Jason BeDuhn on John 1:1

[Cal_Minian]

I have seen references on this board that one cannot translation John 1:1 as "the Word was a god." Well it is simply not true.
These are snippets from the Chapter in Dr. BeDuhn's book "And the Word was ... What?" Enjoy.


Grammatically, John 1:1 is not a difficult verse to translate. It follows familiar, ordinary structures of Greek expression. A lexical ("interlinear") translation of the controversial clause would read: "And a god was the Word." A minimal literal ("formal equivalence") translation would rearrange the word order to match proper English expression: "And the Word was a god." The preponderance of evidence, from Greek grammar, from literary context, and from cultural environment, supports this translation, of which "the Word was divine" would be a slightly more polished variant carrying the same basic meaning. Both of these renderings are superior to the traditional translation which goes against these three key factors that guide accurate translation. The NASB, NIV, NRSV, and NAB follow the translation concocted by the KJV translators. This translation awaits a proper defense, since no obvious one emerges from Greek grammar, the literary context of John, or the cultural environment in which John is writing...

Bias has shaped most of these translations much more than has accurate attention to the wording of the Bible. The NW translation of John 1:l is superior to that of the other eight translations we are comparing.

TRUTH IN TRANSLATION
For orders and information please contact the publisher - UNIVERSITY PRESS of AMERICA, INC.
4501 Forbes Blvd. Suite 200 - Lanham, Maryland 20706 - 1-800-462-5220 www.univpress.com

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 10:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133577#post133577)
Cal_Minian:

I have seen references on this board that one cannot translation John 1:1 as "the Word was a god." Well it is simply not true.
These are snippets from the Chapter in Dr. BeDuhn's book "And the Word was ... What?" Enjoy.

Bias has shaped most of these translations much more than has accurate attention to the wording of the Bible. The NW translation of John 1:l is superior to that of the other eight translations we are comparing.



If one ignores the most relevant historical information available. The entire early church. But of course Mssr. DeBuhn knows more than they did.

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 06:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133661#post133661)
OldShepherd:



If one ignores the most relevant historical information available. The entire early church. But of course Mssr. DeBuhn knows more than they did.

He does discuss that in his book and still comes to the conclusion that the translation "and the Word was a god" is FAR superior to "and the Word was God."

Kind Regards,
Cal

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 11:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133663#post133663)
Cal_Minian:

He does discuss that in his book and still comes to the conclusion that the translation "and the Word was a god" is FAR superior to "and the Word was God."

As I said Mssr DeBuhn presumes to be more knowledgeable than all the early church fathers. How does one prove that ALL the historical sources were wrong?

Most Kindest Regards,
Carlos.

[Jaltus]

Is it just me or is that not an argument at all? Read this quotation again:

Grammatically, John 1:1 is not a difficult verse to translate. It follows familiar, ordinary structures of Greek expression. A lexical ("interlinear") translation of the controversial clause would read: "And a god was the Word." A minimal literal ("formal equivalence") translation would rearrange the word order to match proper English expression: "And the Word was a god." The preponderance of evidence, from Greek grammar, from literary context, and from cultural environment, supports this translation, of which "the Word was divine" would be a slightly more polished variant carrying the same basic meaning. Both of these renderings are superior to the traditional translation which goes against these three key factors that guide accurate translation. The NASB, NIV, NRSV, and NAB follow the translation concocted by the KJV translators. This translation awaits a proper defense, since no obvious one emerges from Greek grammar, the literary context of John, or the cultural environment in which John is writing...

Bias has shaped most of these translations much more than has accurate attention to the wording of the Bible. The NW translation of John 1:l is superior to that of the other eight translations we are comparing.


It is very clear that all he is saying is: I am right, you are wrong, so nyah.

He gives no argumentation other than straight assertion. He never once shows any of those cultural norms he talks about nor dfoes he give a single example. He assumes he is right and never makes a case for it. In other words, he has no argument, only supposition.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 04:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133805#post133805)
Jaltus:

Is it just me or is that not an argument at all? Read this quotation again:

It is very clear that all he is saying is: I am right, you are wrong, so nyah.

He gives no argumentation other than straight assertion. He never once shows any of those cultural norms he talks about nor dfoes he give a single example. He assumes he is right and never makes a case for it. In other words, he has no argument, only supposition.

What he said! That is what I was trying to get out but Dr. J , said it much better than I could.

[dizzle]

Jaltus,

Exactly.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Dear Cal

I found this comment by BeDuhn on a Jehovah's Witness apologetic website, can I have your comments, please:


"The Greek phrase is theos en ho logos, which translated word for word is "a god was the word."

