New
Testament is somewhere between these two extreme points of view. This ‘Father-ignoring,’ ‘Christ-
centered’ approach is the one commonly taught in churches and colleges today. True, the New
Testament centers around the life of Jesus Christ, but it does so consistently in this manner: Only
Christ provides “the way” to the Father, in order for mankind to be saved. (John 14:6; Acts 4:12) If
Christ is the way, it follows that the Father is the ultimate destination for true worshipers. This
conclusion is in harmony with the Biblical statements that “the true worshippers shall worship the
Father,” and that Christ is the mediator between God and mankind. (John 4:23; 1 Tim. 2:5) Christ
never taught the Divinity consisted of three coequal partners.

5. Do Scriptures allow for a secondary meaning of “god” and “savior”?

In the Scriptures the term ‘god’ has various connotations, not one single meaning as some
would have us believe. Some scholars sustain that the notion of Jesus Christ as “a god” as if
there were other gods beside God is incompatible with Jewish “monotheism,” the belief in one
God, and claim it implies polytheism.8 It really comes down to how you define the term “god.”
Why? The Expository Dictionary of Bible Words by Stephen D. Renn points out: “...[The word] theos
[“god”] does convey a number of significant nuances in a variety of contexts.”9 (Bold letters his.)

The concept itself that God as an entity is composed of three coequal persons runs counter with
Jewish monotheism. The Jewish Encyclopedia states“...The Jews have always regarded the doctrine
of the Trinity as one irreconcilable with the spirit of the Jewish religion and with monotheism.”10
The teaching of the “Shema,” consisted as noted, in that “Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.”
(Deuteronomy 6:4, ASV) Why would the “Shema” be traditionally used for ages to call attention to
the fact that God is “one,” and then, unexpectedly, confound the matter by insisting that the
statement must mean the Divine One is “three persons” in one? It is frequently explained that the

8 M.J. Harris, Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992, 60; Daniel B.
Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, 266.
9 Stephen D. Renn, Expository Dictionary of Bible Words, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005, 441.
10 Jewish Encyclopedia, 1906, Vol. 12, 261, “Under, Trinity (Last sentence)”.
 6

teaching of the Trinity is a “mystery.” The problem with such reasoning is that nowhere in
Scripture are we lead to believe in such a concept.11 The fact that many are exposed to the Trinity
dogma for a long time may explain why some may see ‘insinuations’ of it in the Bible. In any case,
it is proper to question whether the doctrine is rooted on proper textual interpretation of the
Bible, or is instead based on human “tradition” or even emotional fancy.

Certain Scriptures are frequently cited as proof by Trinitarian advocates that Christ is God. Isaiah
44:6 and Hosea 13:4 are two such examples, which have God (YHVH) saying: “I am the first, and I
am the last; and beside me there is no God.” “And thou shalt know no god but me: for there is
no savior beside me.” These words are strictly taken to mean that there can be no “god” or
“savior” other than God almighty in another setting. By implication, traditionalists portray God
as an impotent God unable to appoint others to represent him as such, if he so wishes. In the
context in which these words were pronounced, the people of Israel were inclined to worship
vain hand-made idols. (Isaiah 42:17) Hence, God's warning found in Isaiah and Hosea. People
brought up in traditional dogma tend to restrict the meaning of the term “God” to those
statements found in Isaiah and Hosea, leading them to the conclusion that any god other than
the Almighty God, must be a “false” god. They define the word God within the context of modern
Trinitarianism, instead of ancient Scriptural teachings. Traditionalists reason that if the
appellative “God” is applied to Jesus Christ, then he could be no other than the Sovereign God
himself.

However, an important element is overlooked in such reasonings. The fact is that the Biblical
word for “god” can have various meanings. The term can be applied to others, since it appears
to be related to someone with power and authority. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
explains: “This word [’ĕ·lō·hîm] can in fact, be used for other gods (Gen. 31:30) and even for men
(cf. Ex. 4:16; 7:1; cf BDB, p. 43) … The derivation [of ’ĕ·lō·hîm] is obscure, but the implied sense seems
to be that of strength or authority.”12 (Italics added.) The Expository Dictionary of Bible Words adds: “The
word itself [‫’( ֵאל‬ēl), Hebrew word for God] derives from a root term meaning ‘power,’ ‘strength,’ or,
‘might.’13 And the Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible says: “Common to these four suggested root
meanings [of El, ‘God’] is the idea of strength, power, and of supreme excellence and greatness.”14
This may explain why instead of finding the traditional reading of “God” at John 1:1, various Bible
versions describe the Logos as ‘a powerful divine being,’ or a variation of this. When the full
context of Scripture is considered, it is evident that the words spoken by God found in Isaiah
and Hosea are very true in a specific sense, namely, that there is but one Supreme God, and one
Main Savior. This truth, however, does not rule out the appointment of saviors by God himself in
his representation, or the existence of ‘godlike ones’ under God as the Biblical record shows. (Job
38:7; Psalms 29:1; 89:6)

6. Could there be another “savior” other than God?

11 The word “mystery” does appear in the NT only in relation to the Messianic Kingdom. (Matthew 13:11; Mark 4:11)
12 International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979, Vol. II, 497.
13 Stephen D. Renn, Expository Dictionary of Bible Words, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005, 439.
14 W. A. Elwell, Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988, Vol. 1, 881.
 7

The Sovereign Lord God is the universal Savior. (Isaiah 45:21) Notwithstanding, God allowed
others in the past to act as ‘saviors’ or “deliverers” on his behalf in certain situations. (Judges 2:16)
We find that the term is applied to Christ as the prime agent of salvation. (2 Peter 2:20; 1 John 4:14;
Titus 1:4) We are told that humans too, like Othniel and Ehud, were used as ‘deliverers’ (or, saviors)
of their people. (Judges 3:9,15; Nehemiah 9:27; Isaiah 45:15) These scriptures share the same
Hebrew root yᾱsha’ meaning to “be delivered”, “to be saved,” and by extension, “savior(s).” Both
God and men are thus depicted literally to be, either as, the “one-saving” in the singular, or “the
ones-saving” in the plural. (verb-participle, masculine) = “saviors.”) Would this then demand that
humans called “saviors” in Scripture share the status of Supreme Divinity? No, there is a better
explanation found in the NIV Bible.

The NIV Study Bible has this to say of Israel's leaders, or judges: “Their principal purpose is best
expressed in [Judges] 2:16: ‘Then the LORD raised up judges, who saved them out of the hands of
… raiders.’ Since it was God who permitted the oppressions and raised up deliverers [saviors], he
himself was Israel's ultimate Judge and Deliverer [Savior] (11:27; see 8:23, where Gideon, a judge,
insists that the Lord is Israel's true ruler).”15 These human deliverers were used as instruments of
salvation by the Supreme Savior of all, the Lord God. Since the same words (“god” and “savior”)
may be used for God, Christ, and humans, can we then not apply the same analogy between
God and Christ as “saviors”? At the least, such references indicate that these subjects do not
automatically become theologically co-equal. The context is what determines the correct
application for each occurrence of those terms. Now, there is another vital question to consider:
Who was the One that made Jesus “Savior”?

In contrast to others who were designated “saviors” of the people of Israel, Jesus is called,
“Savior of the world.” Jesus can potentially save, not only Israel, but all of mankind from
bondage to sin, and from death itself. (1 John 4:14; John 3:16) Although Christ is undoubtedly a
greater Savior than any man, he is still subject to the Grandest Savior of all. (Isaiah 43:11; Acts
4:12; 1 Cor. 15:28). Christ himself came to be in a dire situation where he had to cry out with a
loud voice for salvation. Right before his death, he implored: “My God, my God, why hast thou
forsaken me?” The all-mighty God would never have to do that! But Jesus did, and had to be
saved by God. (Matthew 27:46; Hebrews 5:7; Psalm 28:8)

No less significant, Acts 5:31 tells us who was the One who made Jesus savior: “God exalted him
at his right hand as Leader and Savior that he might give repentance to Israel.” (NRSV) According
to this scripture, whatever role Jesus played as ‘savior,’ was due to God. We can infer from this
that someone other than God can become appointed “savior” for a given purpose. Again, context
then, should be the guiding principle for the right comprehension of these Biblical terms.

7. Is it possible to speak of divine beings (“gods”) existing alongside God?

John Macquarrie in Jesus Christ in Modern Thought claims that the Jewish monotheistic culture
would never tolerate the idea of the Logos belonging to a class of divine beings.16
15 NIV Study Bible (New International Version, “Judges” – Introduction). Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002, 326.
16 John Macquarrie, Jesus Christ in Modern Thought, London: SCM Press, 2003, 110.
 8

Correspondingly, William Loader sensed a conflict between the translation “a god” at John 1:1 of
some versions, and Jewish monotheism. He nonetheless concludes: “It is true, on the most
natural reading of the text, that there are two beings here: God and a second who was theos but
this second is related to God in a manner which shows that God is the absolute over against
which the second is defined. They are not presented as two equal gods.”17

Interestingly, Origen, the celebrated Christian theologian scholar of Alexandria (185-254 C.E.), had
already referred to Jesus Christ as a “second god.”18 Not surprisingly, Ernst Haenchen asserts:
“...In the period in which the hymn [at John 1:1] took its rise, it was quite possible in Jewish and
Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were
not identical with him. Phil 2:6-10 proves that.”19 Another scholar adds: “On the other hand, it was
a matter of general knowledge, and one which the Bible itself shares and does not attempt to
conceal, that recognition and worship have often been extended to others than the Jewish-
Christian God, and the term ‘god’ or ‘gods’ is used for them also, as are the respective Greek and
Hebrew words. It is the custom to use a capital letter G for the God of the Jewish-Christian
tradition and a small letter for the others.”20

In the Scriptures we find that Jesus is described in Isaiah 9:6 as “Mighty God,” and as “Son of
God” in other places. (John 1:34) What about angels? They too are called “sons of God.” (Job 1:6)
Angels are in nature heavenly beings closer to God than they are to humankind. They are indeed
powerful divine spirits who reflect God's glory and divine state. They are “gods” themselves.
What do we call a “son” of a “human”? This “son” is himself a “human,” is he not? Just as there is a
family of human beings sharing “humanity,” there is also a family of celestial beings, or “gods,”
sharing “divinity.” A “son of God” then is “a god,” or a ‘reflection’ of God, or else, “One who shares
a close relationship with God….”21 Whatever, the expression “son of God” is never synonymous
with God.

Psalm 82:1 tells us that, “God standeth in the congregation of the mighty [LXX: “gods”]; he
judgeth among the gods [LXX, Vulgate].” The Syriac Peshitta has “angels” here instead of “gods,”
while Tanakh (JPS) has “divine beings,” and the Targums, “judges.” Whether we apply the term
“gods” in Psalm 82:1 to angels, or to human judges (in verse 6) serving as God's representatives
(as Jesus argued in his defense), it still evident that in the Bible living beings other than God
Almighty are spoken of as “gods,” or “sons of God” with zero hint of polytheism by such use. In
harmony with this, the Andrews Study Bible explains under Psalm 82:1: “gods. Term designates
earthly rulers, leaders, mighty ones, judges, and/or princes (v. 7) who were God's
representatives, and whose work was divinely appointed (Ex. 22:28; Deut. 1:17; 16:18; 2 Chr. 19:6;
compare with Heb. 13:7).”22

17 William Loader, The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: Structures and Issues, 2 ed. New York: Peter Lang, 1992, 155.
18 Origen of Alexandria (c. 184–c. 253), also known as Origen Adamantius, Against Celsus, 5.39.
19 Ernst Haenchen / Robert Funk, A Commentary on the Gospel of John, Part 1, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984,109.
20 James Hastings, Editor. Dictionary of the Bible, Rev. Ed.: Frederick C. Grant & H. H. Rowley. London & New York: T&T Clark & Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1963, 333.
21 The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, edited by Allen C. Myers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987, 961.
22 Andrews Study Bible, Berrien Springs, MI.: Andrews University Press, 2010.
 9

So too, W. E. Vine wrote: “The word [theos] is used of divinely appointed judges in Israel, as
representing God in His authority, John 10:34, quoted from Ps. 82:6….”23 And The NIV Study Bible
has this footnote on Psalm 82:1: “gods. See v. 6. In the language of the OT—and in accordance
with the conceptual world of the ancient Near East—rulers and judges, as deputies of the
heavenly King, could be given the honorific title ‘god’…or be called ‘son of God’....” (Ibid)
Thus, mighty angels, and powerful human rulers or judges, called “gods” in Scripture were
considered “divine” or “godlike” when they acted on behalf of God. As the Lord himself told
Moses: “I will make you seem like God to Pharaoh.” (Exodus 7:1, NLT. Cp. with 4:16) Even the people
of Biblical times used the term “God” freely in reference to powerful human leaders, and of those
who displayed “supernatural” feats. Acts 12:22 informs us that when King Herod put on his royal
robes and gave a public speech, the crowd cheered him on, shouting: “It is the voice of a god
and not of a man.” (cf. Acts 28:6; Acts 14:11) With this information at hand, Robert Young, a master
of various ancient languages concluded: “God—is used of any one (professedly) mighty, whether
truly so or not, and is applied not only to the true God, but to false gods, Magistrates, judges,
angels, prophets, etc., e.g. Ex. 7:1;… John 1:1; 10:33, 34, 35; 20:28;...”24

Consequently, why do some Biblical scholars debate whether someone else aside from God can
be called “divine,” or “a god”? To them, anyone other than the One God is a “false” god. They are
confining themselves within the Scriptural context of Isaiah chapter 43, 44 and 45 discussed
above where they oppose the notion that the term “god” is used throughout Scripture in a more
broadly manner than their restricted sense allows them to admit. The New Testament often
affixes the definite article (“the”) before the word “God” to distinguish the Supreme God from
other godlike ones when the context demands it, as it does in John 1:1b.

The Biblical record makes it evident that in ancient Jewish culture (per E. Haenchen & L. W. Hurtado)
people had no issue speaking of “divine beings” under the Supreme God. In their cultural
mindset, the term “gods” when applied in a favorable manner to others beside the Most High, it
served to convey they were powerful representatives of God, whether it was Christ spoken of,
angels, or human judges. When speaking of powerful heavenly beings in glory, the term “sons
of God” was fully acceptable. In fact, there is no record of Christ himself, or his disciples, for that
matter, ever displaying any discomfort whenever he claimed to be “God's Son.” (John 10:36, NIV)
Why should we then?

Hence, anyone else other than God favorably labeled “god” in Scripture are simply divine beings
created in the image of the Most High God, belonging to the heavenly family of “godlike” ones.
The Scriptural term “god” may also be used to describe human beings holding a position of
power and authority when appointed by God. When the term is used this way, “polytheism” is a
non-issue. What about the Christ?

Frequently, Jesus used the word “God” in the absolute sense, as he did in John 17:3, calling his
Father, “the only true God.” (See also Mark 12:30) However, on one occasion recorded at John

23 W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words – Under “God,” at the end.
24 Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. “Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation.”
 10

10:33-36, Christ himself appealed to Psalm 82:6, where the term “gods” was being applied to
others beside God, in this case, human judges. Jesus was refuting the charge of blasphemy from
Jews that he was making himself God as invalid, because he was only claiming to be not God, but
“God's Son,” which is something else entirely. Jesus Christ manifestly holds a higher position
than the angels or man, but he still remains subordinate to his Father, God. (1 Cor. 11:3;
Colossians 1:3; Hebrews 3:2) Angels were made subject to Christ after he himself was placed at
God's right hand. (1 Peter 3:22)

Although angels and Christ are both described as ‘sons of God,’ only Jesus Christ is distinctively
called “the only begotten Son,” or “the only-begotten God”/“the one-begotten God,” according to
some manuscripts. (John 1:18, Murdock; Noyes; Concordant Literal Version; Etheridge) Furthermore, only
Christ is called “the firstborn of all creation.” (Colossians 1:15) Is this not the way someone would
describe the first living creation by God? By the way, God the Father, nor the "Holy Spirit” are
ever described in this way. This suggests that the notion of “preeminence” is not the main or
customary meaning of the term “firstborn.” Thus, one can affirmatively declare that Jesus, “the
Son of God,” is most divine, but not the Most High God.

8. The Greek “article” and “predicate” nouns:

An important factor to consider in the discussion of John 1:1 is the presence or absence of the
Greek article (commonly referred to as the “definite” article, roughly corresponding to the English “the”).
Both Greek and English make use of the “definite” article. However, the Greek language has no
“indefinite” article (a or an), so the translator must interpret when and where is necessary to supply
one in the target language.

Some scholars, due to theological issues, seem to downplay the significance of the article in
John 1:1c. Admittedly, there is no strict rule that can be applied in every instance where the
article appears. In point of fact, the Greek word for “God” (theos) in the Bible is generally used in
reference to the true God, sometimes without the article, since “God” is often used as a proper
name. (More on this later.) Notwithstanding, we should not conclude that the use or non-use of
the article by Bible writers was done carelessly. Many scholars, if not most, acknowledge that in
John 1:1 in contrast with other Scriptures, the presence of the article, or its absence, does play
an important role in the interpretation of this scripture. As to the significance or function of the
Greek article throughout the Greek text, we read:

Brooks & Winbery: “The basic function of the Greek article is to point out, to draw attention to, to identify,
to make definite, to define, to limit.”25
Robertson & Davis: “The Purpose of the Article…. It defines, limits, points out from [horízo] {cf. our horizon}.
The Greek article is a pointer…. Broadus [John A., Professor of N.T. Interpretation at SBTS] used to insist
that the Greek article points out in one of three ways. {a} Individual from Other Individuals. This is its most
common use…. {b} Classes from other Classes.… {c} Qualities from Other Qualities….”26 (Italics theirs.)
D.A. Black: “In general, the presence of the article [“the”] emphasizes particular identity, while the absence

25 Syntax of New Testament Greek, James A. Brooks & Carlton L. Winbery. Washington D.C.: University Press of America, 1979, 67.
26 A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament, 10th Ed., A. T. Robertson & W. Hersey Davis. Grand Rapids: Baker Book, 1958, 275-276.
 11

of the article emphasizes quality or characteristics.”27 (Italics his.)

