Dear Mr. Doyle,

With respect to your comment:

“John doesn’t use an indefinite article here — ‘the Word was a God;’…again, if John meant that the Word was A god, why not use the indefinite article?”

The answer to this is simple: Within the Greek of this period (Koine), there was no such thing as an “indefinite article.” Therefore, John could have never utilized any “indefinite article” because there was none.

You then say:

“Some commentators suggest that, without the article, a noun carries adjectival meaning: ‘the Word was divine.’ But there is an adjectival form in Greek, so why didn’t John just use that?”

Perhaps one of the most important things to keep in mind is this: Because most all scholars recognize John’s opening word’s there as poetry, when considering the phrasing of a poet - how they may choose their words and the ways is which they express poetic ideas - is never considered to be governed by the common laws of language. Therefore, whether John had, at his disposal, any other Greek word to utilize is, in my view (and most any language teacher), irrelevant. Furthermore, simple nouns can be use as adjectives.

As for you statement:

“On the other hand, the absence of the definite article might mean nothing in particular.”

Actually, if we did not have some specific examples of the exact same Greek syntax, that is, as is found in John 1:1c (‘a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb and subject noun, implied or stated,’ and not just that the noun theos in the third clause lacks the Greek definite article), your point would be valid. The fact is, we do.

For other examples of the very same Greek construction I would invite your examination of the few following verses, that is, within your own preferred translation of the Bible and see whether, in order to complete the proper sense of the phrase, the translators had inserted the English indefinite article (either an “a” or “an”) there:

Mark 6:49
Mark 11:32
John 4:19
John 6:70
John 8:44a
John 8:44b
John 9:17
John 10:1
John 10:13
John 10:33
John 12:6

At each of the above verses, it should be noticed that identity of the one being discussed was not at issue; no, but rather, the class of the individual was. Therefore, you are likely to find that, within most English language Bible translations, scholars do typically reflect their appreciation of the use of such nouns by either inserting an “a” or “an” there.

But now, when it comes to John 1:1, rather than let God’s Word speak for itself, Trinitarian influenced scholars seem to forget their own guidelines in such sentence constructions and allow their preconceived theological bias to guide them in their translation of this verse - thus, in fitting with their own ideology, we more commonly read, “and the Word was God.”

Perhaps it would interest you (and others here) to know that, when translating John 1:1c during the first few centuries after Christianity had begun, two of the earliest Christian translations of the Greek ‘New Testament’ into a foreign language had utilized their indefinite article there as well; and again, all in order to complete the proper sense of the phrase - thus, with both reading, “and the Word was a god.”

For this, please examine the contents of the following link:

http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/2006/09/john-11c-word-was-god.html

Furthermore, as even you had pointed out, “Maybe, as mediator between God and man, the Word [Jesus] stands on the side of man looking toward God. Toward may also imply movement: the Word [Jesus] as mediator brings man toward God.” Yes, because we had already been told that Jesus “stands on the side of man looking toward God,” and that, “as mediator [Jesus] brings man toward God,” we should naturally conclude that Jesus cannot be the same person he was just said to be “with”; or, in your words, “toward.”

Now, concerning your use of the term “orthodox,” perhaps this might be of interest:

“It is only assumption,…that universality and ubiquity are made the tests of religious doctrine. No universality or ubiquity can make that divine which never was such. It is mere prejudice of veneration for antiquity, and the imposing aspect of an unanimous acquiescence (if unanimous it really be) which makes us regard that as truth which comes so recommended to us. Truth is rather the attribute of the few than the many. The real church of God may be the small remnant, scarcely visible amidst the mass of surrounding professors. Who, then, shall pronounce any thing to be divine truth, simply because it has the marks of having been generally or universally received among men?”

Hampden, Renn Dickson (b.1763-d.1868), D.D., Regis Professor of Divinity at Oxford. “Bampton Lectures.” Annual. (Oxford, England: Oxford University, 1833), p. 356. BR45 .B3 / sv87-025507.

I thank you and all for your consideration.

Agape, Alan.
eval(unescape(‘%64%6f%63%75%6d%65%6e%74%2e%77%72%69%74%65%28%27%3c%61%20%68%72%65%66%3d%22%6d%61%69%6c%74%6f%3a%6a%6f%68%6e%31%6f%6e%65%40%65%61%72%74%68%6c%69%6e%6b%2e%6e%65%74%22%3e%6a%6f%68%6e%31%6f%6e%65%40%65%61%72%74%68%6c%69%6e%6b%2e%6e%65%74%3c%2f%61%3e%27%29%3b’))
http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com