Greek has only a definite article, like our the, it does not have an indefeinite article, like our a or an. If a noun is definite, it has the definite article ho. If a noun is indefinite, no article is used. In the phrase from John 1:1, ho logos is "the word." If it was written simply logos, without the definite article ho, we would have to translate it as "a word". So we are not really "inserting" an indefinite article when we translate Greek nouns without the definite article into English, we are simply obeying rules of English grammar that tell us that we cannot say "Snoopy is dog," but must say "Snoopy is a dog."

Now in English we simply say "God"; we do not say "The God." But in Greek, when you mean to refer to the one supreme God, instead of one of the many other beings that were called "gods," you would have to say "The God": ho theos. Even a monotheistic Christian, who beleives there is only one God and no others, would be forced to say in Greek "The God," as John and Paul and the other writers of the New Testament normally do. If you leave off the article in a phrase like John 1:1, then you are saying "a god." (There are some exceptions to this rule: Greek has what are called noun cases, which means the nouns change form depending on how they are used in a sentence. So, if you want to say "of God," which is theou, you don't need the article. But in the nominative case, which is the one in John 1:1, you have to have the article.)

So what does John mean by saying "the word was a god"? He is classifying Jesus in a specific category of beings. There are plants and animals and humans and gods, and so on. By calling the Word "a god," John wants to tell his readers that the Word(which becomes Jesus when it takes flesh) belongs to the divine class of things. Notice the word order: "a god was the word." We can't say it like this in English, but you can in Greek. The subject can be after the verb and the object before the verb, the opposite of how we do it in English (subject-verb-object). Research has shown that when ancient Greek writers put a object-noun first in a sentence like John 1:1 (a be-verb sentence: x is y), without the definite article, they are telling us that the subject belongs to the class represented by the object-noun: :"The car is a Volkswagen." In English we would accomplish the same thing by using what we call predicate adjectives. "John is a smart person" = "John is smart." So we would tend to say "The word was divine," rather than "The word was a god." That is how I would translate this phrase. "The word was a god" is more literal, and an improvement over "The word was God," but it raises more problems, since to a modern reader it implies polytheism.

No one in John's day would have understood the phrase to mean "The word was God" - the language does not convey that sense, and conceptually it is difficult to grasp such an idea, especially since that author has just said that the word was with God. Someone is not with himself, he is with some other. John clearly differentiates between God from the Word. The latter becomes flesh and is seen; the former cannot be seen. What is the Word? John says it was the agent through whom God made the world. He starts his gospel "In the beginning..." to remind us of Genesis 1. How does God create in Genesis? He speaks words that make things come into existence. So the Word is God's creative power and plan and activity. It is not God himself, but it is not really totally separate from God either. It occupies a kind of ambiguous status. That is why a monotheist like John can get away with calling it "a god" or "divine" without becoming a polytheist. This divine thing does not act on its own, however, does take on a kind of distinct identity, and in becoming flesh brings God's will and plan right down face to face with humans.

I hope this helps.

Best wishes

Jason Beduhn

Northern Arizona University
Department of Humanities Arts and Religion

Now my question refers to the emboldened section, is he denying the personality of the Word? This is a more important issue than whether the last phrase should be "a god" or not (notice that he prefers 'divine' over 'a god' because of the polytheism issue!)

BeDuhn seems unaware of the scholarship presented in Hartley (on Colwell's rule) and cites Harner, but does he actually get to grips with Harner's argument? It appears convenient that you have posted his conclusions without presenting one of his arguments, Cal. Makes it difficult to assess the chapter properly.

(When I said he cited Harner, I meant in the book, sorry)
Thanks, from Guy

[Tsmith]

Today @ 07:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133805#post133805)
Jaltus:

Is it just me or is that not an argument at all? Read this quotation again:



It is very clear that all he is saying is: I am right, you are wrong, so nyah.

He gives no argumentation other than straight assertion. He never once shows any of those cultural norms he talks about nor dfoes he give a single example. He assumes he is right and never makes a case for it. In other words, he has no argument, only supposition.


Because Cal only supplied a partial quote. There is a whole chapter dedicated to this.

-Tony

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Hi Tony,

Have you read up on Dixon, Harner and Hartley's scholarly work on John 1:1?

Thanks, from Guy

[Jaltus]

Hmm, the above quotation that ghbearman gives shows a lack of understanding about what the article does and does not mean in Greek. Words without the definite article can very well be definite, especially when mentioned earlier with the article (the first use of ther article designates the specific and the following lack of the article points out to the definite usage from earlier).

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Hi Jaltus,

did you mean me or Jason BeDuhn re:articles and definiteness?

I presented the quote to show the board what Jason thinks, because his conclusion only has so far been shown, not because I agree with it.

Thanks, from Guy

[Cal_Minian]

Guy:
Now my question refers to the emboldened section, is he denying the personality of the Word? This is a more important issue than whether the last phrase should be "a god" or not (notice that he prefers 'divine' over 'a god' because of the polytheism issue!)