This generalization of the Greek article applies in most cases. Some exceptions to this norm
are pointed out by grammarians Dana & Mantey, “The use of prepositions, possessive and
demonstrative pronouns, and the genitive case also tends to make a word definite. At such
times, even if the article is not used, the object is already distinctly indicated.”28 More recently,
The Intermediate Greek Grammar by Mathewson and Emig declared: “Articles are often absent
before definite nouns in prepositional phrases…and in some genitive constructions….”29

However, a website called “truthsaves.org”, in the interest of promoting the traditional reading
of “God” at John 1:1 published a list of 20 instances of theos without the article which most
translators interpret as a reference to the true God. (Jn. 1:6, 12, 13, 18; 3:2, 21; 6:45; 8:54; 9:16, 33;
13:3; 16:30; 19:7; 20:17(2); 1 Jn. 3:2; 4:12; 2 Jn. 3, 9; Rev. 21:7)30 The author(s) of this list claim that they
all share “the same grammatical structure” as John 1:1. This claim has no foundation. These
other scriptures contain prepositional phrases, genitives or some other modifier, unlike John 1:1
which is a proper nominative statement, and does not have such clauses or modifiers in the
latter part of the verse. Therefore, those Scriptures on the above list are not grammatical
parallels, and consequently, unacceptable for comparison. Those who claim they are, without
disclosing the fact that they possess a different grammatical structure are not being transparent
enough.

Wallace, in an attempt to justify that theos without an article in John 1:1c must be understood
with a definite meaning, point to the first few words of the verse where it literally reads, “in
beginning” without the article, and the translators there generally employ the article to say: “in
the beginning.“31 His argument consists in that the absence of the Greek article in the phrase
implies a definite understanding nonetheless, as would also be the case in the last clause of the
text. Again, what he fails to tell their readers is that the words “in the beginning” constitute a
prepositional phrase, since it contains the preposition “in” pointing to its object, “beginning.” In
other words, this prepositional phrase (in the “dative” case) is grammatically different from the
last clause of the text where both “theos” and “logos” are nominative nouns. Grammarians
themselves tell us that any of these grammatical variations can modify the meaning of a phrase.
Smith’s Grammar states: “The article is very often omitted in phrases containing a preposition: ἐν
ἀρχῇ τοῦ λόγου in the beginning of the speech....”32 (The Grammar’s author adds the before beginning to
his translation. Underline added.)

With this is mind, it is noteworthy that in the majority of cases the use of theos (God) with the
article in the nominative form as used in the Gospels and Acts, refers to God the Father. When
the Greek article is not used with proper nominative nouns (theos or other), it is standard
practice of Bible translators to render these anarthrous nouns with an indefinite article in

27 Learn To Read New Testament Greek, David A. Black. Wake Forest, NC: 2009, 30.
28 Dana & Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, New York: Macmillan, 1955,137.
29 David L. Mathewson & Elodie B. Emig, Intermediate Greek Grammar, Grand Rapids: 2016, Baker Academic, 74.
30 Online: https://truthsaves.org, by “Eric” and assistant, Timothy J. Binder.
31 Wallace 1996, 267.
32 Herbert W. Smith, Smyth’s Greek Grammar, Rev. by Gordon M. Messing, Harvard University Press,1956, §1128.
 12

English. A most notorious exception to this norm is ironically the one theological occurrence at
John 1:1c. An online poster by the name of “Elijah Daniels” has produced his own study of such
nouns appearing in the Gospels, Acts, the epistles of John, Revelation, and parts of the
Septuagint (Genesis, Judges & 1 Kings). He concludes that proper nominative nouns without the
Greek article in these books are always translated in English with an indefinite article, not
“definite,” not “qualitative.” If his study is any indication, it would mean that many mainstream
scholars and their followers have been expounding wrong conclusions on this matter for far too
long.33

When examining John 1:1, one will find the first instance of “theos” (God) with the article (“the,”
called, arthrous or articular), making the reference to the Supreme God particular, while the second
instance of “god” preceding a verb has no article (=anarthrous or inarticular), highlighting either the
indefinite, or qualitative force of the noun. “The absence of the article here is on purpose and
essential to the true idea,” so states A.T. Robertson.34 This is significant. Further ahead, I will
provide a list of other Scriptures that do have a similar grammatical structure to that of John 1:1.

The term “predicate” in the words predicate nouns used throughout this article, is defined as:
“The word or words that say something about the subject of a sentence or clause.” (Webster's New
Word Dictionary for Young Readers) In John 1:1c, the subject is the Logos or “the Word” (presumably,
Jesus Christ), clearly indicated by the article “the” before “Word.” The Word is said to be “God,” the
predicate, indicated by the omission of the Greek article. But translators are not unanimous in
their handling of this verse. Some render it, “the Word was divine.” Others: “The Word was a
god.” Obviously, these readings can alter the meaning of the statement. Hence, the controversy.

Technically speaking, the indefinite article can rightly be included in the rendering of John 1:1c.
Although scholars traditionally favor the translation, “the Word was God,” as does William D.
Mounce, he acknowledges: “When the article is not present, the emphasis is on the quality of the
substantive.”*35 In explaining his view of John 1:1, Mounce in Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar36,
quotes Wallace, where he states: “The most likely candidate for θεός [theos at John 1:1c] is
qualitative.”37 And with keen discernment The Translator’s New Testament, a book published to help
translators abroad, noted: “...It is difficult to believe that the omission [of the article at John 1:1c] is
not significant.”38 (*Qualitative nouns are often expressed in the English language by using an indefinite
article.)

Modern English translations use the indefinite article (a) hundreds of times, even though neither
Hebrew or Greek used any. Latin had no articles, but early translations into English from Latin
used them, like Wycliffe did (c. 1384). Others followed suit. When done properly in translation,
employing the indefinite article in the rendered text is not only useful, it actually becomes

33 Elijah Daniels – Online: https://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/def-part-3-appendix.html;

https://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2010/01/septgod.html.
34 A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934, 768.
35 William D. Mounce, Biblical Greek: A Compact Guide, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011,15. Italics his.
36 William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, Zondervan, 2009, §36.5; §36.8 (334-336, including, Summary.)
37 Wallace 1996, 269.
38 The Translator’s New Testament, The British and Foreign Bible Society, 1973, 451.
 13

necessary in some contexts to convey the proper sense in English. Basically, ‘the use of the
indefinite article (a) in translation is a matter of individual judgment,’ says Alfred Marshall. He
adds: “We have inserted ‘a’ or ‘an’ [in our translation] as a matter of course where it seems called
for.”39 Likewise, James A. Hewett wrote: “Since Greek has no indefinite article, the English
translation of a Greek word that does not have an article may be preceded by the indefinite
article ‘a’ or ‘an.’”40 That being the case, why is there so much objection when a particular Bible
translation does so at John 1:1?

In practice, the use of the indefinite article in translation can cause great controversy in places
where doctrinal interpretation comes into play. The same is true by not employing it in other
cases. John 1:1 is a clear example where using the indefinite article “a” may bring passionate
voices to the fore. It turns out to be more of a theological than a grammatical issue, although
some scholars would hesitate to admit so. My aim is not to prove that John 1:1 cannot be
rendered “God” as is often done, but to hopefully bring a level of fairness on the subject. First,
why would anyone object to using the traditional reading which appears in most Bibles? Simply
because it is confusing. Says a respectable source (Harris): “...Few will doubt that this time-
honored translation [the Word was God] needs careful exegesis,...The rendering cannot stand
without explanation.” Harris admits that the traditional translation is troublesome since ‘in
normal English usage God is a proper noun, referring to the person of the Father, and not to
Christ.’ As Harris says: “The Word is neither the Father nor the Trinity.”41

Therefore, when someone applies “God” to Christ in the traditional sense as if he were the
Sovereign God, it ends up communicating a different meaning to the modern reader (from a
different culture and mindset) from that of the original author, a monotheist. God's people were
accustomed to the “Shema” doctrine, the first two words in Hebrew, and the words which follow
it at Deuteronomy 6:4: “[Shema Yisrael] Hear, o Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.” (ASV)
These words epitomize the core monotheistic essence of Judaism. Applying the word “God” to
Christ at John 1:1 in a Trinitarian sense (a doctrine admittedly not established in Bible times), would
arguably break the monotheistic imprint. Others, however, believe that translating otherwise
(e.g., “a god”) in reference to the Logos promotes “polytheism.” More on this later.

What, then, is conceivably the most fitting translation of the anarthrous noun theos? Besides the
fact that scholars often differ on the final rendering of the verse, some make it sound like John
1:1 is extremely complex to translate. Theological evasions may be a contributing factor behind
this ambivalence. That said, the intended meaning of John 1:1 is not that difficult to determine.
First of all, we need to approach this scripture with an open mind, which admittedly is easier said
than done. There is, however, enough information available on the subject from which we can
establish a firm conclusion. We should also consider if a similar standard grammatical structure
appears elsewhere in the biblical canon, and note if there is a pattern that we can go by. What do
we find? As noted above, having a singular anarthrous noun theos preceding a verb is indicative
of a quality about the subject in discussion. In such construction, according to the NABRE Bible,
39 Alfred Marshall, The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975, Introduction, xxx.
40 James A. Hewett, New Testament Greek, Peabody, MA.: Hendrickson, 2009, 43.
41 Harris 1992, 69.
 14

theos is not used to identify the Word with the God he was with, but employed as a description of
the Logos. This work says: “Was God: lack of a definite article with ‘God’ in Greek signifies
predication rather than identification.” (New American Bible Revised Edition, 2011)

Ray Summers (a Baptist) explains: “At this point an important differentiation should be observed.
When the article is used with a construction, the thing emphasized is ‘identity’; when the article
is not used, the thing emphasized is quality of character. ὁ νόμος [‘ho nomos’] means ‘the law.’ It
points out a particular law and gives specific identity. νόμος [nomos] means ‘law’ in general….
This difference is clearly seen in the use of ó Θεός [‘ho Theos’] and Θεός [‘Theos’]…. Thus ‘in the
beginning was the Word and the Word was with God (τὸν Θεóν) and the Word was divine (Θεός)’
gives the sense.”42 The Translator’s New Testament agrees: “There is a distinction in the Greek here
between ‘with God’ and ‘God’... In effect it [the absence of the definite article in the second instance of
Theos] gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrase means ‘The
Word was divine.’”43

Nonetheless, Rudolf Bultmann objects to the use of “divine” for theos, stating that if John wanted
to say ‘divine’ he would have used the available Greek word theios instead of theos. However,
one scholar pointed out that Bultmann “overlooks the fact that θεῖος [theios] says less than what
is here affirmed of the Logos and would either make use of a literary Greek entirely foreign to
the Gospel of John, or express a different meaning.”44 As a matter of fact, the word theos is the
most common word used for God throughout the Bible, and to a lesser amount, for ‘mighty
beings’ – over 5,000 times in the Septuagint and the N.T. with its various nuances. While theios is
a favorite word in both classical and Hellenistic Greek literature, it was not popular among Bible
writers, used only a few times, and never by John.

Conflicting views indicate the need for caution at the time of taking scholars' interpretations as
facts without analyzing the matter further. Another danger we do well in avoiding is becoming
overly reliant on the inconclusive testimony of the “early church fathers,” though they have a
deserved place in the historical analysis. The Bible is ultimately our best guide in this matter.

9. Can the indefinite article (“a”) be legitimately added to John 1:1?

Mainstream Biblical scholars are of the consensus that the traditional reading, “the Word was
God,” is the correct rendering at John 1:1. They emphatically reject the notion of having the text
say, “the Word was a god,” as it reads prominently in the New World Translation (NWT), a
publication published by the religious organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses. One contributing
factor to the belief during the last century that singular anarthrous nouns preceding the verb,
like the one at John 1:1c, are potentially “definite,” was the publication of a prominent paper by
E. C. Colwell from the University of Chicago in 1933, titled: “A Rule for the Use of the Article in the
Greek New Testament.”45 In his article, Colwell worked on the assumption that ‘definite predicate

42 Ray Summers, Essentials of New Testament Greek, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1950,129-130.
43 The Translator’s New Testament, British Foreign Bible Society, 1973, 451.
44 Haenchen/Funk 1984, p. 111.
45 E.C. Colwell. University of Chicago, Journal of Biblical Literature 52, 1933, 20.
 15

nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article, hence, suggesting that theos in John 1:1c
did not require the article to be regarded “definite.” Colwell based his study on a scheme of
predicate nouns lacking the article on what he predetermined were “definite,” while observing a
shift in word-order within the grammatical structure on the samples he collected. Colwell’s
conclusion is not an established fact, since is still been debated to this day. I will make various
references to this paper throughout this essay.

Notwithstanding, Colwell’s paper became an instant hit within the scholarly community, Since
then, any publication which instead advances the indefinite concept of such predicate nouns
over the definite one at John 1:1 will likely become a target of criticism. Randolph O. Yeager, for
instance, made the following deriding comment of the New World Translation: “Only sophomores
in Greek grammar are going to translate...‘and the Word was a God.’”46 He is not alone rejecting
the NWT rendering. Various scholars have made similar disparaging remarks about the
controversial NWT rendition: Paul L. Kaufman wrote: “The Jehovah's Witness people evidence an
abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1.” F.
F. Bruce called it “totally indefensible.” Harry A. Sturz described it,”an ungrammatical and
tendential translation.” Donald Guthrie: “grammatically indefensible.” Bruce M. Metzger:
“pernicious”...“a frightful mistranslation.” Julius R. Mantey: ‘a grossly misleading translation.’
Robert H. Countess: “[On the NWT] a radically biased piece of work.” And Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski
of Zurich, Switzerland wrote: “It is monstrous to translate the phrase ‘the Word was a god.’” 47

These harsh criticisms indicate there is not much more that is disquieting to Catholics and
Protestants than having a prominent Bible translation in John 1:1 describing Jesus Christ as “a
god,” instead of “God.” As a snub, they may conclude that only less-than-qualified translators
with a hidden agenda would deviate from the traditional reading. How much stock can we put
on such criticisms? We can start by pointing out that the language used by critics in their
accusations of the non-traditional reading of John 1:1 is unyielding and harsh, even tendentious.
More significantly, the critics are riveting on ONE Bible translation with the “a god” rendering.
Why mention this? Well, did you know that the NWT is only one of many Bible versions with such
reading? There are dozens of other translators found deviating from the norm, some right from
the mainstream Catholic and Protestant faithful, but fully ignored. I believe most translators
offering a different version of John 1:1 are sincere in their effort to adequately transmit the
intended message of the Biblical author.

In the following link I provide a list of sources – over 40 sources – which directly supports the “a
god” translation: (https://www.scribd.com/document/50330864/John-1-1-List-of-Alternative-Readings)
Furthermore, you will find over 100 additional sources in various languages supporting
translations such as: divine, a divine being, god of a sort, godlike, etc. These are not “low
percentages.” (I have listed most of the sources I am aware of, but not all.) These numbers may
indicate those critics mentioned above are either, not as well-informed as we expect them to be,
or else, may themselves prove guilty of promoting a lie in the name of Christ. None of the critics
above considered it a service to their readers to alert them of available divergent opinions by
46 Randolph O. Yeager. The Renaissance New Testament, Vol. 4, Renaissance Press, 1980, 4.
47 Here is a sample criticism: https://jwanswers.com/is-the-new-world-translation-accurate-what-do-bible-scholars-say/
 16

other scholars. How honest is that? So right away, we start noticing a pattern by the critics: the
lack of objectivity and fairness on the issue. More relevant to the subject at hand, is whether their
criticisms actually hold up under scrutiny or not. Surprisingly, they do not, as the evidence
presented below demonstrates.

Curiously, the editors of the Bible version the quoted scholars love to hate have stated that
some Scriptures ‘can be rendered in more than one way,’ listing John 1:1 as one of them. A
publication of theirs said: “If a passage can grammatically be translated in more than one way,
what is the correct rendering? One that is in agreement with the rest of the Bible....John
1:1,2....“48 (Underlines mine.) This conclusion may actually be more honest than the one
presented by the critics above who endeavored in presenting a one-sided, unyielding, theological
position.

This is not the first time a Bible translation has come under fire. The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia
of Religious Knowledge found it worthy to put it on record that when a prominent Protestant Bible
translation in French by Hugues Oltramare first rendered John 1:1 back in 1872, as “dieu” with a
small “d,” he received quite a bit of opposition for it. The publication noted: “His rendering of John
i:1, La Parole était dieu [The Word was god], was very sharply criticized by the orthodox on account of
the small d.”49 (Underlines added.)

Mainstream scholars are particularly opposed to the presence of the indefinite article “a” at John
1:1c. This was again made clear when a prominent scholar from the University of Glasgow,
Scotland, William Barclay, publicly accused the publishers of the New World Translation of
‘intellectual dishonesty’ for translating John 1:1 as they have: “The deliberate distortion of truth
by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: ‘...the Word was a
god,’ a translation which is grammatically impossible … It is abundantly clear that a sect which
can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest.”50 Strong accusation indeed!
Barclay, assuming he was well-informed, made no mention that both Catholic & Protestant
‘honest’ scholars alike have also rendered the final part of the verse similarly.

Two decades later, Barclay himself, in a private letter (later made public: Dated, “20 May 1974”), to a
Mr. David Burnett from Australia conceded: “You could translate [John 1:1c], so far as the Greek
goes: ‘the Word was a God’; but it seems obvious that this is so much against the whole of the
rest of the New Testament that it is wrong.”51 (Emphasis added) As far as I know, Dr. Barclay never
issued a public apology to the NW translators for openly denouncing their translation effort,
having conceded later that the rendering, interpretation aside, was grammatically plausible. An
excerpt of the letter is available at the end.

