Is Theos in John 1:1c. an adjective?

[OldShepherd]

John 1:1 en arch hn o logoV kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon kai qeoV hn o logoV

en arche en o logos kai o logos en pros ton theon kai theos en o logos

It has been asserted that in John 1:1, the word qeoV, the word highlighted in the verse, shown above, is an adjective, rather than a noun. This, despite the fact that qeoV is the noun form and there are three adjectives based on this word in Biblical Greek, qeothV, qeioV, and qeiothV.

The assumption I make is that all the New Testament writers were learned enough to write Greek correctly to express what they meant, thus when John wrote qeoV, he meant qeoV, not qeioV or one of the other adjectives.

Here are some quotes, that have been posted in another thread, from sources which seem to support the view that qeoV, is an adjective.

In a matter like this, we cannot do other than to go to the Greek, which is theos en ho logos. Theos is the Greek word for God, en for was, ho for the, logos for word. Now normally, except for special reasons, Greek nouns always have the definite article in front of them, and we can see at once here that theos the noun for God has not got the definite article in front of it. When a Greek noun has not got the article in front of it, it becomes rather a description than an identification, and has the character of an adjective than of a noun. We can see exactly the same in English. If I say, "James is the man," then I identify James with some definite man whom I have in mind; but if I say: "James is man", then I am simply describing James as human, and the word man has become a description and not an identification. If John had said ho theos en ho logos, using a definite article in front of both nouns, then he would have definitely identified the Logos with God, but because he has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description, and more of an adjective than a noun. The translation then becomes, to put it rather clumsily, "The Word was in the same class as God, belonging to the same order of being as God." The only modern translator who fairly and squarely faced this problem is Kenneth Wuest, who has: "The Word was as to his essence essential deity." But it is here that the NEB has brilliantly solved the problem with the absolutely accurate rendering: "What God was the Word was." John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God'" (William Barclay; Many Witnesses, One Lord, p23-24)

"When in Greek two nouns are joined by the verb to be and when both have the definite article, then the one is fully identified with the other; but when one of them is without the article, it becomes more an adjective than a noun, and describes rather the class or the sphere to which the other belongs... "John has no definite article before theos, God. The Logos, therefore, is not identified as God or with God; the word theos has become adjectival and describes the sphere to which the logos belongs." -Jesus as They Saw Him, pg 21-22

F.F. Bruce "Another reason to omit the article [at John 1:1] is if the noun is functioning as a predicate adjective, giving a quality of the subject. That is probably John's reason for not including it here." "Hard Sayings of the Bible" Intervarisity Press, 1996, pg 491

The book "Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament" by Fritz Rienecker and Cleon Rogers states regarding John 1:1, "The predicate without the article emphasizes the character and nature of theos." (Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1980 pg 227) -As quoted from the book "The Trinity: Evidence and Issues" by Robert Morey.

In his book "Jesus as God", Murray Harris discusses the adjectival meaning of theos at John 1:1 and quotes two more scholars for support. They are R.H. Strachan in his book "The Fourth Gospel: It's Significance and Environment-3rd Ed." (London, SCM, 1941) Harris quotes the book regarding John 1:1 with "Here the word theos has no article, this giving it the significance of an adjective."

Additionally, Harris quotes W. Temple as saying "The term 'God' is fully substantival in the first clause- it is predicative and not far from adjectival in the second."- "Reading St. John's Gospel", London: MacMillan, 1945

The New American Bible states this regarding John 1:1
"Was God:lack of definite article with "God" in Greek signifies predication rather than identification."
These sources have been offered as "proof" that qeoV, in John 1:1c, is an adjective. First I will make a very bold statement the unsupported, undocumented opinions of scholars, is just that an opinion. Unless those opinions are supported by lexical or manuscript evidence those opinions have very little weight.

Let's review the evidence presented.

"'lack of definite article with "God" in Greek signifies predication rather than identification.' New American Bible" A predicate is often a noun. Being used as a predicate does not change a noun into an adjective.

"W. Temple, 'The term 'God' . . .is predicative and not far from adjectival in the second.'" Again a noun functioning as a predicate does not change it into an adjective. "not far from adjectival" does not make a noun an adjective.

'R.H. Strachan "Here [John 1:1b] the word theos has no article, this giving it the significance of an adjective." "the significance of an adjective." still does not change a noun into an adjective.