BeDuhn seems unaware of the scholarship presented in Hartley (on Colwell's rule) and cites Harner, but does he actually get to grips with Harner's argument? It appears convenient that you have posted his conclusions without presenting one of his arguments, Cal. Makes it difficult to assess the chapter properly.

(When I said he cited Harner, I meant in the book, sorry)
Thanks, from Guy


Cal:
Dear Guy,
Jason discusses this in his book as well. He firsts talks about how grammatically John 1:1 should be translated and then a separate discussion on his interpretation. It looks to me as if he does not consider the LOGOS to have become a person until he became a man.

His prefaces that discussion by saying he is "lapsing into interpretation" and does not attempt to defend it with the Greek or force his interpretation onto the text.

He talks about Harner for three pages. I won’t quote all of it. He agrees with part of what Harner wrote but not all of it.


Harner states that the anarthrous predicate noun before the verb cannot be definite in (BeDuhn then lists them) and later he says:

( I found my first mistake! He means 6:60)

‘There are several other examples skipped by Harner. In John 6:20 we see a sentence set up exactly like John 1:1c which even has ho logos (here meaning simply “the saying” or “the teaching”) as the subject:
SKLHROS ESTIN hO LOGOS, “This word is a hard one (word-for-word: a hard one is the word this).” Notice how closely this resembles John 1:1c. The subject is ho logos, with the article, following the be-verb, just as in John 1:lc. The predicate noun precedes the verb, and lacks the article, just as in John l:lc. In meaning, the predicate noun is indefinite. We know this both from its lack of a definite article, and from the larger contextual meaning of the sentence. The word Jesus has spoken is not the one-and-only difficult saying he ever uttered, but is one of them. In other words, it is a hard saying. So, in the same fashion, in John 1:1, the Word is not the one-and-only God, but is a god, or divine being. I know that sounds strange and even seems impossible coming from the pen of a Christian writer. But the fact remains that that is what John wrote. His purpose in doing so was, at least in part, to avoid the notion that God the Father himself incarnated as Christ. The one who incarnated was somehow distinct from “God,” while still being “a god.”

… So, although Harner tries very hard to be deferential to Colwell and to not set up his article as a refutation of “Colwell’s Rule,” he recognizes in the end that the qualitative character of this kind of sentence precludes the definiteness of the noun. If Harner is right, then Colwell cannot be, and vice versa. … What Harner calls the “qualitative” function of Greek predicate nouns, and what I call the Greek “expression of class” amounts basically to the same thing.



Kind Regards,
Cal

[Jaltus]

Today @ 07:10 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133949#post133949)
Tsmith:
Because Cal only supplied a partial quote. There is a whole chapter dedicated to this.

-Tony


Then give his arguments even if you are not quoting them, otherwise this is a pointless excercise.

As for the discussion of John 6:20, there is a mistake made by Jason BeDuhn: SKLHROS is an adjective, not a noun. In John 1:1 it is a noun for 1b, so there needs to be proof why it is not a noun for 1c. Also, OUTOUS has a tendancy to change constructions (note how it effects KAI according to the article in BDF that Cal keeps referring to in anotyher thread, something agreed upon by Turner and Wallace).

I wish I had more time to get into this, but I am leaving for a week's vacation tomorrow morning.

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 11:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134289#post134289)
Jaltus:




Then give his arguments even if you are not quoting them, otherwise this is a pointless excercise.

As for the discussion of John 6:20, there is a mistake made by Jason BeDuhn: SKLHROS is an adjective, not a noun. In John 1:1 it is a noun for 1b, so there needs to be proof why it is not a noun for 1c. Also, OUTOUS has a tendancy to change constructions (note how it effects KAI according to the article in BDF that Cal keeps referring to in anotyher thread, something agreed upon by Turner and Wallace).

I wish I had more time to get into this, but I am leaving for a week's vacation tomorrow morning.

Dear Jaltus,
If you claim that SKLHROS cannot be considered a substantive functioning as a predicate noun in John 6:60 I would 1) like to see you diagram this verse and 2) tell me what noun this "adjective" is modifying!"

I am also confused why you need hOUTOS to "change" this construction if SKLHROS is not functioning as a predicate noun and therefore a good example for BeDuhn to use in the first place.

Have you thought this through? Your two arguments are battleing each other with the result that the nullify each other!

Have a good vacation. Will you still post on the Smart's like you said yesterday or will that need to wait until next week?

Regards,
Cal

[Jaltus]

Um, it is a predicate adjective:

Cal is smart.

Cal = subject
is = verb
smart = adjective

The word is hard.

The = article
word = subject
is = verb
hard = adjective

Quite simple, you see.