Another scholar, Thomas L. Constable, chimed in on the controversy of the translation of “a god”

48 Reasoning from the Scriptures. Brooklyn: WBTS, 1985, 416.

49 New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. Jackson, Sherman, Gilmore. Edited by Philip Schaff.
London: Funk & Wagnals, 1910, Vol. 8, 239 (See, “Oltramare, Marc Jean Hugues”).
50 W. Barclay. The Expository Times, Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, October 1953, Vol. 65.
51 Barclay. Ever yours: A Selection from the Letters of William Barclay, edited by C.L. Rawlins, Labarum Publ., 1985, 205.
 17

at John 1:1 like so: “Grammatically this is a possible translation since it is legitimate to supply the
indefinite article (‘a’) when no article is present in the Greek text, as here. However, that
translation here is definitely incorrect because it reduces Jesus to less than God.”52 Again, this
scholar objects to the “legitimate” rendering of “a god” on theological grounds, not grammar.

And William Loader observed: “Grammatically [the Word was God] is a possible translation, but
not the only one. The statement’s meaning, and so its translation, must be determined by its
context, It could also be translated; ‘the Word was a god or the Word was divine.’ Grammatical
considerations alone fail to decide the question, since all three translations can be defended on
grammatical grounds.”53

Thus, there are an increasing number of scholars who acknowledge that the translation “a god”
at John 1:1 is grammatically viable, but the public at large, for various reasons, remains unaware
of this. Those who recognize the viability of such rendering and still oppose it do so with the
comprehension that context is on their side. The plethora of online discussions have led to
greater scrutiny in the interpretation and translation of John 1:1. Sadly, many internet
discussions end up distorting truth, and twisting facts. A review of pertinent facts is in order. The
question before us is this: Is it fitting to translate John 1:1 as “the Word was a god“? Let’s find out!

10. Predicate nouns without the article occurring before the verb as in John 1:1c:

There are numerous cases in the Greek text, similar to John 1:1, where singular anarthrous
predicate nouns precede the verb, and translators regularly insert the indefinite article “a” within
the translated text, either to bring out the indefiniteness of such nouns, or to emphasize a quality
or characteristic of the subject in discussion. In some cases, translators employ an initial lower-
case letter to bring out the qualitative factor, where the subject is clearly not being identified or
made definite. These syntactical patterns in Scripture, when analyzed, can help us determine the
proper translation.

To illustrate, I will provide the reader with ten (10) examples whose syntax is similar to John 1:1,
having singular anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb, six from the New Testament,
and four from other sources: Xenophon’s Anabasis, The Martyrdom of Polycarp, and the Septuagint
(an important Greek translation from the Hebrew OT text used by NT Christian authors), to determine
how Bible scholars really deal with this syntactical structure. These clauses have predicate
nominative nouns in place before the verb, with no prepositional phrases, genitives, abstract
nouns, or some other modifier within its construction:

1st Example (Acts 28:4): Πάντως φονεύς ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος – Greek
By all means murderer is the man this

This case deals with the apostle Paul and his companions being shipwrecked near Malta during
a rainy and cold day, a small island 58 miles south of Sicily. When they made it to shore, the
52 Dr. Constable's Expository Bible Study Notes, Dallas [DTS=Dallas Theological Seminary], Notes on John, 2012.
 18

islanders there received them kindly, and built a bonfire to warm them up. Paul had gathered
some dry sticks to keep the flames going, and as he placed them on the fire, a poisonous snake
fastened itself on his hand. When the islanders saw what struck him, they uttered the words
above. And how do Bible versions translate this clause which is identical to John 1:1 in
construction?

“This man must be a murderer” (New International Version)

“Sin duda este hombre es un* asesino” (Nueva Versión Internacional, NIV-Spanish)
“Certamente este homem é assassino” (Nova Versão Internacional, NIV-PT, Portuguese)
(*”un” is the equivalent for “a” in English)
“This man must be a murderer [Dieser Mensch muß ein Mörder sein]” (M. Luther Bible, 1545)
“This man surely is a murtherer” (Geneva Bible, 1560)
“No doubt this man is a murtherer” (Bishops Bible, 1568)
“This man is certainly a murderer” (John Worsley New Testament)
“Certainly a murderer is the man this” (The Emphatic Diaglott, Interlinear)
“That man must be a murderer” (New Jerusalem Bible)
“There is no doubt that this man is a murderer” (The Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible, NT)
“This must be some murderer” (Ronald A. Knox)
“This man must be a murderer!” (James Moffatt New Testament)
“Certainly this man is a murderer” (Greek and English Interlinear NT, Mounce)
“No doubt this man is a murderer” (Kenneth S. Wuest)
“Beyond a doubt this man is a murderer” (Charles B. Williams New Testament)
“This man is probably a murderer” (Holman Christian Standard Bible)
“This man must be a murderer!” (Common English Bible)
“The man must be a murderer” (New English Bible)
“This man is certainly a murderer” (Living Oracles New Testament)
“This man must certainly be a murderer” (New American Bible)

Literal reading at Acts 28:4, murderer is the man

Predicate noun Verb Subject
Literal reading at John 1:1, god was the logos

In this clause, the subject is “the man” (Paul), indicated by the article “the”, while in John 1:1 the
subject is “the Word,” preceded by the article likewise. In this verse, you have a singular
inarticular predicate noun “murderer” preceding the verb “is,” just as in John 1:1 there is an
anarthrous predicate noun “god” preceding the verb “was.” As seen above, none of these
translations render the predicate noun without the article in Acts 28:4 in a definite sense, as if
Paul were being identified as ‘the particular Murderer’ they all been warned about. Rather, the
superstitious islanders presumed the man was “a” murderer, or “some” murderer (Knox) who got
the snake bite he deserved. Thus, the emphasis is on the indefiniteness or qualitative aspect of
the anarthrous noun, not on identification.

This text alone shows the frivolousness of the claim that ‘only sophomores in Greek grammar
are going to translate John 1:1c (and similar constructed clauses), with an indefinite article.’
“Theology,” not “grammar,” must then be the driving force behind such baseless comments.
Does John 1:1 demand a definite translation for the article-less noun theos to make it read “God”
 19

as some scholars suggest? Neither grammar nor the context of John chapter one make such
demand. An assertion that John 1:1 must be translated, “the Word was God” in our language
would be just as impetuous as postulating that Acts 28:4 must be rendered: “This man must
certainly be [the] Murderer.” And who does that in Acts 28:4?

2nd Example (John 8:48): ὅτι Σαμαρίτης εἶ σὺ – Greek

that Samaritan are you

Jewish leaders wrongly accuse Jesus of having a demon and for being “a Samaritan.” “Samaritan”
here is used, perhaps, to suggest that Jesus was a “heretic” or one with faulty worship. (Jesus was
not even Samaritan, but of Jewish lineage.)

“that thou art a Samaritan” (King James Version)

“that you are a Samaritan” (New Revised Standard Version)
“that you are a Samaritan” (Today's English Version)
“that you are a Samaritan” (Laicester Ambrose Sawyer)
“that you are a Samaritan” (Jerusalem Bible)
“that you are a Samaritan” (New English Bible)
“that You are a Samaritan” (James L. Tomanek)
“you are a Samaritan” (New Century Version)

“that you are a Samaritan” (Jerusalem Bible)

“que tu es un Samaritain” (La Bible de Jérusalem, French)
“que eres samaritano” (Biblia de Jerusalén, Spanish)
“that You are a Samaritan” (NASB - The Lockman Foundation)
“que eres samaritano” (Biblia de las Américas [NASB] Spanish - The Lockman Foundation)

“that you are a Samaritan” (New International Version)

“que eres un samaritano” (Nueva Versión Internacional [NIV], Spanish)
“que você é samaritano” (Nova Versão Internacional [NIV], Portuguese)
“You are a Samaritan” (New World Translation)
“Tu es un Samaritain” (Traduction du monde nouveau [NWT], French)
“Sei un samaritano” (Traduzione del Nuovo Mondo [NWT], Italian)
“Tú eres samaritano” (Traducción del Nuevo Mundo [NWT], Spanish, 1963)
“Tú eres un samaritano” (Traducción del Nuevo Mundo [NWT], Spanish, 2013)
“que você é samaritano” (Tradução do Novo Mundo [NWT], Portuguese)

Literal reading at John 8:48, Samaritan are you

Predicate noun Verb Subject
Literal reading at John 1:1, god was the logos

This clause, as in Acts 28:4 above, and John 4:19 in the following example, have the predicate
noun without the article ahead of the verb and the subject, thus, are exact parallels to John 1:1c.
Would it make sense to render this “definite” denoting identification: “You are the Samaritan”?

It is also instructive to consider how various Bible versions (The Jerusalem Bible, NIV, NASB and NWT)
 20

in other language editions (that have at their disposal for use both the definite and indefinite article)
deal with the Greek reading above. Whether they employed the indefinite article “a” [or, un] or
not in their translations, the end result was nearly the same. All the readings in this section
emphasize, not the ‘definite’ factor, but the qualitative force of the predicate nouns without the
article. Take note that in these two samples, and the one below, the indefinite article is used in
English to highlight such nuance, in contrast to the foreign translators’ proclivity to use
qualitative renderings in those language editions in some places, in addition to the indefinite
article.

3rd Example (John 4:19): θεωρῶ ὅτι προφήτης εἶ σύ – Greek

I am beholding that prophet are you

These words were pronounced by a Samaritan woman after hearing Jesus divinely perceive
personal things about her life right after they met.

“I perceive that thou art a prophet” (William Tyndale's New Testament, 1534. Daniell edition)
“I perceive that thou art a prophet” (Douay–Rheims Bible)
“I perceive that thou art a prophet” (King James Version)
“I view that a prophet you are” (Charles Van der Pool, 2006)
“I perceive that a prophet art thou” (Alfred Marshall, D. Litt., The Interlinear Greek-English NT)
“I see that thou art a prophet” (Confraternity Version)
“I see that you are a prophet” (New Revised Standard Version)
“Oh, so you're a prophet!” (The Message)
“I perceive that a prophet are You” (Interlinear - Farstad, Hodges, Moss, Picirilli, Pickering)
“Are You a prophet?” (The Clear Word)
“I can see that you are a prophet” (NIV)
“I see you are a prophet” (Christian Community Bible)
“I perceive that You are a prophet” (NASB)
“I see you are a prophet” (The Authentic New Testament, Hugh J. Schonfield)
“I can see that you are a prophet” (Jewish New Testament, David H. Stern)

Literal reading at John 4:19, prophet are you

Predicate noun Verb Subject
Literal reading at John 1:1, god was the logos

Here most English translations add the indefinite article (a) before the inarticular noun,
“prophet.” It is proper to do so. The grammatical construction of John 4:19 is a parallel to John
1:1. In English the a is required before the noun “prophet,” used above in an indefinite-
qualitative sense. This is so because, it is describing an attribute about the Master, which is
‘predication, not identification.’ The Samaritan woman, of another religion, who accepted no
more than the Pentateuch, and as the account shows, did not have sufficient knowledge of the
male stranger she had just met (Jesus) to conclude at that point of the conversation that he was
‘the Prophet,’ or the promised “Messiah” of the Samaritans. Nevertheless, she soon discovered
he had special insight and could describe him as “prophetic,” or “a prophet” of some kind. Jesus
was able to have this prophetic ability, because God had empowered him with his spirit. (Acts
 21

10:38)

By the way, those of you who are familiar with a Latin-derived language such as French, Italian,
Portuguese, or Spanish, may find it a tad easier to follow this discussion regarding the use or
absence of the indefinite article. In everyday speech, the person using one of these languages
does not have to employ the indefinite article as frequently as the English speaker would to
mark the attributive force of the noun. Consequently, the connection of the qualitative force of
singular anarthrous nouns between Greek and the Latin-derived languages may be easier to
grasp. A comparison of modern translations of such nouns between English and one of the
Latin-based languages will bear this out:

For instance, in Spanish, whether the indefinite article is employed or not, the qualitative force
of singular anarthrous nouns comes through.53 At John 4:19, you can have the woman say to
Jesus: “Me parece que tú eres profeta [I perceive that you are prophet],” as the Protestant Reina-
Valera does, or have her say: “Veo que tú eres un profeta [I can see that you are a prophet],” as the
Catholic Torres Amat does. Actually, it is common in Spanish Bibles to use “profeta” without the
“un”, but some translators do add the (un, the equivalent of a to make it indefinite, “un profeta.”
Not only are both acceptable Spanish translations from the Greek, it sounds natural either way,
unlike English.

Similarly, in French, you can say: “Je vois que tu es prophète [I see that you are prophet]” – Segond.
Or, you can say: “Je vois que tu es un prophète [I see that you are a prophet” – Darby, French. The
first French reading does not use the indefinite article, while the second one does. In Italian: “Io
veggo che tu sei profeta [I see that you are prophet]” – Diodati. Or, “Tu sei un profeta! [You are a prophet]”
– La Parola è Vita. The first Italian version lacks the indefinite article, and the second one adds it. In
Portuguese: “vejo que é profeta” [I see that you are prophet]” - NVI-PT. Or: “vejo que és um profeta! [I
see that you are a prophet]” - Biblia Sagrada, Edição Pastoral.

Both constructions in the Latin-based languages – with and without the indefinite article are
acceptable. One stresses the qualitative factor, and the other the indefinite status of the
predicate noun. Wallace adds: “Although the translation [of John 4:19] is most naturally ‘Sir, I
perceive that you are a prophet,’ the sense may be better characterized as indefinite-
qualitative.”54 The same can be said of John 1:1.

At John 4:19, natural spoken English requires the use of the “a” before prophet to bring out the
Greek sense in our language, and most English Bibles do so without hesitation. To be consistent,
Bible versions could have done the same at John 1:1, a parallel construction.

4th Example (John 18:37, 1st instance): Pilate: Οὐκοῦν βασιλεὺς εἶ σύ – Greek
Not-therefore king are you?

This clause is an exact parallel to John 1:1c = anarthrous predicate noun before verb and subject.
53 José A. Septién. El Griego Bíblico Al Alcance De Todos. Barcelona: Editorial CLIE, 2007, 122.

54 Wallace 1996, 266.

 22

5th Example (John 18:37, 2nd instance): Jesus: Σὺ λέγεις ὅτι βασιλεύς εἰμι [ἐγώ]* – Greek
You are saying that king am I

(* The Westcott-Hort, and Nestle-Aland/UBS Greek texts read without the bracketed word. But the
Received/Majority Text, and the Robinson/Pierpont/Byzantine Greek texts add ἐγώ shown in brackets.)

Both instances of βασιλεὺς (“king”), the predicate noun, appear before the verb and the subject,
similar syntax to John 1:1. In the second instance of “king” here, the pronoun “I” does not appear
in some Greek texts, but is implied in εἰμι. However, the Robinson/Pierpont/Byzantine Greek
texts make it clear (and slightly more emphatic) by adding the pronoun ἐγώ (“I”) to the statement.
Either way, the omission of the article before “king” brings out the indefinite-qualitative status of
the predicate noun, as shown by Bible versions.

“Then Pilate said to him, ‘So you are a king?’ Jesus answered, ‘You say that I am a king. For this purpose I
was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is
of the truth listens to my voice.’” (ESV, full text)

“Pilate therefore said to him: Art thou a king then? Jesus answered: Thou sayest that I am a king.”
(Douay-Rheims Bible, partial text)

“‘You are a king, then!’ said Pilate. Jesus answered, ‘You say that I am a king.’” (NIV, partial text)

Other Bible translations read similarly.

6th Example (1 Kings 18:27, Septuagint, LXX. Unlike Greek, Hebrew reads right-to-left.):

Greek: ὅτι θεός ἐστιν Hebrew: ‫֔הּוא‬ ‫ִּֽכי ־ ֱאֹלִ֣הים‬

for god is (he) he god for <

“For he is a god” (Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton's translation from the Greek LXX)
“for he is a god” (Septuagint, LXX, Charles Thomson)
“for he is a god” (The Apostles' Bible: A Modern English Translation of the Greek Septuagint,
by Paul W. Esposito, 2004)
“For he is a god” (A New English Translation of the Septuagint, [NETS], 2007)
“for he is a god” (The Orthodox Study Bible, St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint, 2008. LXX)
“for he is a god” (Orthodox England, Michael Asser, 2001-2010, based on the Greek text LXX of
the version published by the Greek Orthodox Church, Apostoliki Diakonia)
“because he is a god” (The Lexham English Septuagint, Lexham Press, 2019. LXX)

“because god (he) is (porque dios es)” (La Sagrada Biblia, G. Jünemann B., 1992. LXX)

“for a god; he” (Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament)

“for god he” (The Hebrew-English Interlinear ESV Old Testament)
“for he is a god” (Jewish Publication Society, 1917. Translated from the Hebrew)
“for he is a god” (The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts [tr. Syriac], George M. Lamsa)
“for he is god (pues él es dios)” (La Biblia Peshitta en Español, translated from the Aramaic)
 23

“for Baal is youre [your] god” (John Wycliffe's Translation, translated from Latin, c. 1384)
“for he is a god” (Douay-Rheims Bible, translated from the Latin Vulgate: “deus enim est.”)

In this account, Elijah challenges the people to take a stand – to follow whoever they believed
was the true God, while making a mockery of Baal, a false, useless god. Just as in the other
instances of theos without the article (“the”) preceding the verb, translators find it necessary in
English to add the indefinite article (a) to complete the sense in our language. Had the speaker
used the article before theos, it could be taken then, as a reference of Baal being “God,” not “a
god.” Would it not? Observe that John Wycliffe's translation from Latin did not capitalize the “g”
in “god.” Also, two Spanish translations above, one from the Greek LXX by Jünemann and the
other, a Peshitta from the Aramaic, did not capitalize the “g” in “god,” Actually, in Spanish it is not
required to use the indefinite article (a) in this construction to obtain nearly the same effect as
the English statement, “for he is a god.” Surely, the translators of the Spanish versions were not
suggesting that Elijah was calling Baal “God.”