"Fritz Rienecker and Cleon Rogers, 'The predicate without the article emphasizes the character and nature of theos.'" "Emphasizes character and nature" is not saying that a noun is an adjective. I also have a problem with this quote because my 1996 edition has "emphasizes the character and nature (John 1:1b)" The scripture cite, instead of theos.

"F.F. Bruce "Another reason to omit the article [at John 1:1] is if the noun is functioning as a predicate adjective, giving a quality of the subject. That is probably John's reason for not including it here." This comes closest to saying that qeoV in John 1:1c, is an adjective. But note Bruce lists this as one of, at least, two reasons why the article is omitted and from this partial citation we do not know what the other reason(s) are or if they are more applicable here. Also Bruce states this is "probably" why John omitted the article. "Probably" is not very strong evidence for considering a noun an adjective. As IronMetro noted in another thread "The anarthrous qeoV also occurs in vss 6, 12, 13 and 18. Yet they are not 'adjectives'."

"William Barclay, 'when one of them is without the article, it becomes more an adjective than a noun', 'When a Greek noun has not got the article in front of it, it becomes rather a description than an identification, and has the character of an adjective than of a noun." "More an adjective than a noun" "the character of an adjective" does not make a noun an adjective. And none of these sources quoted, above, offered any evidence at all to support their contention that in this one isolated instant the noun qeoV becomes an adjective. Nor has any explanation been offered why John would use a noun, qeoV, as an adjective when Greek has three adjectives based on this noun.

Unless John 1:1c is the only occurrence, qeoV is not used as an adjective anywhere in the GNT. And I am not aware of any other non-Theologically or non-Christologically significant noun becoming an adjective.

Here are resources, some which were posted in another thread, which tend to support the position that the noun qeoV remains a noun, in John 1:1c.
"The idea of qualitative qeoV here is that the Word had all the attributes and qualities that "the God" (of 1:1b) had. In other words, he shared the essence of the Father, though they differed in person. The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father" [Wallace, p. 269].

Liddell-Scott-Jones Lexicon of Classical Greek (LSJ)
III. as Adj. in Comp. theôteros, divine,

http://perseus.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2348292

Note, the qeoV entry in LSJ shows that it is an adjective only in “compound,” e.g. theôteros
The Christ event is the decisive encounter between heaven and earth that apocalyptic awaited (Lk. 17:20, which means that the kingdom is present in Jesus. In Jesus God is with us----Immanuel (Mt 1:23; cf. Is 7:14) His heavenly form and nature find earthly manifestation in servanthood and crucifixion (Phil. 2:6ff). The Word became flesh (Jn 1:14). . .His word is life and death (Lk 12:20) All life's changes and chances are from Him. God is with His people as its Ruler and Protector but with a new certainty in Christ that Paul expresses with his hyper in Rom 8:31-32.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT), G Kittel and G. Friedrich, abridged in one volume, by G. W. Bromley, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985, p. 330
The entire eight page qeoV TDNT entry cannot be posted here but this quote indicates that the editors did not consider qeoV to be an adjective. After the qeoV entry TDNT lists separately the three adjectives formed from the noun root, qeothV, qeioV, and qeiothV
On the other hand, q , certainly refers to Christ in the foll. NT pass.: J 1:1b (w. o qeoV 1:1a, which refers to God the father, on qeoV w. and without the article, acc. to whether it means God or the Logos s. Philo, Somn1, 229f: JGGriffiths, ET 62, '50f, 314-16; BMMetzger, ET 63, '51f, 125f) 18b, o kurioV mou kai o qeoV mou [i]My Lord and My God! (nom. w. art. = voc.;

• • •

But above all Ignatius calls Christ qeoV in many pass. qeoV IesouV CristoV 1Tr7:1, C' q'. ISm10:1, o q' umon. IEph inscr.;15:3, 18:2, IRom inscr. (twice) 3:3; IPol8:3, to paqoV q' mou IRom 6:3, en animati q' IEph 1:1, en sarki genomenoV q', 7:2, q' anqropinwV faneroumenoV 19:3. q' o outwV umaV sofisaV ISm1:1.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Walter Bauer, F. W. Gingrich, Frederick Danker, (BAGD) U of Chicago Press, 1979.
BAGD does not state or imply that qeoV is an adjective in John 1:1c

ALL the major Greek language sources, BAGD, TDNT, and LSJ, list qeoV as a noun, not an adjective. Unless the occurrence in John 1:1, is the only instant, qeoV is never used in the GNT as an adjective and I am not aware of any word/language studies or any examples of this construction with other, non-Theologically or Christologically significant, nouns, in the GNT.