I will probably not have time to go back to the other one. I am actually just doing some last minute moderating before I log of until next week (unless I sneak in early tomorrow if my wife doesn't notice).

Have a good week!

edit:

hOUTOS changes things, I was just pointing it out...I tend to add extraneous info every now and then... it is something my students havfe encouraged in me, so it has now crept into my posting.

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 01:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134471#post134471)
Jaltus:

Um, it is a predicate adjective:

Cal is smart.

Cal = subject
is = verb
smart = adjective

The word is hard.

The = article
word = subject
is = verb
hard = adjective

Quite simple, you see.

I will probably not have time to go back to the other one. I am actually just doing some last minute moderating before I log of until next week (unless I sneak in early tomorrow if my wife doesn't notice).

Have a good week!

edit:

hOUTOS changes things, I was just pointing it out...I tend to add extraneous info every now and then... it is something my students havfe encouraged in me, so it has now crept into my posting.


Jaltus,
Very Good.

I just noticed something you had said before. Pehaps that is why I did not understand where you were coming from. After saying that the first instance of QEOS of the Father was a noun you said "so there needs to be proof why it is not a noun for 1c."

I did not realize that you disagree with Wallace and Harner when they see QEOS of the Word as being 100% qualitative.

BeDuhn agrees with Harner on this but says it is an "expression of class."

To someone like Harner and Wallace, the John 6:60 example would be a good parallel.

To you who takes QEOS of the Word as definite, I guess it would not.

I know you are not a modalist (are you?) who would say that hO QEOS HN hO LOGOS, but if QEOS is not functioning adjectively in 1:1c, the only two things left are indefinite and definite. Since definite would be modalism are you not left with an indefinite noun?

Please explain.

Kind Regards,
Cal

[Jaltus]

To truly explain my stance, I would have to post a 15 page paper I wrote on this construct. Let me try to give some of the highlights from it (please pardon the roughness of it as it was difficult to translate from a paper over to a post in that I had to swap fonts and carry over the footnotes in as easy a way as possible):



Introduction

The meaning and exegesis of John 1:1 have long been debated. So often, this crucial verse has been used to attempt to substantiate the Trinitarian doctrine that Jesus is God. However, there are many who debate the merits of this argument, claiming the verse does not say that. The appeal by both sides is then made to grammar, calling forth various features such as Colwell’s rule or noting the lack of a definite article. Therefore, an appeal to grammar must have some sort of solid basis, and this basis should come from research into the precise construct being used. The construct is that of an anarthrous noun followed by a form of eimi, followed by an articular noun. Not all such constructs will be taken into account due to syntactical issues and their respective potentially misleading ramifications. One such group that will be discarded is where a proper noun is in the construct, due to the special issues involved in such a case. This happens seven different times throughout the New Testament (John 4:20, 20:31, Acts 18:12, I John 4:15, 5:1, 5:5, and Revelation 19:10). Luke 4:32 will also not be considered since part of the construct is within a prepositional phrase. All other examples of this construct will be taken into consideration.

An important aspect of this construct is the use of a form of eimi. Only one verbal root is included, and it is perhaps the most common verb of all. Since the verb is only found in a limited number of morphological forms, it limits choice, which points to aspectual vagueness. Porter says, “…eimi exemplifies aspectual vagueness clearly…” 1 This verb’s tense form tells us little about the aspect of what is being talked about, and instead the stress is placed on the nouns in the construct. However, this does not mean the choice of verb is therefore irrelevant, rather the choice is made specifically in order to place the verb in the background and the nouns in the foreground of the reader’s awareness. The exception to this usage would be Jesus making His stark egw eimi claims, which has the reverse effect (such as Mat 22:32, Mark 14:62, and John 8:58). The usage of eimi is to stress the nouns being predicated.

Colwell’s Rule

Before the last few verses are considered, a discussion of Colwell’s rule and Colwell’s construction is in order. 2 In 1933, E. C. Colwell wrote an article entitled “A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament” that appeared in The Journal of Biblical Literature. In this article, Colwell stated the rule (ultimately named for him), “A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb.” 3 Many conservative exegetes immediately picked up on this rule and applied it to John 1:1 in order to prove this verse states Jesus is God since the predicate nominative could now be shown to be definite. However, this rule does not state that if a predicate nominative does not have the article when preceding the verb, it is definite. The rule was misapplied by the exegetes in this instance. Phillip Harner’s article entitled, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” described the misuse of this rule in JBL vol. 92. Harner began by naming the construct (anarthrous noun followed by a verb and followed by an articular noun, with the anarthrous noun is a predicate nominative) Colwell’s construction, since this is what the rule is based on. In his response to the misuse of Colwell’s rule, Harner argued that Colwell’s construction had predicate nominatives that should be properly classified as qualitative, as opposed to definite or even the very rare indefinite. By taking this general construct and the statistics he amasses, Harner posits that the qualitative is the normal usage, and applies this statistic to John 1:1. 4 In so doing, Harner overlooks the fact that the verb is a form of eimi which is at once aspectually vague and lexically significant. While most other verbs have a full range of aspectual choices, eimi is limited, making the verb carry less meaning but causing the construct to be more anomalous.