In Hebrew, we find the reading ki-'elohim hu = because god [is] he, appearing in our English versions
thus: “For he is a god.” Something to be noted here too is that those translators who choose not
to employ the indefinite article, may do so because their translations are what you call, ultra-
literal translations, that is, word for word renderings of the original languages, as the ones
shown above for 1 Kings 18:27. However, when translators proceed to convey this message in
idiomatic English, they usually resort to the indefinite article...“for he is a god,” etc. Thus,
translations from various ancient sources reflect, in the main, indefinite renderings in
contemporary English versions – valid pointers indicating how John 1:1c, with similar syntax,
should be translated. Theology is a factor in their denial of this fact in regards to John 1:1.

7th Example (John 6:70): καὶ ἐξ ὑμῶν εἷς διάβολός ἐστιν – Greek
and out of you [plural] one devil is

In this text, Jesus is addressing his twelve closest disciples, where he anticipates that Judas
Iscariot would later betray him. Jesus referred to Judas as “dia'bolos” (devil), or slanderer. Like
other verses under consideration, the word “dia'bolos” lacks the Greek article (“the,” in English)
and precedes the verb, “estin” (is). Surprisingly, The NET Bible mistakingly adds the English the
before “devil” under the premise that this is one of those nomadic (one-of-a-kind) nouns indicating
definiteness. This (one-of-a-kind) view for this scripture has no solid foundation. Jesus here is not
identifying Judas as the Satan, the arch-opposer of God, but is instead expressing a leaning spirit
of defection on Judas part. He could discern an inclination of satanic qualities, such as envy, and
malice, and hence, could rightly call him, a devil, a betrayer, a slanderer. The indefinite force is so
prominent here, that adding the article the before “devil” has no justification whatsoever. (*The
explanation by Wallace, senior editor of The NET Bible55, is not convincing here. Other translators clearly
view this differently, as shown below.)

“And yet, from among you, one, is, an adversary” (Rotherham)

55 The NET Bible, Senior editor: Daniel Wallace. Biblical Studies, L.L.C., 2009, 2043.
 24

“and one of you is an accuser” (James L. Tomanek)

“Yet one of you is a devil” (Common English Bible)
“and one of you is a devil?” (Douay-Rheims Bible)
“Yet one of you is an adversary” (The Gospel of John, F.F. Bruce*)
“Yet one of you is a devil” (International Standard Version)
“and one of you is a devil” (American Standard Version)
“Yet one of you is a slanderer” (New World Translation)
“And even of you, one is an informer” (Edgar G. Goodspeed)
“and of you -- one is a devil” (Young's Literal Translation)
“and of you one an accuser is” (The Emphatic Diaglott)
“Yet is not one of you a devil?” (New American Bible)
“Yet one of you is a devil!” (New International Version)
“Yet one of you is a devil” (Greek-English Interlinear NT, William & Robert Mounce)
“Yet one of you is a devil” (New Jerusalem Bible)
“Yet one of you is an adversary” (Jewish New Testament, David H. Stern)
“but out of you one is a slanderer ” (21st Century New Testament, Left column)
“Yet one of you is a betrayer” (21st Century New Testament, Right column)
“and of you one a devil is” (Alfred Marshall's Greek-English Interlinear)
“And of you, one is a devil” (Kenneth S. Wuest's New Testament)
“Yet one of you is a devil” (The Translator's New Testament)

*F.F. Bruce says that, “One of them [of the twelve] was diabolos – the Greek word means a
‘slanderer’ or ‘calumniator’ or ‘false accuser,’ but it is probably used here as the counterpart to
Heb. [satan], ‘adversary’ [“Yet one of you is an adversary,” (Bruce)].” I side with the translators above,
and with grammarians Philip B. Harner56 and Paul S. Dixon who argue that the qualitative force of
dia'bolos (devil) is more prominent than any conceivable definiteness. Dixon says: “It is best,
therefore, to take διάβολος qualitatively. A good rendering might be: “one of you is a devil.”57
Bible translators often view these anarthrous constructions as emphasizing the descriptive nature
(adjectival) of the subject in consideration, rather than its identity.

8th Example (Xenophon's Anabasis, 1:4:6): εμπóριον δ’ ην το χωρíον – Greek

market and was the place

Translation by Dana & Mantey: “and the place was a market.”

A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, had this to say, (under the heading: “With the Subject in a
Copulative Sentence”): “The article sometimes distinguishes the subject from the predicate in a
copulative sentence. In Xenophon's Anabasis, 1:4:6, εμπóριον δ’ ην το χωρíον, and the place was a
market, we have a parallel case to what we have in John 1:1, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος and the word was
deity. The article points out the subject in these examples. Neither was the place the only market,
nor was the word all of God, as it would mean if the article were also used with θεός. As it stands,
the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in θεός.”58 (Italics theirs.)

56 Harner: “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Philadelphia: JBL, 1973. Vol. 92, 75-87.
57 Dixon, Th.M Thesis: The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John, DTS, 05/1975, 50.
58 Dana & Mantey, 1955, 148-149, §3.
 25

I agree with the above with the exception of this one dubious statement: “The other persons of
the Trinity may be implied in θεός.” This is clearly a case of two Baptist grammarians reading far
more into the text than is warranted. John chapter 1 is definitely not speaking of ‘three persons
in the Godhead.’ Actually, the whole Gospel of John makes no mention of it. Such language is
totally foreign to the New Testament.

To run parallel with Xenophon's statement and the place was a market, this Grammar could have
translated John 1:1c, and the word was a god. I am aware that Mantey has been openly opposed
(to put it mildly) to the NWT rendering, “the Word was a god.” Nevertheless, the example they set
forth seems to contradict Mantey's own statements. Compare both the literal Greek reading of
Xenophon's statement with the suggested translation by Dana & Mantey in which they state is
“a parallel case” to John 1:1c:

“and the place was market ” (Literal reading in English order, Anabasis, 1:4:6)
“and the word was god ” (Literal reading in English order, John 1:1c)

“and the place was a market ” (Suggested translation by Dana & Mantey)
“and the Word was a god ” (Controversial translation, criticized by Mantey)

The translation offered by Dana & Mantey, “and the place was a market,” as indicated above is
an unintended admission that the rendering “the Word was a god” is just as proper, although
they reject it for theological reasons. Note too, that their suggested translation of John 1:1, and
the word was deity is not equal to claiming that the Word was entirely God, for they conceded:
“nor was the word all of God.” Additionally, the use of “may” as a modifier in their statement
suggests it is not a sealed fact. The truth is that Jesus himself spoke of his Father as “the only
true God.” (John 17:3) If Jesus is not “the only true God,” who is he then? Christ is time and again
described as “the Son of God.” (Luke 1:35) This focus on Christ by the Christian authors
throughout the New Testament led William Barclay to caution: “To say that the Word was God is
too much; to say that the Word was Divine is too little.”59

Much has been made of the publication of a letter Mantey (Julius R.) wrote to the publishers of
the NWT (Watchtower Bible & Tract Society = WBTS) in response to a WBTS letter addressed to Caris,
in Santa Ana, California, where Mantey demanded from the Corporation that they stop quoting
him by name, since he felt they were misquoting their Grammar60. Many have seized this
incident to lash out slanderous statements at the WBTS for alleged “scholastic dishonesty.” I feel
this attack has little to no merit. It is in the main, a theological motivated objection.

Let’s us not be remiss of the fact that Dana & Mantey's Grammar said: “When identity is
prominent, we find the article; and when quality or character is stressed, the construction is
anarthrous [without the article].”61 And: “The use of the articular and anarthrous constructions of
θεός is highly instructive. A study of the uses of the term as given in Moulton and Geden's
59 Barclay. “Great Themes of the New Testament: II John 1.1-14,” Expository Times 70, 1958-59: 114.
60 Mantey’s letter, 07/11/74. The Facts On Jehovah's Witnesses, Eugene, OR.: Harvest House Publishers, 2002, 48.
Online: https://www.mmoutreachinc.com/jehovahs_witnesses/dr_mantey_lt.html.
61 Dana & Mantey 1955, 138.
 26

Concordance convinces one that without the article θεός signifies divine essence, while with the
article divine personality is chiefly in view.” […] “The articular construction emphasizes identity;
the anarthrous construction emphasizes character.”62 And on page 149, Dana & Mantey wrote:
“An object of thought may be conceived of from two points of view: as to identity or quality. To
convey the first point of view the Greek uses the article; for the second the anarthrous
construction is used.”63 (Italics theirs.) From these published statements (along with their Xenophon’s
quote as a parallel to John 1.1), it is not incongruous to conclude that the presence of the indefinite
article at John 1:1 may also be used to signal the character, nature, or quality of the Logos, as
noted.

Surprisingly, Mantey included the following statement in his letter of repudiation mentioned
above: “Prof. Harner, Vol 92:1 in JBL, has gone beyond Colwell's research and has discovered
that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb function primarily to express the nature or
character of the subject.” (Ftn. 58) Instead of advocating a trinity, this statement of Mantey
quoting Harner, in my view, oddly supports some of the arguments published in the 1950 and
the 1984 NWT Editions. Again: “Neither was the place the only market [the place was a market], nor
was the word all of God.”64 If the Logos was ‘not all of God,’ one could argue he was just as
“divine” as God was, or even categorized as “a god.”

True, the Evangelical authors of the Grammar being discussed explain the character of Christ in
Trinitarian terms, but it is undeniable that some of their statements seem likewise favorable to
those who translate John 1:1 accentuating, not the identity of Christ with God, but rather the
character or a quality of the Logos.

9th Example (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 10:1): (Irenaeus tells us that Polycarp was a disciple of John
and the Bishop of Smyrna) In reply to the magistrate attempting to persuade him to revile Christ,
Polycarp says:

Greek: μετὰ παρρησίας ἄκουε· Χριστιανός εἰμι

with boldness be hearing christian I am

“Hear distinctly, I am a Christian.” (Translated by Charles H. Hoole, 1885)

“Hear thou plainly, I am a Christian.” (Translated by J.B. Lightfoot)
“Listen plainly: I am a Christian.” (Translated by Kirsopp Lake, Loeb Classical Library, 1912)
“Listen carefully: I am a Christian.” (Translated by Michael W. Holmes)
“Hear me declare with boldness, I am a Christian.” (Translated by Roberts-Donaldson)

10th Example (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 12:1): The proconsul proclaimed this herald:

Greek: Πολύκαρπος ὡμολόγησεν ἑαυτὸν Χριστιανὸν εἶναι

Polycarp has confessed himself christian to be

62 Ibid, 139, 140.

63 Ibid, 149.
64 Dana & Mantey 1955, 148, 149, §3.
 27

“Polycarp has confessed himself to be a Christian.” (Translated by Charles H. Hoole)

“Polycarp hath confessed himself to be a Christian.” (Translated by J.B. Lightfoot)
“Polycarp has confessed that he is a Christian.” (Translated by Kirsopp Lake)
“Polycarp has confessed that he is a Christian.” (Translated by Michael W. Holmes)
“Polycarp has confessed that he is a Christian.” (Translated by Roberts-Donaldson)

As seen above, various translators freely insert the indefinite article (a) into their English
renderings. However, at John 1:1, many translators are unwilling to do so. Why is this? Is it
because Greek grammar demands the rendering “God”? The ten (10) submitted examples clearly
indicate that it is not grammar, but doctrinal motives for the reluctance. Even Greek scholars
teach that, “when a Greek noun lacks the definite article, it normally will be translated as
indefinite.”65 (Emphasis added.)

11. Are indefinite and qualitative renderings mutually exclusive? Do they overlap?

As we have established, the indefinite translation (using “a”) of anarthrous predicate nouns before
the verb like in John 1:1 is a valid option to consider. Why is this significant to mention? Because
traditional scholars endeavor vigorously to disengage the likelihood of the indefinite meaning in
their discussion of John 1:1. They often claim that a grammatical construction such as we find in
John 1:1 should be rendered definite, and more recently, qualitatively, usually ignoring or
denying the most likely notion of the three, the indefinite nuance of anarthrous predicate nouns
before the verb.

The traditional reluctance to the indefinite article at John 1:1 is exemplified by how two scholars
reacted to its use in the Sahidic Coptic (or, Egyptian – an ancient translation of the New Testament –
done before the religious Nicea Council in AD 325). The Coptic language, unlike the Syriac, Latin and
Greek, did make use of the indefinite article, just as English does. The Sahidic Coptic rendered
the final part of John 1:1, which in modern English would be, “the Word was a god.“ Surprisingly,
in the October 2011 Journal of Theological Studies, Brian J. Wright and Tim Ricchuiti postulated
that the indefinite article in the Coptic translation of John 1:1, has a qualitative meaning.66 This is
so unexpected because Trinitarians for decades have been making their case for a distinction
between the indefinite translation of “a god” (“unwarranted” in their view), and their more
“acceptable” qualitative “divine” rendering of some versions.

Wright and Ricchuiti may have a point in suggesting that the indefinite translation of the Coptic
may carry a qualitative nuance. But they cannot cover up the indefinite nuance either in the
Coptic translation, since the Logos belongs to a class or realm of heavenly divine beings as well.
In English versions, it is not uncommon to denote the qualitative factor in anarthrous predicate
nouns by making use of the indefinite article (a), unless, predicate adjectives, such as “divine,” etc.,
are chosen instead. On this, Arthur W. Slaten wrote: “That qualitative character which is in Greek
denoted by the absence of the article is in English frequently expressed by employment of the
indefinite article. In many instances English requires its presence, an anarthrous reading being

65 N. Clayton Croy. A Primer of Biblical Greek, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999, 15.
66 Brian J. Wright & Tim Ricchuiti. The Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Vol. 62, Pt 2, October 2011.
 28

inadequate or awkward.”67 Astonishingly, critics of the rendering, “the Word was a god” at John
1:1 frequently overlook this very fact, or worse, fail to acknowledge it – misguiding those who
trust their “learned” judgment.

Even Wallace acknowledged: “It is nevertheless difficult to distinguish indefinite from qualitative
nouns at times (just as at other times it is difficult to distinguish qualitative from definite nouns). The
very fact that any member of a class is mentioned highlights to some degree that particular
class–hence, making some kind of qualitative statement.”68 Regardless, in the samples set forth
herein, we begin to see a pattern (praxis over theory) where translators mainly use the indefinite
concept in their English translations, in harmony with Slaten’s statement in the previous
paragraph.

This is a very significant observation, since it seems to run contrary to what various grammarians
are telling us, in regards to whether it’s proper to use the indefinite article in constructions such
as we find in John 1:1c. Furthermore, we can see various sample translations from four Latin-
derived languages, where they employ both concepts (indefinite or qualitative), sometimes
alternating between the two. This evidence indicates that in some languages the indefinite and
qualitative meanings are not always incompatible with one another, in fact, they often overlap in
concept, as Wallace correctly noted.

It is good to keep in mind that scholars are not immune to espousing particular theological
agendas in their works. A case in point is illustrated by the advice Wallace gave to teachers of
Intermediate Greek: “Some who teach intermediate Greek might want the students to ignore or
skim over the exegetical discussions (immediately below many of the examples). Personally, I think
this is the very feature that will motivate students. But you may disagree so violently with my
exegesis that you don’t want your students to get too much exposure to it.”69 Thus, “exegetical
discussions” found in reference works are not always final or conclusive. There is often room for
disagreements.

At John 1:1, translators in their drive to make Jesus appear equal to God avoid using the
indefinite article, and capitalize the second instance of god in the verse when Jesus is spoken of,
which most English Bible readers assume is a description of Jesus as God Almighty. Patterns of
Greek grammar emphasizing quality over identity as seen in the above examples, are swayed
aside to sustain their theology. A Grammar has made this meaningful observation: A “most
common use” of the Greek article is to point out … “Individual from Other Individuals.”70
Accordingly, why not reflect this pattern at John 1:1, especially so when two entities are being
spoken of in the verse, and for the fact that the second occurrence of θεός lacks the article?

In addition, John 1:2 states: This one was in the beginning with God, which clears any potential
confusion on the matter. In fact, verse two would be pointless tautology if John meant that the
67 A.W. Slaten. Qualitative Nouns in the Pauline Epistles and Their Translation in the Revised Version, Chicago: 1918, 5.
68 Wallace 1996, 266, ftn.
69 Wallace 1996, Preface, xix, §3.
70 Robertson & Davis 1958, 275.
 29

Logos was identical to God in verse 1, as some translations suggest. Because of this danger,
some scholars warn their readers against the traditional reading in English Bibles, which if taken
literally asserts “Sabellianism” or “Modalism.”

It is no less misleading to translate John 1:1, “the Word was fully God,” as The NET Bible does. If we
were to apply, for instance, the adverb “fully” as this Bible does here to samples already
discussed with similar syntax it would surely result in nonsensical renderings. So, why do so
here? Even Dana & Mantey had pointed out that the Greek construction of John 1:1 conveyed
that ‘the word was deity [“divine,” but] not all of God.’