It has been argued that simply because the lexicons do not specifically say that qeoV is not an adjective, that is an argument from silence. But the lexicons also do not say that qeoV is not a verb, an adverb, a preposition, or any other part of speech. Would it also be an argument from silence to say that a noun might be a verb because the lexicons do not specifically say they are not?

[Jaltus]

Actually, you have over simplified the real argument, namely that the noun can be used in a qualitative sense.

However, I think it is a poor argument and have written a lot on it in the past. Let me see if I can dredge up some of my old work on it.

[Jaltus]

Found it:

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).

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 02:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=185496#post185496)
Jaltus:

Actually, you have over simplified the real argument, namely that the noun can be used in a qualitative sense.

However, I think it is a poor argument and have written a lot on it in the past. Let me see if I can dredge up some of my old work on it.

I was addressing a specific argument presented by one poster, and supported by a second, in another thread. The discussion was off topic so I brought it here. As you noted in the intervening post, sometimes important topics require more pages to adequately cover than permitted here.

Do I think a noun can be used in a qualitative sense? Yes. Does that change it into an adjective and remove all vestiges of its identity as a noun? I don't think so.

[Magdalenbrother]

Beware of the verb to be.

Hebrew thought is dynamic and action-oriented. It is not interested in classifying.

My translation:

and the Logos godded

I invent the verb "to god" in order to avoid falling in taxonomic thought.

[Solly]

So what is the object of the verb MB? "godded" what?

[Magdalenbrother]

It means that the Logos (untranslatable concept) acts in a godly way. The focus is no longer on the species to which the Logos belongs (the everlasting concern of the Greek mind) but on what the Logos does.

Hebrew has very few adjectives and lots of verbs that are called "stative" but which are not static at all: GDL for example means "to be great". But a good translation would be "to great". Grandeur or bigness is seen as an action, not a state on which you superimpose the quality of "greatness".

The verb "to be" is a real curse on the Western mind.

[Solly]

Hmmm, except that John wrote in Greek, and I am not sure he would have made such a fundamental error in translating his hebrew concepts with such ambiguous short hand if he meant to say something else.
Presumably, you will tell us that when jesus said, I Am, he was only saying, I act in a godlike manner.

The verb "to be" is a real curse on the Western mind.

Roll on the klingon translation of the Bible, since they do not have a verb To be.

[Magdalenbrother]

In NT language we also find the phrase "to do the truth". This is exactly the same point.

[Solly]

Your trinity thread clears things up thanks.

[Magdalenbrother]

These sources have been offered as "proof" that θεος, in John 1:1c, is an adjective. First I will make a very bold statement the unsupported, undocumented opinions of scholars, is just that an opinion. Unless those opinions are supported by lexical or manuscript evidence those opinions have very little weight.


Yes, but scholars do not just offer any opinion, they have arguments, just as you have. So your demonstration is an opinion like the others.

The fact is grammar does not offer us any clue. So, such a passage is worthless as far as demonstrating Jesus' identity either way.

[Magdalenbrother]

Did Jesus care at all whether people knew the right definition regarding His identity?

The fact is that in the Synoptic Gospels He simply didn't want people to know who He is. In the Gospel conventionally attributed to John, He says openly that He has come down from heaven. But even in this Gospel there is a lot of ambiguity, so much so that the Jews are really exasperated. And one can understand them: Jesus used different titles to speak of Himself. Now he was the son of man, now he was the son of God, now he was the one whom the Father has sent, etc.

But on one occasion, Jesus really missed a great opportunity to assert Orthodoxy regarding His supposed divine status. That happened on the road to Emmaus in the Gospel of Luke.

How did the two travellers and former disciples describe Jesus of Nazareth?

"A prophet poweful in deeds and words before God."

And how did Jesus react? He called them names. Because?

Because they had not understood that the aforementioned "prophet" had to die and resurrect. They were wrong not so much about the Messiah's identity and relationship to God as about his destiny.

He did no rebuke them because they called him a great prophet. Not at all.