Passages of Special Interest

In the discussion of this construct, certain key passages were overlooked while finding a general consensus. Mark 2:28, Luke 6:5, John 1:49, and John 9:5 are all passages especially significant in the history of the controversy over John 1:1c. John 1:49 is used by Colwell in order to show a definite predicate nominative that fits his construction. It has the subject stated outside of the construct and it is second person. The predicate nominative is definite due to context, since there can only be one King of Israel at a time. Another verse of interest is John 9:5, which has the first person subject implied in the verb. The predicate nominative is definite by context, since Jesus saying that He is a light of the world would hold no significance, and a qualitative reading would also lack any true value. Since these verses are within the book of John, they are especially relevant to the passage in dispute. Harner, still wishing to affirm that qualitative is the most likely option, can only say about these verses, “…the present study would indicate that the nouns in these two verses are exceptional cases.” 5 Notice that his focus is immediately upon the nouns, and that the uniqueness of the verb never enters into his equation. In other words, that a form of eivmi, is used does not elicit notice from him. The next important passage is Mark 2:28. The construct is an anarthrous nominative, a form of eimi, and then a nominative which is the subject. Harner gives a thorough look at this passage in his article. “Mark certainly does not mean that the Son of Man is ‘a lord’ of the sabbath, one lord among others. Possibly he means that the Son of Man is ‘the lord’ of the sabbath. But this translation would shift the emphasis of the whole passage dealing with sabbath observance (2:23-28). The question is not who the lord of the sabbath is, but what the nature or authority of the Son of Man is. Thus it appears more appropriate to say that the Son of Man is simply ‘lord’ of the sabbath. The predicate noun has a distinct qualitative force, which is more prominent in this context than its definiteness or indefiniteness.” 6 It is hard to see how there could be more than one “lord” of the Sabbath, as Harner argues. The only options left are definite and qualitative. This argument for the qualitative force has as its main premise the asking of what question this narrative is designed to answer. Being “the lord” of the Sabbath is surely an answer to the question of what nature or authority the Son of Man has! In fact, many translations take this as a title of Jesus (e.g. NIV, NASB, and KJV), which would show definiteness as opposed to quality. Harner argues that the qualitative better answers this question on the grounds that it is simply characteristics that matter here, not a certain person. Looking at the theme of the hidden Messiah in Mark, however, causes one to wonder if this could be a cryptic claim to divinity by Jesus. It would certainly fit the idea that the Son of Man is not just a savior, but is God incarnate. Luke 6:5 is the parallel to this verse, but is slightly different. Instead of having a nominative following the verb, the articular noun is a genitive. The anarthrous noun is the predicate nominative, just as in Mark 2:28. The subject is after the construct, though all other factors remain the same. Notwithstanding the arguments due to context, which would be the same as those for the Mark passage, sheer statistics can provide a solid guide. Fourteen of fifteen gospel passages with the same genitive construction show the predicate nominative to be definite, while the epistles are less conclusive. Arguing from preponderance of statistical data, as Harner does, one could then conclude that the predicate nominative in Luke 6:5 is definite, which then also helps to determine Mark 2:28. Four special passages from the gospels, all with their own history and problems, draw the same conclusion that the other gospel passages did, namely that a nominative followed by a form of eivmi, which is in turn followed by an articular noun will nearly always show that the nominative is definite.