Another scholar, David A. Black, objects, not surprisingly, to the rendering “a God” at John 1:1,
but he takes a page from Dana & Mantey's book when he writes: “If the article were also used
with θεός, the statement would mean that all of God was expressed in the Word. As it is, the
Word is neither ‘a God’ nor equal with the sum total of God.”71 This statement by Black appears
to contradict The NET Bible's translation of John 1:1, the Word was fully God. Black's conclusion is
similar to Dana's & Mantey's, that is, “the Word was Deity [θεός].” (Brackets his.) In similar vein, The
Plain English Bible translates John 1:1c as: “the Word was God.” However, a footnote says: “Or,
Deity, Divine (which is actually a better translation, because the Greek definite article is not present before
this Greek word).”72 (Underline added.) Now, this footnote begs the question: If the rendering “the
Word was Deity, Divine” is actually a “better translation,” why not use that in the main text? In
fact, their previous edition of this version called, The Simple English Bible (1981), rendered John 1:1
true to the message of their revised edition footnote: “The Message was deity.” It seems that
Trinitarian translators have a deep sentimental attachment to the traditional reading, and find it
difficult to do away with it, or even acknowledge there are technically ‘better translations’ for the
anarthrous θεός in John 1:1.

In English, using a capital letter “G” in the statement “the Word was God” in John 1:1 as many
versions do is misleading for those brought up in traditional teaching. Such believer would likely
take this rendering in the sense that Christ is Almighty God himself, a concept in conflict with
what Christ himself stated at John 17:3 and John 20:17. Wallace wrote a most interesting
comment which reveals how theology plays a role at the time of translating John 1:1, “Although I
believe that θεός in [John] 1:1c is qualitative, I think the simplest and most straightforward
translation is, ‘and the Word was God.’ It may be better to clearly affirm the NT teaching of the
deity of Christ and then explain that he is not the Father, than to sound ambiguous on his deity
and explain that he is God but is not the Father.”73 (Italics his.)

This begs the question: What's the point of claiming emphatically that θεός in John 1:1c is
“qualitative” as Wallace does variously in his Grammar, and then go on to suggest that ‘the Word
was God’ which implies “identity,” a “personality”, the opposite of “character,” or “quality”, and be
forced to explain that it does not mean what it actually says? The end result would then be no
less “ambiguous” and confusing than the alternatives he is obviously trying to avoid. Would the
71 D.A. Black. It's Still Greek to Me, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998, 79.
72 Plain English Bible, International Bible Translators, Shippensburg, PA: Destiny Image Pub., 2003.
73 Wallace 1996, 269.
 30

reader not rather have a better translation, such as, “the Word was a divine being” (or, divine),
which requires no additional explanation? The NET Bible (Wallace, Senior Editor), discourages using
“divine” for Christ, asserting that “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary
English exclusively of God.” However, on the word “divine” Harris responds: “But if θεὸς bears a
qualitative sense, the rendering ‘divine’ should not be dismissed as altogether inappropriate ...
Only if ‘divine’ is taken to mean ‘having the very nature of God’ does the word accurately convey
John's meaning.”74 The claim of divine being ‘generic’ is itself weak, since the same argument can
be equally made of the term “god.” Jesus applied the term “gods” to humans, and Paul
acknowledged that “there are many gods and many lords.” (John 10:34-36; 1 Cor. 8:5) So
Wallace's objection appears to be more of a wishful effort to bolster Christ’s status to the level of
God at John 1:1.

The fact is that the Greek Text does not say that Christ is the one-and-only God. What the Greek
does say, to paraphrase a little, is, that “the Word was in the presence of the supreme God, and
as God’s image, the Word too was of divine preponderance (i.e., a divine being),” thus able to
perfectly represent the character of God. (Hebrews 1:3) The only way one could justify the
rendering “God” with a big “G” at John 1:1c in the traditional sense as the English language
implies is if the original text had the article before the second instance of theos as well. Why?
Because John is evidently referencing two individuals within the text, and deliberately
differentiating between the two instances of theos by placing the article before the first instance
of theos, and not with the second. Max Zerwick (S.J.) wrote in this regard: “...ὁ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος [if
John had written, “the God was the Logos”] at least in NT usage, would signify personal identity of
the Word with the Father, since the latter [the Father] is ὁ Θεὸς [the God].” But the Apostle did not
do that. Zerwick is here arguing for a distinction between the articular = identity, and the
inarticular theos which draws attention to “the nature or quality predicated of the subject.”75

John obviously wrote the words appearing in verse two to clear any potential misunderstanding
that could arise from his bold statement from verse one. Marinus de Jonge remarks, “The author
of this Prologue clearly wants to identify ‘the Word’ and God as closely as possible without
infringing the belief in the One God.”76 So in effect, John was saying that the Logos was like God
in every permissible sense within the Jewish monotheistic background. Hence, the New English
Bible rendering: ‘And what God was, the Word was.’77 The Johannine statement was never
intended to imply that both were identical or two parts of a Trinitarian Godhead.

Why then, are translators so unwilling to render John 1:1c “and the Word was a god”? A few
reasons can be given. Translators mention grammar as a problem, an issue addressed in this
article. Others view the rendering “a god” as polytheistic. I will mention two further factors: The
first one is the domino effect of the Trinity doctrine developed centuries after Christ as a means
to clamp down raging Christological debates, to the point that the doctrine has been taken for
granted as “truth” by Christendom. Secondly, the role in tradition played by the Latin Vulgate
74 Harris 1992, p. 68.
75 M. Zerwick. Biblical Greek, Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1963, 55.
76 M. de Jonge. Christology in Context: The Earliest Christian Response to Jesus, Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988, 198.
77 New English Bible. Oxford University Press, 1961, 1970.
 31

must be mentioned. The Vulgate translation has greatly influenced many translators since its
inception from c. 405 CE. That includes the authors of the early translations of the 16th and 17th
Century, the foundation of modern versions. As a matter of fact, back then, translators were
more likely familiar with the Latin Vulgate than with the Greek itself. The Latin Vulgate used no
articles (as seen below), and that in conjunction with the Greek lacking the indefinite article (a) can
explain why so many have misunderstood John 1:1. The Christological debates of past centuries
did not improve this state of confusion, it made it worse. I kindly ask the reader to consider the
following Latin and Greek readings as helpful pointers in our discussion. Notice in particular the
bold letters relevant to our discussion.

– LATIN (John 1:1):

In principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum
In beginning was Verb and Verb was beside God and God was Verb

– GREEK (John 1:1):

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
in beginning was the logos and the logos was toward the god, and god was the logos.

First of all, please notice that Latin makes no distinction between the two occurrences of “God”
in the text (i.e. both without the article). However, Greek does, by using the article (the) before the
first occurrence, and omitting it before the second. A source states: “...When the writer or
speaker wishes to stress identity, the article is present…. When the article is absent the quality or
nature of the noun is stressed….”78 (Italics his.) As Buttmann pointed out: “The use of the article
[ho, “the”] has everywhere its positive reason….”79 And another: “For the present, the presence or
absence of the Greek article should always be carefully indicated in the English translation.”80

Which reading of the two languages above (Latin & Greek), shows the greater similarity with the
English traditional rendering of John 1:1c? It's Latin, is it not? Actually, instead of “Word,” some
Bible translations into other languages (such as French & Spanish*) have carried over the Latin
word “Verbum (= Verb)” from the Latin Vulgate at John 1:1. (*French, “le Verbe”: La Bible de Sacy 1759;
Vigouroux Catholique; Bible des Peuples 1998. *Spanish: “el Verbo”: Scío de San Miguel; Reina-Valera; Versión
Moderna; Gómez, 2010; Nueva Biblia Latinoamericana de Hoy; & Nueva Versión Internacional.)

It is evident that most English Bibles at John 1:1 are translations done in the spirit of the Latin
Vulgate, rather than from the Greek text, regardless of claims. Some lesser known translations
are actually closer to the Greek above than the best-selling versions. Although John 1:1 has long
been a favorite text to quote by traditionalists within the English world as “proof” of Jesus' deity,
it may surprise some people that a modern Greek Bible reader is not likely to appeal to this
scripture in support of the traditional view for the stated reasons.

78 Paul L. Kaufman. An Introductory Grammar of New Testament Greek, Palm Springs, CA: Ronald N. Haynes Publishers, Inc. 1982, 154.
79 Alexander Buttmann. A Grammar of the New Testament Greek, Andover: W. F. Draper, 1891, 87, 88.
80 J. Gresham Machen. New Testament Greek For Beginners, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1951, 35, §67.
 32

(https://www.scribd.com/document/50330864/John-1-1-List-of-Alternative-Readings):
A careful review of the alternative readings list of John 1:1 in the link above, and other related
material discussed throughout leads to this question: Can anyone legitimately exclude the
rendering “a god” as a valid option found in some Bible versions? We have seen that grammar
alone cannot condemn the use of such translation, although many will keep trying to exclude
this option. Ten examples were provided which clearly show how translators in practice render
predicate nouns without the article occurring before the verb. In addition, note that these
samples make reference to one person or one thing, while John 1:1 is speaking of “two” entities.
Verse 2 accentuates the fact, by repetition, that the Logos was in the beginning with God.’ Yes,
twice we are told in the first two verses in John's Prologue, that “the Word was in the presence of
God.” In these two verses the word for “God” (theos) appears three (3) times (two instances of
“theos” with the article, and one without the article placed in-between the two articular ones).
Coincidence? Not likely! This concept must then be important. With greater reason, translators
should render this grammatical structure in John 1:1 in such a way that it brings out a distinction
between the Logos and the God he was with. An indefinite rendering accomplishes this well.

As Count Leo Tolstoy, the famous Russian novelist and religious philosopher correctly observed:
“If it says [in John 1:1] that in the beginning was the ... word, and that the word was..., with God, it
is impossible to go on and say that it was God. If it was God, it could stand in no relation to
God.”81 Well said! As we have it, most translations make it appear that the Word and God are
equal or identical, which is unacceptable.

12. What about claims that the article is not required at John 1:1c?

Some argue that John did not have to employ the article before the second instance of “theos” to
imply that the Word was equal to “God.” They claim that since the subject in the final part of the
verse is the Logos, the article is not needed to make Jesus “God,” since the norm is that
predicate nouns preceding the verb do not carry the article.82 But is this a hard rule? No. A big
Grammar states: “NOUNS IN THE PREDICATE. These may have the article also.”83 And Smith’s Grammar
adds: “Even in the predicate the article is used with a noun referring to a definite object (an
individual or a class) that is well known, previously mentioned or hinted at, or identical with the
subject….”84 The fact that the predicate appears without the article in the last clause points rather
to a qualitative statement about the Word = predication rather than identification, as the NABRE
Bible rightly indicated.

If John 15:1 we have an instance where the Greek article is used with the nominal predicate
before the verb ”is,” which literally says: “I am the vine, the true, and the Father of me, the
farmer is”? Please observe that the article is used 4 times in this statement, and that the
predicate noun at the end of the verse in bold letters, occurs before the verb as in John 1:1, but
with the article. The fourth occurrence of the article would have been dropped if the author had

81 C.L. Tolstoy: The Four Gospels Harmonized and Translated, New York: Willey Book Company, 1904, 30.
82 Köstenberger, Merkle and Plummer. Going Deeper with New Testament Greek. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016, 161.
83 Robertson 1934, 767.
84 Smyth’s Grammar, §1152.
 33

intended to say that the Father was “a farmer,” either in the qualitative or indefinite sense.
Would it not? The fact that the article does appear in the text for the fourth time is indicative of
the author's intention. It is a definite reference. In the illustration, Jesus' Father is being singled
out as “the farmer.” It is evident that Bible writers usually employed the article with specific
intention, and when they omitted it, it was equally significant as well. So too, at John chapter 18
(vv. 33, 37, 39) we have the word “king“ in the Greek four times contrasted, two with the article
and two without the article. In the following chapter (19:21), we find another contrast between
“the King“ and “King“: “Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the
Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews.“ (In Greek, there is no article before the second instance
of “King.”)

13. Do proper names invalidate the need of the article?:

Since the term “God” is often treated as a “proper name,” some articulate that the Apostle did not
have to use the article in the last clause of John 1:1 to convey the fact that the Logos was God. For
instance, David Levy, with the NWT rendering of John 1:1 in mind, wrote: “...Proper names or one-
of-a-kind names are always translated without an article.”85 Bold and italic letters his.) This claim is
wrong! The context shows that the Author was speaking of two individuals, not one, as verse two
confirms. The Johannine author used the article with the first mention of “God,” which
traditionalists say it is a proper name. Why do so if a proper name makes it unnecessary, as
claimed?

Other scholars acknowledge the following: Goodwin: “Proper names may take the article….”86
Chamberlain: “With proper names usage [of the article ] is not uniform. The purpose of the writer is
decisive at this point.”87 Young: “The article is not normally needed with proper nouns, since the
name already tends to individualize the person, country, nationality, city, or the like. […] However,
it is not consistently practiced. Some of the variation may be due to an author’s preference and
style, especially in John.”88

Robertson: “Sometimes we can see the reason for the use of the article with proper names….But
in most instances the matter seems quite capricious to us.”89 “But, as a matter of fact, no
satisfactory principle can be laid down for the use or non-use of the article with proper nouns.”
[…] “In the N.T., however, while we have πρὸς τὸν θεόν [pros ton theon] (Jo. 1:1,2), it is far more
common to find simply θεὸς [theos], especially in the Epistles. But the word is treated like a
proper name and may have it (Ro. 3:5) or not have it (8:9).”90

Moulton: “Scholarship has not yet solved completely the problem of the article with proper
names….The usage of different writers [in applying the article] varies greatly….There are very

85 David Levy. Griego del Nuevo Testamento I, California: ADVIternational Press, 2017, 37.
86 William. W. Goodwin. A Greek Grammar, Boston: BiblioBazaar, 1897, 206, §943.
87 William D. Chamberlain. An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Grand Rapids: Baker Book, 1941, 57.
88 Richard A. Young. Intermediate New Testament Greek. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994, 61.
89 Robertson 1934, 759.
90 Robertson 1934, 761.
 34

many cases where irregularities occur for which we have no explanation.”91

Wenham: “With proper names in general, however, it seems to be largely a matter of the
author’s
whim whether he uses the article or not. Sometimes the article is added, sometimes it is
left out.”92

Therefore, Levy’s claim that “proper names or one-of-a-kind names are always translated
without an article” is false. In sum, there is no rule that can be applied consistently concerning
proper names, much less to use such construct as a basis to assert tendential theological claims.

14. Does word order change the meaning of predicate nouns?

Richard B. Ramsay (citing Colwell & Robert Hanna of Maracay, VE), brings out the fact that theos in
John 1:1c is emphatic, claiming that placing a predicate noun before the verb in John 1:1 makes
Jesus emphatically “GOD.”93 The Greek language truly offers more freedom in word order than
other languages. It has been duly noted: “The first word or phrase normally carries the greatest
emphasis.” Notwithstanding, this same work says: “Inflection clarifies most grammatical
relationships in Greek, so that, in general, word order in Greek is freer than in less inflected
tongues. [...] The word order of a Greek sentence [is not rigid, p. 50] is very flexible.”94

That said, it is misleading for anyone to claim that Christ is “GOD” based on this emphasis.
Emphasis alone does not convert preverbal predicate nouns into “definite” ones. In Acts 28:6, we
have the following Master Greek Texts showing a predicate noun (in the accusative) before the
verb and in others, after the verb. This is indicated below:

ἔλεγον θεὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι – (Received / Majority / Robinson-Pierpont Greek Texts)

they were saying god him to be

ἔλεγον αὐτὸν εἶναι θεόν – (Wescott-Hort; Nestle-Aland; UBS; SBLGNT Greek Texts)
they were saying him to be god

And how do translators deal with this? Like so: “they...said he was a god.” Whether the
anarthrous predicate noun was placed before or after the verb it was dealt with the same way in
translation. On the first construction with the predicate noun before the verb, we cannot assume
the islanders thought Paul became “the God.” Consider this: Mark 11:17 has the predicate noun
“a house of prayer” before the verb (=btv), while in Luke 19:46 it appears after the verb (=atv). In
John 8:44, we have “a liar” before the verb (btv), and after the verb at John 8:55 (atv). At John 10:1,
we read of “a thief and a robber,” one predicate noun before the verb (btv), and the other after
the verb (atv). Also, we find “a child” at both 1 Corinthians 13:11 (atv) and Galatians 4:1 (btv). All
with the same indefinite meaning. Thus, it would be an exegetical fallacy to suggest there is a
91 J.H. Moulton. Grammar of New Testament Greek, Prolegomena. London: T.&T. Clark, 1985, Latest impression, 83.
92 J.W. Wenham. The Elements of New Testament Greek, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1965. Reprint 1984, 36.
93 R.B. Ramsay: Griego y Exégesis. Barcelona: Editorial CLIE, 2006, 108.
94 Donald J. Mastronarde. Introduction to Attic Greek, University of California Press: 1993, 46, 59.
 35

blanket rule in which word-order in Greek changes word-meaning. Any grammarian claiming
otherwise may be including a different grammatical paradigm (like prepositional phrases, abstract
nouns, ordinal numbers, etc.) in the hypothetical discussion. Still, such conclusions are not final. In
general, the order of Greek words may be altered to suit stylistic goals or to affect the emphasis,
not to change meaning. Rodney J. Decker writes: “Since Greek is an inflected language, this
means that word order is not semantic in Greek. That is, changing the order of the words does
not change the meaning as it does in English.”95 The examples provided earlier showing
preverbal predicate nouns clearly demonstrate that these nouns are emphatic, but they do not
become “definite” in meaning by varying the word order.

In John 1:1, the Author was not identifying the Word with God. He simply was stressing that the
Word, like God, was ‘divinely powerful,’ not being equated with the Supreme God. John 1:1 has
never been about who the Word was, but predicated on what was the Word. Thus, the NEB
rendering: “What God was, the Word was.”

15. Wouldn’t the indefinite pronoun “τις” be used by John to say Jesus was “a god”?

Some scholars, in their efforts to deny the indefinite sense of theos in the last clause of John 1:1,
have claimed that John would have used the indefinite pronoun “τις” had he intended to say
Jesus was “a certain” god.96 Since he did not, they conclude that John could only mean that Jesus
was “God,” not ‘a lesser god in a pantheon of divine beings,’ as some put it. This assumption is
wrong for various reasons. First, it should be noted that most scholars do not give validity to this
argument for John 1:1, and for good reason. Various sources explain:

Intermediate New Testament Greek (R.A. Young) says: “As an indefinite pronoun it [τις] stands in place of an
unidentified person or thing….”97

The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (F.W. Danker) defines τις as an: “Indefinite pronoun,
esp. used in narrative and discourse to indicate non-specification.”98

Thayer’s Greek Lexicon gives the indefinite pronoun “τις” this first definition: “a certain, a certain one; used
of persons and things concerning which the writer either cannot or will not speak more particularly.”99

The Complete Word Study Dictionary New Testament (S. Zodhiates): “Enclitic indef. pron. One, someone, a
certain one. (I) Particularly and generally of some person or thing whom one cannot or does not wish to
name or specify particularly.”100

The Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek: “The indefinite pronoun τις any, some, a(n), (a) certain… It refers
to someone/something that is not identifiable as a specific individual: – Normally, τις is used to refer to
any of a number of individuals whose specific identity is unknown or irrelevant: [...] – Sometimes, τις is
95 Rodney J. Decker. Reading Koine Greek, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014, 30, §2.3. Decker provides a sample
sentence and rewrites it as six variations in ‘Greeklish’, where they all say the same thing.
96 C.C. Caragounis & J. Van der Watt. “A Grammatical Analysis of John 1:1,” Filología Neotestamentaria 21, 2008, 122.
97 Richard A. Young. Intermediate New Testament Greek. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994, 80.
98 Frederick W. Danker. The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, University of Chicago: 2009, 353-4.
99 J.H. Thayer. Greek English-Lexicon of the New Testament (Idem 4th Ed., 1901), Grand Rapids, Baker Book, 1977, 625.
100 Spiros Zodhiates. The Complete Word Study Dictionary New Testament. Chattanooga: AMG Publishers, 1992, 1385.
 36

used when the speaker does not wish to reveal, or pay attention to, the identity of a specific
individual.”101 (Bold letters theirs.)

These sources demonstrate the absurdity of trying to fit the indefinite pronoun within the
context of the opening verses of the Gospel of John in which the person of Jesus Christ is clearly
“identifiable as a specific individual.” The author of the Gospel was more than willing to speak of
Christ particularly, and in detail. He was not “unknown” or “irrelevant,” by any means.

For the sake of illustration, let’s say we read - in rhyme with John 1:1: “In the beginning there was
Eve, and Eve was with Adam, and Eve was a certain woman”? The last clause here is meaningless,
is it not? To use “certain” as an indefinite pronoun here would be wrong because Eve is already
listed as the first woman who lived on earth. Eve is specifically associated with Adam, the first
living man on earth. So saying “Eve was a certain woman” is out of place. However, it would not be
wrong to say within this context that “Eve was a (created) woman.” Even if the Greek read, “Eve was
woman” without the article, we would naturally understand it to mean that Eve was “a woman” in
English. Unlike John 1:1, there are various verses where a certain person is spoken of vaguely, as
in Luke 8:27: “a certain man [ἀνήρ τις]” (KJV; a man, NIV). Danker calls it: ‘Particularization without
definite specification.’102

Nonetheless, in John 1:1 Jesus is clearly the subject of the verse, and John is specifically talking
about him (mentioned by name in v. 17, and thereafter repeatedly – ‘he was there in the beginning, he
was in the presence of God’), so there would be no sense to slap an indefinite vague pronoun to his
person to imply he was someone without a name, someone we don’t care to know more about in
detail. Instead, the author went on to describe this Logos as “the only-begotten Son,” that is, a
divine being who shared his nature as a son with God (hence, god=divine, godlike, a god). From
the beginning, John’s goal was, in his words, to present Jesus Christ, not as “God,” but as “the Son
of God.” (John 20:31)

Of equal importance for rejecting the notion of using the indefinite pronoun “τις” in relation to
Christ in John 1:1 is the fact, that for the most part when Greeks wanted to indicate the
indefinite/qualitative status of a noun, they would simply drop the article from the noun. As The
Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek succinctly stated: “The Greek equivalent of an indefinite
article is the lack of an article.”103 (Bold letters theirs.) That was the norm, with the exceptions
noted earlier. This is, of course, the general principle that traditionalists seek to deny in John 1:1.

16. Colwell's Rule and the indefinite article (“a”). Why the confusion?

Some scholars, and their legion of followers, in their obsession to discredit the viability of the
translation “a god” at John 1:1, have seized the so-called “Colwell’s rule,” with great fondness, I
must say, which seemed to favor the traditional rendering “God,” and used it for decades as
Inspired Scripture. Why? Decker pointed out one motive: “[Colwell's rule] has often been misused

101 Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek. Boas, Rijksbaron, Huitink, Bakker. Cambridge University Press: 2019, 356.
102 Danker 2009, 354.
103 Cambridge... Ibid, 328.
 37

by well-intentioned defenders of the deity of Christ.”104 Hence, this was done in the interest of
promoting the Trinity doctrine. However, good intentions are not enough to convert an
extraneous doctrine into a “Biblical” one.

Colwell’s argumentation, as he explained it, was convoluted enough which may explain why
Wallace wrote the following: “Almost immediately many scholars (especially of a more conservative
stripe) misunderstood Colwell’s rule. They saw the benefit of the rule for affirming the deity of
Christ in John 1:1.”105 Wallace goes on to mention that scholars of the like of Turner, Zerwick,
Bruce Metzger, Walter Martin, Moule, C. Kuehne, L. Morris and even Colwell himself (since the
article in JBL was written) ‘have misunderstood the rule.’ And Donald Hartley added: “Both
orthodox and otherwise utilize Colwell’s rule to promote not only different but contradictory
interpretations of this passage—obviously contradictory interpretations cannot at the same
time and in the same way be true. Adding to this problem, otherwise careful scholars misstate
and misunderstand Colwell’s rule.”106 (Italics his.)

To this list we can add David A. Black, mentioned earlier, who as recent as 2009 in his Grammar
commits the same blunder, when he wrote: “The result [of Colwell's Rule] is that θεός is almost
certainly definite in meaning: ‘the Word was God’–not merely ‘a god.’”107 (Italics his.) Another
scholar who allowed Colwell's theory to influence his interpretation of John 1:1 was Robert
Hanna (Maracay, VE), when he declared: “The fact that Θεός has no article does not transform the
word into an adjective [such as, “divine,” as translated by Dr. Moffatt]. It is a predicate noun, of which
the subject is λóγος [logos], and it is a fairly universal rule [Colwell's, i.e.] in New Testament Greek
that when a predicate noun precedes a verb it lacks the definite article.”108 Interestingly, Zerwick
referred to Colwell’s study as a ‘theory with appeal.’109 So, in essence, what we have here, is an
artificial rule, a “theory,” elaborated by a Methodist for the Trinitarian masses, with the blessing
of numerous enthusiastic Trinitarian scholars cheering them on. Regrettably, ever since
Colwell's article was published, many individuals have given more legitimacy to Colwell’s theory
than is warranted. I will explain later why this is unjustified.

Interestingly, although Hanna, seeking to affirm Christ's deity, zealously applied Colwell's theory
at John 1:1, we find that he did not do so at John 8:44, where Christ's deity is not in focus. At John
8:44, there are two instances where a predicate noun precedes a verb which lacks the definite
article just as we have in John 1:1c. According to Hanna both of these “should be translated” with
the indefinite article.110 (Underline added.) In English, sometimes, as is the case in John 8:44, the
only way to adequately communicate the qualitative state of a noun is by using the indefinite
article, as Hanna himself did. This suggests that a predicate noun before the verb, and
translated with an indefinite article, can serve the function of an adjective, just as Moffatt
brought out in his translation using “divine,” contrary to Hanna's assertion on John 1:1.

104 A Summary of Colwell's Rule. February, 1995.

105 Wallace 1996, 257.
106 Donald Hartley. Revisiting the Colwell Construction in Light of Mass/Count Nouns, Introduction, DTS, 2004.
107 Black 2009, 200-201.
108 R. Hanna. A Grammatical Aid to the Greek New Testament, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983,147.
109 Zerwick 1963, 56.
110 Hanna 1983,166.
 38

Does Colwell's rule then prove in any way that an anarthrous predicate noun before the verb is
“definite”? Dixon answers: “Colwell’s rule cannot be applied to [John 1:1] as an argument for
definiteness…. The rule asserts nothing about definiteness.”111 Richard A. Young adds: “The
problem in applying the Colwell rule is to determine when the predicate nominative is definite.
The rule itself does not establish the definiteness of a noun, an observation sometimes ignored
when applying it to John 1:1.”112

And Wallace wrote: “On the one hand, Colwell’s rule, as applied to John 1:1, has been played as a
trump card by Trinitarians in many christological debates, even though the rule really says
nothing about the definiteness of θεός.”113 Wallace, concludes: “Indeed, an examination both of
pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives and of the Christology of the Fourth Gospel
strongly suggests a qualitative force to θεός (a view which affirms the deity of Christ just as strongly
but for different reasons).”114 (Italics his.) So too, Harner concluded in his noteworthy article: “In
John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot
be regarded as definite.”115

Though Colwell’s study provides interesting data for technical discussion, by no means should it
be considered an established fact, but seen rather as a demonstration of a grammatical
tendency from one theological perspective. After more studies were done on the subject, other
scholars have questioned the validity of Colwell’s rule, and have argued against it in some areas.
(See published works by Harner, Dixon, Wallace, and Hartley on the subject.) Hartley wrote: “Colwell
appears to be responsible, because of his application to John 1:1, for laying the groundwork of a
logical blunder. [...] Where he regarded his rule most important, in the area of translation and
interpretation, is exactly where it is in fact most irrelevant yet ironically most dangerous,
especially the latter.”116 (Italics his.) Colwell himself found 15 places in the New Testament where
his rule did not apply: Luke 4:41, John 1:21, 6:51, 15: 1, Romans 4:13, 1 Corinthians 9: 1 and 2, 11:3,
11:25, 2 Corinthians 1:12, 3:2; 3:17, 2 Peter 1:17, Revelation 19:8, 20:14. By the way, a rule with 15
exceptions is no “rule.” Actually, the list of Colwell’s “exceptions” to the rule would have been
higher had he considered the additional criteria (like qualitative nouns) he hastily dismissed for his
study. The misuse and abuse of Colwell’s rule has certainly become an embarrassment to a
segment of the scholarly community.

Wallace himself could not resist misusing another scholar's conclusion on the NWT, a translation
not supportive of the Trinity doctrine. Wallace writes: “The grammatical argument that the
P[redicate] N[ominative of John 1:1c] here is indefinite is weak. Often, those who argue for such a
view (in particular, the translators of the NWT) do so on the sole basis that the term is
anarthrous. Yet they are inconsistent, as R.H. Countess pointed out: ‘In the New Testament there
are 282 occurrences of the anarthrous θεός. At sixteen places NWT has either a god, god, gods,
111 Dixon 1975, 55.
112 R.A. Young 1994, 65.
113 Wallace 1996, 290.
114 Ibid, 290.
115 Harner 1973, 87.
116 D. Hartley. Revisiting the Colwell Construction... “Evaluating Colwell's Rule.” DTS, 2004.
 39

or godly. Sixteen out of 282 means that the translators were faithful to their translation principle
only six percent of the time....The first section of John 1:1-18 furnishes a lucid example of NWT
arbitrary dogmatism....’”117 (Italics, Colwell’s.)

Wow! The stats by Countess above may sound impressive to a traditionalist, but it is a totally
flawed conclusion. How so? It is strange that Wallace quoted Countess, who endeavored to take
advantage of Colwell's rule to condemn the NWT after exposing various scholars for the same
practice. Both Wallace (Ibid, 262) and Decker (Ibid, Colwell's Rule) agree that Colwell’s rule does not
prove definiteness at John1:1. Furthermore, Wallace is cognizant, as his Grammar shows, that
predicate nominatives preceding the verb are for the most part qualitative. He himself said so:
“… When one sees an anarthrous pre-verbal P[redicate] N[ominative], he should consider its
force to be most likely qualitative, and only to be definite if the context or other factors strongly
suggest otherwise.”118 (Italics his.) By the way, the qualitative concept can indeed encroach upon
the indefinite one at times. Wallace should know that the Scriptures used by Countess to
condemn the NWT do not fall under the same category of John 1:1.*

(*Countess in his critical assessment of the NWT commits a grave error by grouping all 282 occurrences of
“theos” in its various case forms under the one umbrella of nominative nouns (used in John 1:1c for the
complement of the verb, when the verb’s subject is in the nominative), which skews the tabulating results in his
favor, since other case forms which occur frequently (like the genitive “theou” and dative “theō” cases) may
have another meaning elsewhere, resulting in translation variants. The nominative case is much more
dependent than other cases on the Greek article to mark definiteness. Ironically, Wallace himself in his
quote from Countess against the NWT dismissed his own study in which he had stated: “...There are at
least ten constructions in which a noun may be definite though anarthrous.” [Among them: Proper nouns,
Object of a preposition, Monadic nouns, Abstract nouns, A genitive construction.119] This discrimination is, of
course, essential in any evaluation of a translation, as these grammatical variants can alter the meaning
of the term God in various contexts, like making a noun definite vs indefinite. If Countess had focused
solely on anarthrous nominative nouns, he would have discovered that most translators rendering such
nouns in English do so with an indefinite article. Had Countess used the same tabulating principle with
mainstream translations, they too would have failed the NWT test. But he likely knew that, and would
have had no justifiable basis to attack the NWT in the first place. The lack of transparency from both
Wallace and Countess on this matter is disturbing. Their readers would surely gain more from having a
clear and factual presentation of the issues involved, rather than being presented with a tangled,
misleading deviation of the facts. Wallace failed to acknowledge Countess’ error. Readers should be aware
of such tactics.)

Considering the evidence, Rolf Furuli (Oslo University), wrote: “Countess ascribes to the NWT
translators rules for translation which they have never expressed, and then he shows
inconsistently the translators have followed these rules.” Furuli adds: “His account of the NWT,
therefore, is not a balanced, scholarly presentation; rather, it surrenders both to emotionally
inspired caricature and a partisan spirit.”120 Even Evangelical Robert M. Bowman Jr., a harsh critic

117 Wallace 1996, 267. (Quoting from The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament: A Critical Analysis of the New World Translation,
Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1982.)
118 Ibid, 26.
119 Ibid, 245.
120 R. Furuli. The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation, Huntington Beach: Elihu Books, 1999, 294-295.
 40

himself of the NWT, had this to say of Countess' book: “Evangelical critique; some good
information, but (in my opinion) not entirely accurate.”121

Countess, for instance, in page 55 of his book went over the first eighteen verses of John chapter
one noting eight occurrences of theos without the article. Apparently, Countess was counting on
the NW translators employing the indefinite article “a” with all 8 instances of theos (actually, no
other translator does that in John chapter one). In fact, none of the samples Countess used to
discredit the NWT translation choice at John 1:1 exhibit the grammatical pattern that
characterizes verse one. Of the eight occurrences of theos in those verses of chapter one, five of
those appear in verses 1, 2, & 18, so that would leave only three other instances of theos, in
verses 6, 12 & 13. However, we must not overlook the fact that those three occurrences are in
the genitive construction. This is public knowledge. For instance, Wallace himself, and other
grammarians have noted that the genitive construction tends to make an anarthrous noun
definite. (Ibid, 245) And Hartley wrote: “...Colwell [as well as Countess, who relied on Colwell] should
have omitted P[redicate] N[ominatives] which had genitive adjuncts, … [that] tend to definitize
the head noun.“122 The other five occurrences are translated similarly by most translations, with
the exception of John 1:1c, which is the controversial clause being discussed throughout.

Countess even criticizes the NW translators for using the definite article in the second instance
of theos (anarthrous) in John 1:18 where most other translators do the same. Translators
generally add the definite article there even when they follow the anarthrous construction of
theos. One reason for this, may be, besides the context implication, is that the words “only-
begotten son/god” of verse 18 (unlike 1:1) are followed by an articular participial clause (the one
being with...), and an emphatic pronominal demonstrative (that one), indicators that point to “only-
begotten” as a clear description of the Christ. The reference is anaphoric, that is, it refers back to
the anarthrous “god” of John 1:1, who was in the presence of God Supreme. The presence of
these particulars may have John saying in effect: ‘The only-begotten son/god who was present
with God (in verse one), that one is the one that has explained the invisible God, the Father to us.’
English idiom welcomes the article here.

Thus, Countess is trying to undermine the credibility of a non-Trinitarian translation by attacking

their translation choice of John 1:1 by noting inconsistencies in its application of the article in
those 18 verses of John chapter one. What Countess does not say, is that with the exception of
John 1:1, virtually all translators handle the presence or absence of the article in those verses
nearly the same way as the NWT does. In regards to John 1:1, Countess wants his readers to
believe that Colwell's assumptions on the Greek article* ruled out the viability of the rendering “a
god.” It does not! (*By Colwell's own admission, Colwell suggested caution by applying the word “theory”
to his article when explaining his formulated “rule.” In addition he used the following modifying
expressions to it: “There are bound to be mistakes in the list”; “suggests”; “probable”; “probabilities”; “would
seem to indicate”; “may be tentatively formulated” and “loosely speaking.”)123 These expressions clearly
indicate the rule is ‘tentative,’ not absolute by any means.