John 1:1c Considered

The reason the debate over this construct is so heated is because of the importance of John 1:1 in theological matters. When the predicate nominative is read as definite, the verse affirms that Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. When the predicate nominative is read as indefinite, Jesus is seen as merely divine--more special than other men but still not God. Many others, however, indicate that the third option of qualitative is preferable. Harner states his case like this: “Our study so far suggests that the anarthrous predicate in this verse has primarily a qualitative significance and that it would be definite only if there is some specific indication of definiteness in the meaning or the context.” 7 He then goes on to discuss the five different ways John could have constructed this fragment. He believes that if qeoV was articular, and thereby definite, it would set logoV equal to qeoV. Any good Trinitarian knows that while Jesus is God, He is not the totality of God. The question is whether this logic is actually true. In Matthew 4:3, 4:6, 27:40, Luke 4:3 and 4:9, Jesus is called the Son of Man. While He is the one and only Son of Man, and fulfills all that the title implies, the title does not encompass all that Jesus is. Though it is one of Jesus’ favorite titles for Himself according to the gospel writers, it does not cover that He is Redeemer, Savior, or the Ransom for many. All of these verses were shown to have a definite predicate nominative, with no problem arising. Therefore it stands to reason that even if John had written o logoV hn o qeoV there would still not be a complete equivalence. The difficulty that many have with this passage is that the theological conclusions lead to grammatical interpretation, instead of the grammatical considerations coming first. Instead of an exact equivalence, this construct should rather be seen as a close equivalence or a direct relationship. A can be subsumed in B without B being completely filled by A. For example, the husband of Sarah Isaacs is John Isaacs. John Isaacs is the husband of Sarah, but that is not the totality of what and who he is. The same can be said for this construct, even though the example is in English and the construct is in Greek. A key problem that both Harner and Wallace have with accepting the anarthrous predicate could be definite is that their theology does not allow them. When they see qeoV in the Greek text, they immediately think it can only refer to the God the Father, the first person of the Trinity. This does not take into account their own beliefs! If qeoV meant exclusively the Father, then neither the Spirit nor the Son could be said to be qeoV. However, the noun can be used for other gods, or it can even be used to mean divine. Such a limitation of meaning is found only when not applying the term to the unity of the Trinity, rather than actually inherent in the term itself. The grammar of the fragment clearly follows the previously studied constructs, which tends toward being definite due to the evidence of the other constructs. The context is at worst ambiguous, and at best lends itself more toward an answer that the predicate nominative is definite.

Conclusion

The construct that has been surveyed is that of an anarthrous noun, followed by a form of eivmi,, which is followed by an articular noun. The articular noun can be of the nominative, accusative, genitive, or dative. The anarthrous noun is normally the predicate nominative and is in the nominative case, with the single exception of I Timothy 6:5, which has an infinitive surrounded by accusatives. There are only two dative constructs, and both anarthrous nouns were shown to be definite. The genitives, by far the largest grouping, were broken into those appearing in the gospels and those appearing in the epistles, with certain passages of interest left for later. The overwhelming majority of the constructs found within the gospels had definite anarthrous nouns, while those from the epistles were a much more varied group. I Timothy 6:5 and Acts 28:4 were considered in the section on accusatives and nominatives, and both were seen as qualitative references. The last major portion of the survey considered special passages and what could be gleaned from them. All four of these special passages were seen to have definite anarthrous nouns. Finally, the study was applied to John 1:1 where grammatical and theological objections were considered. While there is a case for the qualitative understanding of the predicate nominative in John 1:1, the definite sense more fully fits the data and the context of the construction.



1 Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, pg. 443

2 Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp. 257-263. Much of this discussion is either following along Wallace’s lines or else came from thoughts spawned by this section in his grammar.

3 E. C. Colwell, “A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament,” pg. 13, The Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 52

4 Phillip B. Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” pg. 87, The Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 92

5 Ibid. 84.

6 Ibid. 77.

7 Ibid. 84. The contention with Harner follows from his arguments on pp. 84-86.

____________________________________________________

Obviously I skipped most of my data gathering, but it was extremely one-sided with nearly every case being definite instead of qualitative or indefinite (I think there was only 1 indefinite).

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 06:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134689#post134689)
Jaltus:

To truly explain my stance, I would have to post a 15 page paper I wrote on this construct. Let me try to give some of the highlights from it (please pardon the roughness of it as it was difficult to translate from a paper over to a post in that I had to swap fonts and carry over the footnotes in as easy a way as possible):



Introduction

The meaning and exegesis of John 1:1 have long been debated. So often, this crucial verse has been used to attempt to substantiate the Trinitarian doctrine that Jesus is God. However, there are many who debate the merits of this argument, claiming the verse does not say that. The appeal by both sides is then made to grammar, calling forth various features such as Colwell’s rule or noting the lack of a definite article. Therefore, an appeal to grammar must have some sort of solid basis, and this basis should come from research into the precise construct being used. The construct is that of an anarthrous noun followed by a form of eimi, followed by an articular noun. Not all such constructs will be taken into account due to syntactical issues and their respective potentially misleading ramifications. One such group that will be discarded is where a proper noun is in the construct, due to the special issues involved in such a case. This happens seven different times throughout the New Testament (John 4:20, 20:31, Acts 18:12, I John 4:15, 5:1, 5:5, and Revelation 19:10). Luke 4:32 will also not be considered since part of the construct is within a prepositional phrase. All other examples of this construct will be taken into consideration.