121 R.M. Bowman Jr. Jehovah's Witnesses Bibliography, Jan. 14, 2012. IRR.org
122 D. Hartley. Revisiting the Colwell Construction...Evaluating Colwell’s Rule, DTS, 2004.
123 Colwell 1933, 15.
 41

Colwell concludes: “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
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.”124 Colwell's protestant theology led him to
believe the context of the Gospel demanded a definite rendering for John 1:1. We respect his
religious views. But how reliable is his formulated rule? Nigel Turner notes: “So that while the
canon may reflect a general tendency it is not absolute by any means; after all, it takes no
account of relative clauses or proper nouns, and he has also omitted a considerable class of
‘qualitative’ nouns like that in ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν [‘the God love is.’ -1 John 4:8]. Moreover, he
[Colwell] is the first to admit the lack of objectivity in his method of counting: he professes to
include only definite nouns among his anarthrous predicates and the degree of definiteness is
extremely difficult to assess.”125 (Underlines added. Italics his.)

In addition, The Net Bible admits: “Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of
θεός (theos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule
merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be
translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third
possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when
placed ahead of the verb.”126

More importantly, Countess, and Wallace, for that matter, did not mention that outside of the
first two verses of John, and verse 18 of the same chapter, none of the samples have a context
where theos is used of two individuals who are said to be with each other. In addition, in verse
one, an instance of theos has the article, the other does not. How many times are we going to
find such grammatical structure in the New Testament within that context? (John 1:18 is no
counterpart to John 1:1 in structure, even the manuscript evidence for verse 18 is inconclusive.) Truly, the
contextual structure of John 1:1 is unique. It can only be said of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, to
be ‘in the beginning with God.’ So we are not going to find another single text which matches
John 1:1 in conveying the thought of someone else other than Jesus Christ being with God from
the very start. With good reason the Bible speaks of Christ Jesus as “the only-begotten Son of
God.” (John 3:18) What is noted here, though, is that a certain grammatical pattern found in John
1:1 and elsewhere (where anarthrous predicates occur before the verb) may justify an indefinite or
qualitative translation within the context of John 1:1. This is becoming more evident.

Furthermore, Countess took various statements from the 1950 NWT Appendix (774) regarding the
significance of the article out of context. He posited that the NWT publishers formulated a
principle where nouns that had the article are always “definite,” and nouns that lacked the article
are invariably indefinite. I find no record of the NWT Bible ever expressing such invariable rule.
However, I did find in the NWT Appendix where the authors suggested, in Dana & Mantey fashion,
a principle of normal usage regarding the article. But this is vastly different from setting an
124 Ibid, 21.
125 Nigel Turner. A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark: Vol. III, Syntax, 1963, 184.
126 The NET Bible, p. 2017, §3.
 42

invariable rule. And related to this, Countess also misquoted the NWT Appendix in his book. He
quoted the NWT as saying: “Careful translators recognize that the articular construction points to
a quality about someone.”127 That’s the opposite of what they wrote. This is what the NWT
publication actually said after quoting Goodspeed’s and Moffatt’s “divine” renderings at John 1:1,
“Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a
personality, whereas an anarthrous construction points to a quality about someone. That is
what A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey remarks [...].”

Thus, the reference about the construction of the noun with its implication of the article, was, in
first place, a rightful observation of Bible translators who are mindful of the article, or lack of, in
John 1:1, and secondly, it served as introductory material to Dana & Mantey’s Grammar
observations on the Greek article and its implications. Dana & Mantey concluded: “There are no
‘rules’ for the use of the article in Greek, but there is a fundamental principle underlying its
significance – as we have seen in the foregoing section – and this gives rise to a normal usage.”128
The NW translators merely quoted Dana & Mantey's Grammar in the 1950s, and later, Harner’s
study (1984), to posit that these scholars sustained a “fundamental” principle (Or, “normal usage,”
not a fixed rule) that (preverbal, per Harner) anarthrous predicate nouns are indicative of character,
or quality, not identity (or definiteness), a principle still held to be true to this day, decades later.
The available evidence indicates that the NW translators have never inferred, or stated, that such
principle was inflexible. They did believe, however, that the “fundamental principle” and “normal
usage” of the Greek article spelled out by Dana & Mantey could be applied to John 1:1.

Hence, the NW translators are evidently not accountable for coming up with a “rule” (that every
noun without the Greek article must in every case be translated with an indefinite article) attributed to
them by Countess and those who quote him. No translator, not even the NWT, will follow such
principle 100% of the time. If anyone talked about a “fundamental principle” underlying the
significance of the Greek article, it was Dana & Mantey who did so, but even they did not
establish a hard rule. Note the wording of “a fundamental principle” and “normal use”
concerning the Greek article used by them. Critics of the indefinite rendering at John 1:1 omit
this pertinent information from their audience. Likewise, Harner wrote about “general principles
concerning predicate nouns that are usually accepted as axiomatic in NT study.” One of the two
principles he referred to, is “that a predicate noun is anarthrous when it indicates the category
or class of which the subject is a particular example… Mark 7:26.” Harner too avoided using the
word “rule.”129

And then we have J. Harold Greenlee, who was Professor of New Testament Greek at Asbury
Theological Seminary, stating on the article: “General rule – Nouns with the definite article are
either definite or generic…. Nouns without the definite article are either indefinite or qualitative.”130
(Underline and italics are his.)

127 Countess 1982, 42.

128 Dana & Mantey 1955, 141.
129 Harner 1973, 75.
130 J.H. Greenlee. A Concise Exegetical Grammar New Testament Greek, Wilmore, KY.: First Fruits Press, 2012, 37.
 43

Interestingly, when someone posted a question to the NWT publishers on whether their
rendering of John 1:1 violated any rules of Greek grammar, they candidly wrote the following in
relation to the Greek article not appearing with certain nouns (anarthrous): “This does not mean,
however, that every time an anarthrous noun occurs in the Greek text it should appear in English
with the indefinite article. Translators render these nouns variously, at times even with a ‘the,’
understanding then as definite, though the definite article is missing.”131 (Italics theirs.)

If the 1950 NWT Appendix comments concerning the Greek article were not clear enough for
Countess, the one published in 1975 was definitely explicit, leaving no doubt of their intention.
Countess (who wrote his book in 1982, ignoring the WT published statement of 7 years prior), and his
horde of followers who labor to communicate the same senseless claim over-and-over again are
flogging a dead horse. The outcome has been decided. No one has ever claimed to follow a strict
grammatical rule on the article 100% percent of the time. Not even Colwell! And none of the
Bible translators do so either. Religious opponents in their infinite quest to smear those they
disagree with are the only ones who forcefully claim that the writers department of The
Watchtower adhere to a fixed rule. Where there is religious politics at play, the honest reader
must be wary of unjustified claims.

If anyone was instrumental in fueling a debate on the significance of the Greek article, it was
likely these two scholars, Colwell and Harner, by publishing their provocative articles on the
subject, instead of those quoting them thereafter. After all, it was Harner who concluded in his
study: “In John 1:1, I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the
noun cannot be regarded as definite.”132 And Syntax of New Testament Greek contains the following:
“Generally, though not always, sustantives with the article are definite or generic, while those
without the article are indefinite or qualitative.”133 Incidentally, isn't the opposite of definite,
“indefinite”?

Thus, the only thing “lucid” in Wallace quoting Countess' analysis, is that two prominent scholars
committed a faux pas by attributing an imaginary “rule” to the NW translators which they have
never expressed. If anyone insists that the NWT editors were guilty of formulating a rule, in the
name of fairness, the same charge would have to be brought up against Dana & Mantey,
Hewett, Black, Summers, Croy, Machen, Greenlee, Brooks & Winbery, and a host of other
scholars who use similar language explaining corresponding grammar principles. Of course, it
would be unfair and dishonest to accuse all these scholars of expressing a fixed rule for the use
of the article in Greek, when they only use general expressions such as: “normal usage,”
“general,” “generally,” or ‘fundamental principles, underlying its significance.’ Why would this be
any different with the NWT?

Therefore, Wallace and Countess’ claims on the subject had no relevance whatsoever with the
reasoning posited by the NWT when they quoted these scholars. One could only wish that those
involved pushing disinformation within the scholarly community would rectify their errors. Since
131 The Watchtower. 1975, 702.
132 Harner 1973, 87.
133 Brooks & Winbery 1979, 67.
 44

this drama has been exposed, I ask: Was Countess justified in publishing his book in the first
place, when both Colwell and The Watchtower had concluded long ago that context is ultimately
the deciding factor in determining the translation of various Scriptures? And to the segment of
the religious community who enjoys reading books attacking the integrity of one Bible
translation out of so many, is it really honest to view these sources as “dependable” authorities
when the publications themselves are frequently based on superficial or hollow premises?

Coming back to the subject, Dixon added the results of his own study of predicates without the
article, where in John 1:1c, it precedes the verb: “The use of the anarthrous predicate nominative
in John is significant. It is qualitative in 65 of 74 occurrences, or 88% probability. When the
anarthrous predicate nominative precedes the verb [as is the case in John 1:1] it is qualitative in 50
of 53 occurrences, or 94% probability. When it follows the verb the anarthrous predicate
nominative is qualitative 13 of 19 occurrences, or 68%.”134 Because of the theological implications
surrounding John 1:1, traditionalists are disinclined to express the fact that the semantic
difference between the indefinite and the qualitative factor is not always clear. Even Wallace
acknowledged in a footnote: “It is nevertheless difficult to distinguish indefinite from qualitative
nouns at times….”135

Although Dixon does not welcome an indefinite translation for John 1:1, he acknowledges the
following: “Often, the only way to effectively communicate a qualitative noun in the English
idiom is by prefacing the noun with ‘a.’”136 Precisely! Some predicate nouns without the Greek
article can be described in English as “indefinite-qualitative,” as demonstrated in previous
examples (i.e., John 4:19 by Wallace, John 6:70 by Dixon, and John 8:44 by Hanna). In the samples
provided earlier, observe how translators freely alternate between qualitative and indefinite
readings in their various language editions. That alone debunks the myth that preverbal
predicate nouns cannot be rendered with indefinites. Although Dixon fails to see the potential
overlapping of the qualitative sense into the indefinite domain at times, his study seems to
suggest that there is a 94% grammatical probability that John 1:1 is not definite. In spite of
theological objections published by various scholars, other authoritative Greek Grammars
regularly point out that a noun lacking the Greek article can indeed be rendered as indefinite
(with an “a”) in English, context allowing. For instance:

Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar: “If there is no [Greek] article you may insert ‘a’ before the noun if it
makes better sense in English.”137

Learn to Read New Testament Greek: “Where no article appears in Greek, the indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’
may be used in English when the context suggests this translation.”138

New Testament Greek For Beginners: “There is no indefinite article in Greek, and so ἀδελφός [adelphos]

134 Dixon 1975, Chapter VI – Conclusion, 54.

135 Wallace 1996, 266, ftn.
136 Ibid, Dixon, 47.
137 Mounce 2009, 37. (Note: Mounce is against the “a god” rendering, stating he prefers a “qualitative” rendition. He could learn a
point or two from Wallace who conceded that ‘is no easy task to distinguish between indefinite and qualitative nouns at times.’)
138 Black 2009, 30.
 45

means either brother or a brother (usually the latter). Greek has, however, a definite article, and where the
Greek article does not appear, the definite article should not be inserted in the English translation. Thus
ἀδελφός does not mean the brother.”139 “The use of the article in Greek corresponds roughly to the use of
the definite article in English. Thus λόγος [logos] means a word; ὁ λόγος [ho logos] means the word.”140

The Elements of New Testament Greek: “There is no indefinite article in Greek. When, therefore, a word like
λογος stands alone, it usually means ‘a word.’ But it can also mean simply ‘word.’ The right translation is
nearly always obvious from the context.”141

Considering the evidence, I find the critics of the “a god” rendering are not being equitable by
targeting the alleged mishandling of the Greek article in translation, when scholars have made it
clear that it is a standard translation procedure, context allowing, to add the indefinite article
before anarthrous predicate nouns. That said, translators who choose to use the (a) in John 1:1
as “a god” basing their belief on grammar and Bible context, are making use of their “individual
judgment,” a prerogative shared with other translators no less. The Sahidic Coptic translators
understood some 1,700 years ago that the Greek text of John 1:1 communicated that ‘the Logos
was a god,’ not ‘God.’ The introduction of Trinitarianism in the post-Biblical era changed the
concept of God and Jesus in the minds of many Christian followers, to the point that it is difficult
for them to perceive this matter clearly.

That being the case, one wonders why so much effort is spent in repeated attempts to use
grammar to “prove” that those who translate John 1:1 differently are wrong when grammar
alone is not totally decisive in this. In view of the discussion, Wallace erroneously citing
Countess' flawed conclusion does not change the fact that an anarthrous ‘predicate nominative
ahead of a verb’ may also be rendered in an indefinite manner142, no matter how many scholars
gang up against the concept.

17. In search of a counterbalance in interpretation:

One lamentable tactic used by opponents of translations which support the reading “a god,”
consists of engaging in a mission of defamation. That is, they do everything within their might to
discredit the scholarship of the divergent translators. To justify their charges, they quote some
“reliable” Greek authority agreeing with their view without ever disclosing the fact that other
respectable scholars may hold opposite but equally substantial views from theirs. Have you
noticed that? The truth is that if we go digging around for human flaws, we're going to find
plenty of them, in both camps. Humans fall short of perfection. Period! No need to go about
looking for personal issues to carp about. What is most sad, though, is finding so many
“Christian” authors stooping so low, unscrupulously twisting the facts and using half-truths to
smear their dissidents. Gladly, we find some writers avoiding such unchristian behavior.

I want to make something clear: It is not my intention to draw away, in any way or form, from
139 Machen 1951, 23, §26.
140 Ibid, 35, §67.
141 J.W. Wenham 1984, 30.
142 As Wallace himself conceded in the The Net Bible, p. 2017, ftn. 3.
 46

the exalted glorious position that Christ holds as the Logos of God, “the only begotten Son” who
has explained the invisible Father to us like no other. (John 1:18) Likewise, I would not want to err
by endeavoring to assign Christ to a position he never claimed to hold, namely, that he was
equal to God Almighty. He stated clearly that ‘the Father was greater than he was.’ (John 14:28)
Even in heaven, Christ speaks of his Father as ‘his God’ in harmony with John 1:1. (Revelation 3:12)
The apostle Peter proclaimed before the world who the exalted Christ really was in relation to
God: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 1:3) Christ appears in
second place after God once again. Let’s compare this scripture with Psalm 41:13 which uses
similar language: “Blessed be Yahweh, the God of Israel” (New Jerusalem Bible) Should we conclude
that Israel became equal to God Yahweh?

I find religious groups going to extremes here. Some undermine the important role of Christ
within God's purpose. They either do not ‘honor him as they honor the Father’, or they relegate
him to a position equal to, or below a human, (or human organization). (John 3:16; 5:23) Any human
organization that puts their own interests above those of Christ’s will be accountable before God
in due time. At the other extreme, we find plenty of folks making Jesus the equal of God, a
charge people of his day made, a charge Christ denied. (John 5:18; 10:33-36) One would think that
Christians would have learned a lesson from chapters 5 and 10 of John, but no, they have
become guilty of committing the same error.

It was stated earlier that the renderings “the Word was god [divine]” and “the Word was a god” at
John 1:1 may be grammatically acceptable. A Catholic publication observed: “Grammar alone
cannot prove how the predicate in this verse should be translated, whether ‘God’ or ‘a god.’”143
Other scholars, like C.H. Dodd and Harris, have reached the same conclusion. A word-by-word
rendering of John 1:1c would be, “and god was the Word,” but it is no less true that the clause can
also be rendered literally just as noted Robert Young did long ago in his commentary: “and a God
(i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word.”144

Although translating John 1:1 as “the Word was god [=divine]” (per Torrey & Hart) may be
acceptable in a qualitative sense, the move to identify Jesus Christ in a defined sense (as the One
God) as the best-selling English Bibles imply by using a capital letter (God) goes against the
Johannine message that repeatedly taught that he was ‘son’ of God. (John 1:18, 34, 45, 3:16-18; 35-
36; 5:19; 21-23; 25-26; 6:40; 42; 8:35-36; 9:35 (cf. 19:7); 10:36; 11:4; 14:13; 17:1; 19:17; 20:31) This list does
not include the dozens of times John affirmed ‘that God was the Father of Jesus Christ,’ or that
Jesus was ‘the Son of the Father’ in a unique sense.

A case is made in this essay that grammatical patterns and contextual matters favor an indefinite
(or a qualitative) translation at John 1:1 over a definite one, and various examples are given. It is
common practice for Bible translators to use the indefinite article in translation with anarthrous
predicate nominative nouns throughout the New Testament and the Septuagint. In sum, the
rendering of “a god” (or, “a God”) as applied to Jesus found in various versions at John 1:1 may not

143 The Catholic Biblical Quarterly. Vol. XIII, No. 4, Oct. 1951.

144 Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1865.
 47

be the most attractive rendition, but in a strict Biblical sense is not demeaning or disgraceful in
any way, nor does it promote “polytheism.” As it stands, the Father of Jesus Christ is still
Supreme, and holds “the only true God” designation, worthy of absolute worship. (John 17:3)

18. The Apostle John's own conclusion on the Logos:

John noted that Jesus himself directed all attention and worship toward his Father and God. (John
4:23; 20:17,31) If John’s aim was to establish the Logos as ‘God’ in the last part of John 1:1 from the
outset, he could have added the definite article (“the”) before “theos” (like so, “ho theos”) in this
clause just as he did before in the same verse, as Zerwick keenly noted. In other places, John did
not hesitate to repeat the article when necessary. (John 15:1) The fact that he did not do so at John
1:1 indicates the Apostle’s intention was to make a description of the Logos, not communicate
identity with God. Again, verse two of the prologue confirms this.

Being brought up in a monotheistic society, John would definitely offer no suggestion of

polytheism, of Christ being a second member of a Trinitarian Godhead, composed of ‘three
persons in one.’ This language is totally lacking in Scripture, and is generally admitted that the
doctrine was formulated centuries later to stop controversies around the person of Christ. Rather,
the Apostle evidently wanted to tell the world that the Word was powerfully divine, very much
like God, in the same manner that the author of the Bible book of Hebrews conveyed: “[Jesus] is
the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being.” (1:3, NRSV) Other Bible
versions express the second part of this statement as follows:

“The Son...expresses the very character of God” (NLT)

“His Son is... the exact likeness of God’s being” (GOD'S WORD)
“The Son is as God is in every way.” (New Life Version)
“He is just like God himself.” (Worldwide English New Testament)
“He's exactly like God.” (The Clear Word)
“God's Son...is like him [God] in every way.” (Contemporary English Version)
“The Son...shows exactly what God is like.” (New Century Version)
“[Christ] is...the perfect copy of his nature.” (Jerusalem Bible)
“He is radiant with God’s splendour, being his exact replica” (21st.Century New Testament)
“He is...the precise counterpart of his very being.” (God's New Covenant, Cassirer)

Thus, if Christ is said to be very much like God, how would this be fundamentally different from
describing the Logos as “Godlike,” “divine,” or “a god”? After everything was said and done, John
summed up his gospel by saying: “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the
Christ [i.e. anointed by God], the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his
name.” (20:31) Take note that the Apostle in his summary did not write: “These are written that
you may believe that Jesus is God.” Big difference! Again, the statement that Jesus Christ is the
‘Son of God’ appear dozens of times in the Gospel of John alone. Traditionalists can only come up
with two publicized texts in the Gospel of John, in which it is said, Jesus is God (John 1:1 & 20:28).
But a number of scholars question the traditional interpretation of these two texts. In other
words, the claim that Christ is “God” as many religious adherents understand it, is highly
 48

unlikely.

What is certain, and not open to debate at all, is the fact that Bible authors often speak of Christ
as ‘God's Son,’ repeatedly, and not as “God,” which is very telling. We are better off imitating the
Apostle John than someone else contradicting him. Truth-seeking Bible readers agree with those
who teach that what God offered the world as a Savior, was not God himself incarnated, but the
Son of him, a God, a Powerful Being, Divine, but always subordinate to the-One-God. Philippians
2:7 and 2 John 7 do not contradict this fact. (Luke 1:32, 35; John 1:14; 3:16; 1 Corinthians 15:28) The
submitted list in my other article linked below* showing alternative readings of John 1:1 indicate
there are a good number of voices seeing not a mystery, but a simpler truth.
(* https://www.scribd.com/document/50330864/John-1-1-List-of-Alternative-Readings)

19. Concluding Remarks:

William Barclay, the scholar who later in life conceded that the translation, “the Word was a God”
at John 1:1, as far as the Greek goes, was grammatically feasible, ironically published one of the
simpler explanations available anywhere on the Greek structure of John 1:1. He wrote:

“When the definite article is removed from a noun in Greek, as in English, the noun becomes the
equivalent of an adjective. Take the following example in English. If I say ‘John is the man’, I
identify John with some particular man; if I say ‘John is man’, omitting the definite article, I simply
describe John as a man. What that particular sentence of John says is that the Word was in the
same class as God. God is an adjective rather than a noun, and the perfect translation is the New
English Bible translation: ‘What God was, the Word was.’”145 Accordingly, we can interpret
Barclay's reasoning as follows:

Barclay: John is the man = John is ‘identified with some particular man.’
Barclay: John is man = John is a man.
Jn 1:1: The Word was god = The Word was a god.

Barclay concludes: “When John said the word was God he was not saying that Jesus was identical
with God; he was saying that Jesus was so perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being
that in him we perfectly see what God is like.”146 (Barclay himself translates John 1:1: “and the nature
of the Word was the same as the nature of God,” A New Translation, 1969. Truly, Jesus ”is the reflection of
God's glory.” – Heb. 1:3, NRSV.)

Whether we have a strong preference for one particular rendering over another in John 1:1c (be
it, “God,” “divine,” or, “a god”), it is proper to note that due to human limitations, it is wise on our
part to be reasonable and respectful of others who harbor a different understanding from ours.
Textual interpretation is not an exact science. Moreover, God's Word aptly said: “Kind mercy wins

145 W. Barclay. “Ever Yours”, 205. (Note: The NEB translation of John 1:1c is preferable over the traditional rendering,
but not “perfect,” for it is ambiguous, not to mention that it is a paraphrase.)

146 Barclay. The Gospel of John. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1975, Vol. 1, 39.
 49

over harsh judgment every time.” (James 2:13, TM) In the end, only God and Christ, as Divine
Judges, have the faculty and authority to issue the final verdict. What likely then is the proper
translation of John 1:1c?

The traditional translation of this verse (‘And the Word was God’) is a good representation of the
Latin Vulgate, itself a translation, instead of the Greek Text as main source. It leads to great
confusion, as seen by the many calling on this Scripture as a “proof” text in support of a post-
Biblical dogma. ‘The popular rendering of John 1:1 cannot stand without explanation.’ (Ibid,
Harris) Herein, I will list some Bible translations which strive to correctly convey what John said as
it appears in the Greek Text:

“a god was the Word” (The Sahidic Coptic Translation, 250-300 A.D.)
“and the Word was a god” (Reynier Rooleeuw, M.D., Het Nieuwe Testament, Amsterdam, 1694)
“the Word was a divine being” (La Bible du Centenaire, Société Biblique de Paris, 1928
– Translated from French)
“the Word was god” (Professor Charles Cutler Torrey, 1947)
“the Word was a god (godlike; divine)” (New World Translation, with References, 1984 edition, Appendix 6A)
“God of a sort was the Logos” (Ernst Haenchen – Translated from German)
“godlike sort was the Logos” (Johannes Schneider – Translated from German)
“the Logos was divine” (James Moffatt)
“the Word was divine” (J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed)
“and the Logos was divine (a divine being)” (Robert Harvey D.D., London: Cambridge, 1931)
“the Logos was god” (The New Testament, A Translation, David Bentley Hart)
“what God was, the Word was” (Revised English Bible –1989, acceptable paraphrase)
“And a God was the word” (Sjef van Tilborg, Comentario al Evangelio de Juan, Estella, 2005)
“and the Word was a God” (Robert M. Price, The Pre-Nicene New Testament, Salt Lake City, 2006)
“the Word was divine” (El evangelio y las cartas de Juan, by Senén Vidal García, Valladolid, 2013)

In conclusion, the rendering of “a god,” as applied to Jesus (“the Word” at John 1:1c), the Son of
God,” though controversial, does no violence to Scripture and is fully in accord with it.

- End -

“Who can defeat the world? Only the person who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.” (1 John 5:5,
Good News Translation)
__________________________
Following is an excerpt verbatim of William Barclay's private letter to David Burnett where he concedes
what he had publicly denied earlier (See bold letters below. Emphasis mine, italics his). Notwithstanding,
his theology disallowed any acknowledgment of Jesus as “a god” as contextually feasible.

Mr. David Burnett 20 May 1974

AUSTRALIA:
 50

Dear Mr. Burnett,

“Thank you very much indeed for your letter of 16th April. You have four questions and they must be
answered, I am afraid, briefly in order to get on to one airmail and because I have a heavy
correspondence.

1. ‘In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.’. You could
translate, so far as the Greek goes; ‘the Word was a God’; but it seems obvious that this is so much
against the whole of the rest of the New Testament that it is wrong. I am quite sure myself that the
following is the correct translation.

The Greek is Theos ēn ho logos. Ho is the Greek word for ‘the’ but normally prefaces all words. You note
that in the Greek there is a definite article with logos, that is ‘Word’, but not with Theos, that is ‘God’. Had
there been a definite article with both, Word and God would have been identified. When the definite
article is removed from a noun in Greek, as in English, the noun becomes the equivalent of an adjective.
Take the following example in English. If I say ‘John is the man’, I identify John with some particular man; if
I say ‘John is man’, omitting the definite article, I simply describe John as a man. What that particular
sentence of John says is that the Word was in the same class as God. God is an adjective rather than a
noun, and the perfect translation is the New English Bible translation: ‘What God was, the Word was’. […]
Yours sincerely,***” (Letter from Barclay, dated “20 May 1974,” – Book: “Ever Yours: A Selection from the
Letters of William Barclay, edited by C.L. Rawlins, Dunbar: 1985, 205.)
________________________________________________________________________

Bibliography:
Andrews Study Bible, Berrien Springs, MI.: Andrews University Press, 2010.
Barclay, William. The Expository Times, Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, October 1953, Vol. 65. “Great Themes of the New
Testament: II John 1.1-14,” Expository Times 70, 1958-59: 114. The Gospel of John, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press,
1975, Vol. 1, 39.
Black, David Alan. Learn To Read New Testament Greek. Wake Forest, NC: 2009, 30.
Bowman Jr., Robert M. Jehovah's Witnesses Bibliography, Jan. 14, 2012. IRR.org.
Brooks, James A. & Carlton L. Winbery. Syntax of New Testament Greek, Washington D.C.: University Press of America,
1979, 67.
Buttmann, Alexander. Grammar of the New Testament Greek, Andover: W. F. Draper, 1891, 87, 88.
Caragounis, C.C. & J. Van der Watt. “A Grammatical Analysis of John 1:1,” Filología Neotestamentaria 21, 2008, 122.
Chamberlain, William D. An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Grand Rapids: Baker Book, 1941, 57.
Colwell, E.C. “A Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament,” Journal of Biblical Literature 52, University
of Chicago, 1933, 12-21.
Countess, Robert, 1982. Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament: A Critical Analysis, Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and
Reformed, 1982.
Croy, N. Clayton. A Primer of Biblical Greek, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999, 15.
Dana, H. E. & Julius R. Mantey. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, New York: Macmillan, 1955.
Daniels, Elijah. Online: https://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/def-part-3-appendix.html;
https://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2010/01/septgod.html .
Danker, Frederick W. The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, University of Chicago: 2009.
Darby, J. N., The Holy Scriptures, Ontario, 1988, Fourth Edition.
Decker, Rodney J., “Colwell’s Rule” http://ntresources.com/blog/documents/colwell.pdf (February, 1995). Reading Koine
Greek, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014, 30, §2.3.
Dixon, Paul S. “The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John.” Th.M. thesis, Dallas (DTS), May 1975.
Dr. Constable's Expository Bible Study Notes, Dallas Theological Seminary, Notes on John, 2012.
Elwell, W. A. Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988, Vol. 1, 881.
 51

Furuli, Rolf. The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation: With a special look at the New World Translation of
Jehovah's Witnesses, Huntington Beach: Elihu Books, 1999.
Goodwin, William. A Greek Grammar, Boston: BiblioBazaar, 1897, 206, §943.
Greenlee, J. Harold. A Concise Exegetical Grammar New Testament Greek, Wilmore, KY.: First Fruits Press, 2012, 37.
Hanna, Robert. A Grammatical Aid to the Greek New Testament, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983,147.
Harner, Philip B. “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1.” JBL 92 (1973): 75–87.
Harris, Murray J. “The Definite Article in the Greek New Testament.” Appendix I (301–13) of Jesus as God: The New
Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992.
Haenchen, Ernst/Robert Funk, A Commentary on the Gospel of John, Part 1, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984,109.
Hartley, Donald. Revisiting the Colwell Construction in Light of Mass/Count Nouns, DTS, 2004.
Hastings, James, Editor. Dictionary of the Bible, Rev. Ed.: Frederick C. Grant & H. H. Rowley. London & New York: T&T
Clark & Charles Scribner's Sons, 1963, 333.
Hewett, James A. New Testament Greek, Peabody, MA.: Hendrickson, 2009.
Hurtado, L.W. One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (London,
New York: Bloomsbury, 2015).
Hurtado, L.W. “Observations on the ‘Monotheism’ Affirmed in the New Testament.” In The Bible and Early
Trinitarian Theology, eds. C.A. Beeley and M.E. Weedman (Washington: CUA, 2018), 50–68.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979, Vol. II, 497.
Jewish Encyclopedia, 1906, Vol. 12, 261, “Trinity” (Last sentence).
Kaufman, Paul L. An Introductory Grammar of New Testament Greek, Palm Springs, CA: Ronald N. Haynes Publishers,
Inc. 1982, 154.
Köstenberger, Andrew J., Benjamin L. Merkle and Robert L. Plummer. Going Deeper with New Testament Greek.
Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016.
Marinus de Jonge: Christology in Context: The Earliest Christian Response to Jesus, Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988, 198.
Levy, David. Griego del Nuevo Testamento I, California: ADVIternational Press, 2017, 37.
Loader, William. The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: Structures and Issues, 2 ed. New York: Peter Lang, 1992, 155.
Machen, J. Gresham. New Testament Greek For Beginners, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1951, 35, §67.
Macquarrie, John. Jesus Christ in Modern Thought, London: SCM Press, 2003, 110.
Magill, Michael J. Disciples Literal New Testament. Beaverton, OR.: Reyma Publishing, 2011.
Mantey, Julius R. Letter from, to WBTS, dated July 11, 1974. John Ankerberg, Dillon Burroughs, John Weldon. The Facts
On Jehovah's Witnesses, Eugene, OR.: Harvest House Publishers, 2002 & 2008, 48.
Mastronarde, Donald J. Introduction to Attic Greek, University of California Press: 1993, 46, 59.
Mathewson, David L. & Elodie B. Emig, Intermediate Greek Grammar, Grand Rapids: 2016, Baker Academic, 74.
McReynolds, Paul R., The Word Study Greek-English New Testament, Carol Stream, IL.: Tyndale, 1999.

Moffatt, James, The Bible – A New Translation, Harper & Row, Publishers, New York, Evanston and London, 1935.
Moule, C. F. D. An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, 2d ed. Cambridge: Univ. Press, 1959, 115–16.
Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, Zondervan, 2009. Biblical Greek: A Compact Guide, Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2011.
Moulton, James H. Grammar of New Testament Greek, Prolegomena. London: T.&T. Clark, 1985, Latest impression, 83.
Myers, Allen C., Editor. The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.
New English Bible: Oxford University Press, 1961, 1970.
NIV Study Bible (The Holy Bible, New International Version), Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002.
Origen of Alexandria (c. 184–c. 253). Also known as Origen Adamantius, Against Celsus, 5:39.
Plain English Bible, International Bible Translators, Shippensburg, PA: Destiny Image Pub., 2003.
Porter, Stanley E., Idioms of the Greek New Testament. Biblical Languages: Greek 2. Sheffield: JSOT, 1992, 109–10.
Ramsay, Richard B. Griego y Exégesis, Barcelona: Editorial CLIE, 2006, 108.
Reasoning from the Scriptures, WTBS: Brooklyn, N.Y., 1985, 416.
Renn, Stephen D., Expository Dictionary of Bible Words, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005, 441.
Robertson, A.T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, Nashville: Broadman Press,
1934.
Robertson, A.T. & W. Hersey Davis. A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament, 10th Ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book,
1958.
 52

Schaff, Philip, Editor. New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Jackson, Sherman, Gilmore. London: Funk
& Wagnals, 1910, Vol. 8, 239 (See, “Oltramare, Marc Jean Hugues”).
Slaten, Arthur W. Qualitative Nouns in the Pauline Epistles and Their Translation in the Revised Version, Chicago: 1918, 5.
Smyth, Herbert Weir. Smyth’s Greek Grammar, Rev. by Gordon M. Messing. Harvard University Press, 1956.
Summers, Ray. Essentials of New Testament Greek, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1950.
TANAKH – The Holy Scriptures, The Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia, New York, Jerusalem, 1985.
Thayer, Joseph H. Greek English-Lexicon of the New Testament (Idem 4th Ed., 1901), Grand Rapids, Baker Book, 1977, 625.
The Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek, Evert van Emde Boas, Albert Rijksbaron, Luuk Huitink, Mathiew de Bakker.
Cambridge University Press: 2019.
The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Washington DC.: Vol. XIII, No. 4, Oct. 1951.
The NET Bible, Biblical Studies, L.L.C., 2009, p. 2017.
The New World Dictionary-Concordance to the New American Bible. New York: World Publishing, 1970, 213.
The Preacher’s Outline and Sermon Bible, “John”, Chattanooga: Leadership Ministries Worldwide, 1998, 27.
The Translator’s New Testament, The British and Foreign Bible Society, 1973.
The Watchtower, WBTS: Brooklyn, N.Y., 1975, 702.
The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English, Marshall, Alfred. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975,
Introduction, xxx.
Tolstoy, C.L. The Four Gospels Harmonized and Translated, New York: Willey Book Company, 1904, 30.
Turner, Nigel., Syntax. Vol 3 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek by J. H. Moulton. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963, 182–
84.
Vine, W.E. An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words – Under “God,” at the end.
Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics – An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1996.
Wenham, J.W. The Elements of New Testament Greek, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1965. Reprint 1984, 36.
Yeager, Randolph O. The Renaissance New Testament, Vol. 4, Renaissance Press, 1980, 4.
Young, Richard A., Intermediate New Testament Greek: A Linguistic and Exegetical Approach. Nashville: Broadman &
Holman, 1994.
Young, Robert. Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978 Reprint. “Hints and Helps to Bible
Interpretation.” Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1865.
Wuest, Kenneth S. The New Testament – An Expanded Translation, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Reprint 1981.
Wright, Brian J. & Tim Ricchuiti: The Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Vol. 62, Pt 2, October 2011.
Zerwick, Maximilian: Biblical Greek, Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1963.
Zodhiates Spiros. The Complete Word Study Dictionary New Testament. Chattanooga: AMG Publishers, 1992, 1385.
________________________________________________________________________________
Final Note: This document was written using the free open LibreOffice Writer,* using Noto Sans Font, Size
11 – originally in the .odt (Open Document Text) format. *Available for Linux, Mac and Windows. (To
submit comments, suggestions or corrections: lesriv000@gmail.com). (Other articles may found at
scribd.com, or at the CALAMÉO website under “lesriv spencer”)
________________________________________________________________________________