An important aspect of this construct is the use of a form of eimi. Only one verbal root is included, and it is perhaps the most common verb of all. Since the verb is only found in a limited number of morphological forms, it limits choice, which points to aspectual vagueness. Porter says, “…eimi exemplifies aspectual vagueness clearly…” 1 This verb’s tense form tells us little about the aspect of what is being talked about, and instead the stress is placed on the nouns in the construct. However, this does not mean the choice of verb is therefore irrelevant, rather the choice is made specifically in order to place the verb in the background and the nouns in the foreground of the reader’s awareness. The exception to this usage would be Jesus making His stark egw eimi claims, which has the reverse effect (such as Mat 22:32, Mark 14:62, and John 8:58). The usage of eimi is to stress the nouns being predicated.

Colwell’s Rule

Before the last few verses are considered, a discussion of Colwell’s rule and Colwell’s construction is in order. 2 In 1933, E. C. Colwell wrote an article entitled “A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament” that appeared in The Journal of Biblical Literature. In this article, Colwell stated the rule (ultimately named for him), “A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb.” 3 Many conservative exegetes immediately picked up on this rule and applied it to John 1:1 in order to prove this verse states Jesus is God since the predicate nominative could now be shown to be definite. However, this rule does not state that if a predicate nominative does not have the article when preceding the verb, it is definite. The rule was misapplied by the exegetes in this instance. Phillip Harner’s article entitled, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” described the misuse of this rule in JBL vol. 92. Harner began by naming the construct (anarthrous noun followed by a verb and followed by an articular noun, with the anarthrous noun is a predicate nominative) Colwell’s construction, since this is what the rule is based on. In his response to the misuse of Colwell’s rule, Harner argued that Colwell’s construction had predicate nominatives that should be properly classified as qualitative, as opposed to definite or even the very rare indefinite. By taking this general construct and the statistics he amasses, Harner posits that the qualitative is the normal usage, and applies this statistic to John 1:1. 4 In so doing, Harner overlooks the fact that the verb is a form of eimi which is at once aspectually vague and lexically significant. While most other verbs have a full range of aspectual choices, eimi is limited, making the verb carry less meaning but causing the construct to be more anomalous.

Passages of Special Interest

In the discussion of this construct, certain key passages were overlooked while finding a general consensus. Mark 2:28, Luke 6:5, John 1:49, and John 9:5 are all passages especially significant in the history of the controversy over John 1:1c. John 1:49 is used by Colwell in order to show a definite predicate nominative that fits his construction. It has the subject stated outside of the construct and it is second person. The predicate nominative is definite due to context, since there can only be one King of Israel at a time. Another verse of interest is John 9:5, which has the first person subject implied in the verb. The predicate nominative is definite by context, since Jesus saying that He is a light of the world would hold no significance, and a qualitative reading would also lack any true value. Since these verses are within the book of John, they are especially relevant to the passage in dispute. Harner, still wishing to affirm that qualitative is the most likely option, can only say about these verses, “…the present study would indicate that the nouns in these two verses are exceptional cases.” 5 Notice that his focus is immediately upon the nouns, and that the uniqueness of the verb never enters into his equation. In other words, that a form of eivmi, is used does not elicit notice from him. The next important passage is Mark 2:28. The construct is an anarthrous nominative, a form of eimi, and then a nominative which is the subject. Harner gives a thorough look at this passage in his article. “Mark certainly does not mean that the Son of Man is ‘a lord’ of the sabbath, one lord among others. Possibly he means that the Son of Man is ‘the lord’ of the sabbath. But this translation would shift the emphasis of the whole passage dealing with sabbath observance (2:23-28). The question is not who the lord of the sabbath is, but what the nature or authority of the Son of Man is. Thus it appears more appropriate to say that the Son of Man is simply ‘lord’ of the sabbath. The predicate noun has a distinct qualitative force, which is more prominent in this context than its definiteness or indefiniteness.” 6 It is hard to see how there could be more than one “lord” of the Sabbath, as Harner argues. The only options left are definite and qualitative. This argument for the qualitative force has as its main premise the asking of what question this narrative is designed to answer. Being “the lord” of the Sabbath is surely an answer to the question of what nature or authority the Son of Man has! In fact, many translations take this as a title of Jesus (e.g. NIV, NASB, and KJV), which would show definiteness as opposed to quality. Harner argues that the qualitative better answers this question on the grounds that it is simply characteristics that matter here, not a certain person. Looking at the theme of the hidden Messiah in Mark, however, causes one to wonder if this could be a cryptic claim to divinity by Jesus. It would certainly fit the idea that the Son of Man is not just a savior, but is God incarnate. Luke 6:5 is the parallel to this verse, but is slightly different. Instead of having a nominative following the verb, the articular noun is a genitive. The anarthrous noun is the predicate nominative, just as in Mark 2:28. The subject is after the construct, though all other factors remain the same. Notwithstanding the arguments due to context, which would be the same as those for the Mark passage, sheer statistics can provide a solid guide. Fourteen of fifteen gospel passages with the same genitive construction show the predicate nominative to be definite, while the epistles are less conclusive. Arguing from preponderance of statistical data, as Harner does, one could then conclude that the predicate nominative in Luke 6:5 is definite, which then also helps to determine Mark 2:28. Four special passages from the gospels, all with their own history and problems, draw the same conclusion that the other gospel passages did, namely that a nominative followed by a form of eivmi, which is in turn followed by an articular noun will nearly always show that the nominative is definite.

John 1:1c Considered

The reason the debate over this construct is so heated is because of the importance of John 1:1 in theological matters. When the predicate nominative is read as definite, the verse affirms that Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. When the predicate nominative is read as indefinite, Jesus is seen as merely divine--more special than other men but still not God. Many others, however, indicate that the third option of qualitative is preferable. Harner states his case like this: “Our study so far suggests that the anarthrous predicate in this verse has primarily a qualitative significance and that it would be definite only if there is some specific indication of definiteness in the meaning or the context.” 7 He then goes on to discuss the five different ways John could have constructed this fragment. He believes that if qeoV was articular, and thereby definite, it would set logoV equal to qeoV. Any good Trinitarian knows that while Jesus is God, He is not the totality of God. The question is whether this logic is actually true. In Matthew 4:3, 4:6, 27:40, Luke 4:3 and 4:9, Jesus is called the Son of Man. While He is the one and only Son of Man, and fulfills all that the title implies, the title does not encompass all that Jesus is. Though it is one of Jesus’ favorite titles for Himself according to the gospel writers, it does not cover that He is Redeemer, Savior, or the Ransom for many. All of these verses were shown to have a definite predicate nominative, with no problem arising. Therefore it stands to reason that even if John had written o logoV hn o qeoV there would still not be a complete equivalence. The difficulty that many have with this passage is that the theological conclusions lead to grammatical interpretation, instead of the grammatical considerations coming first. Instead of an exact equivalence, this construct should rather be seen as a close equivalence or a direct relationship. A can be subsumed in B without B being completely filled by A. For example, the husband of Sarah Isaacs is John Isaacs. John Isaacs is the husband of Sarah, but that is not the totality of what and who he is. The same can be said for this construct, even though the example is in English and the construct is in Greek. A key problem that both Harner and Wallace have with accepting the anarthrous predicate could be definite is that their theology does not allow them. When they see qeoV in the Greek text, they immediately think it can only refer to the God the Father, the first person of the Trinity. This does not take into account their own beliefs! If qeoV meant exclusively the Father, then neither the Spirit nor the Son could be said to be qeoV. However, the noun can be used for other gods, or it can even be used to mean divine. Such a limitation of meaning is found only when not applying the term to the unity of the Trinity, rather than actually inherent in the term itself. The grammar of the fragment clearly follows the previously studied constructs, which tends toward being definite due to the evidence of the other constructs. The context is at worst ambiguous, and at best lends itself more toward an answer that the predicate nominative is definite.

Conclusion

The construct that has been surveyed is that of an anarthrous noun, followed by a form of eivmi,, which is followed by an articular noun. The articular noun can be of the nominative, accusative, genitive, or dative. The anarthrous noun is normally the predicate nominative and is in the nominative case, with the single exception of I Timothy 6:5, which has an infinitive surrounded by accusatives. There are only two dative constructs, and both anarthrous nouns were shown to be definite. The genitives, by far the largest grouping, were broken into those appearing in the gospels and those appearing in the epistles, with certain passages of interest left for later. The overwhelming majority of the constructs found within the gospels had definite anarthrous nouns, while those from the epistles were a much more varied group. I Timothy 6:5 and Acts 28:4 were considered in the section on accusatives and nominatives, and both were seen as qualitative references. The last major portion of the survey considered special passages and what could be gleaned from them. All four of these special passages were seen to have definite anarthrous nouns. Finally, the study was applied to John 1:1 where grammatical and theological objections were considered. While there is a case for the qualitative understanding of the predicate nominative in John 1:1, the definite sense more fully fits the data and the context of the construction.



1 Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, pg. 443

2 Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp. 257-263. Much of this discussion is either following along Wallace’s lines or else came from thoughts spawned by this section in his grammar.

3 E. C. Colwell, “A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament,” pg. 13, The Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 52

4 Phillip B. Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” pg. 87, The Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 92

5 Ibid. 84.

6 Ibid. 77.

7 Ibid. 84. The contention with Harner follows from his arguments on pp. 84-86.

____________________________________________________

Obviously I skipped most of my data gathering, but it was extremely one-sided with nearly every case being definite instead of qualitative or indefinite (I think there was only 1 indefinite).

Dear Jaltus,
I will read this over. I would like to see the list of verses and your classifications. I once did all the PVAPN in John and it would be fun to compare.

Regards,
Cal