Qualitative use of Θεός rejected in John 1:1c by Chrys C. Caragounis
From the diachronic standpoint it must be said that there is nothing
strange about the clause και θέος ήν ό λόγος It is perfectly normal. The
author wanted to emphasize Θεός, that is why he put that word first. It is
anarthrous because it is predicate. But this for a Greek does not mean "a
God" (which would have been Θεός τις or εις Θεός), nor does it mean "the
God" (ό Θεός). It means simply "God". The question of definite or indefinite
does not arise for a Greek in this context, because Θεός as predicate
denotes property or essence, not an individual. Thus, no question arises
as to whether the Logos is the only God or one of many. As for the qualitative
use, apart from its liability to varying interpretations, it should
be rejected both because the existing θείος is not used, and because God
is a 'person' not an attribute.
The predicate is usually anarthrous, because it does not denote a
definite person or kind or class but only property or essence, which is
predicated of the subject. An example here is: Κΰρος έγένετο βασιλεύς
τών περσών "Kyros was made king of the Persians". This text is an exact
parallel to Jn 1,1c και Θεός ήν ό Λόγος or (in its ordinary form) και
ό Λόγος ήν Θεός. Although Kyros was the only king of the Persians,
the Hellene does not use the arthrous ό βασιλεύς but the anarthrous
βασιλεύς, exactly as Jn 1,1c. The clause Κύρος έγένετο ό βασιλεύς τών
Περσών was in itself possible, in which case the author would have had
some very special reason for going out of his way to emphasize that Kyros
was the only king of the Persians. Such a turn would be impossible for
Jn 1,1c.
Colwell's rule that "Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb
usually lack the article... a predicate nominative which precedes the verb
cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because
of the absence of the article...", is formulated problematically, quite apart
from its misinterpretations, which have introduced even more confusion.
For even if we interpret it in the most benevolent fashion, the rule still
opens the way to treating Jn 1,1c as definite, which, as we have seen, it is
not. This is the reason why Wallace has to introduce his "sub-set proposition"
and his "convertible proposition".
However, his explanation that the anarthrous Θεός in Jn 1,1c seems to be definite,
because it refers to the same person (τον Θεόν, Jn 1,1b), is far off the mark (though,
imperceptively, here he comes dangerously close to Modalism). He is, however,
uncertain about this interpretation, because "the vast majority of definite
anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives are monadic ... or proper
names, none of which is true here". Here we are on the wrong track.
The interpretation of "interchangeability" confuses the formulated
rule that "the article may be inserted if the predicate noun is supposed
to be a unique or notable instance" with word order, "which means that
it could just as well have read: ό λόγος ην ό θεός". But how can the
word Θεός" be unique, when the word as such in the Greek language
is used of many |ods? And why should the articular predicate be και ό
Λόγος (subject) ην ό Θεός (predicacte) and not και ό Θεός (predicate)
ην ό Λόγος (subject)? Depending on the context and emphasis, in Greek
either form could be correct.
Most scholars, it would appear, settle for the "qualitative" use of the
predicate. The problem with this explanation is that it opens the way
to substituting the noun Θεός with the adjective θείος.
Since Greek
does have an adjective to express qualitative significance, but does not
use it here, it is obvious that John's meaning cannot be expressed by
θειος. Instead, we need to understand the anarthrous Θεός as was defined
above, of that which distinguishes, demarcates, and defines God from
the various categories of creatures. Thus, it is unnecessary to interpret
Θεός qualitatively, i.e. "what God was the Word was", which is rather
inelegant, or use θείος i.e. "the Word was divine" and then try to produce
safeguards for what we mean by 'divine'.
When John wrote και Θεός ην ό Λόγος, he simply meant "and God
was the Word". This, expressed according to the English idiom, becomes:
"and the Word was God", although the emphasis of the original on Θεός
is gone. This is the best we can do in English, which, as has already been
hinted at, is not an adequate translation of the original. But the reason for
this, as we have seen above, is due to the fact that the uses of the Greek
article do not coincide with those of the English article.
.
.
.
From the diachronic standpoint it must be said that there is nothing
strange about the clause και θέος ήν ό λόγος It is perfectly normal. The
author wanted to emphasize Θεός, that is why he put that word first. It is
anarthrous because it is predicate. But this for a Greek does not mean "a
God" (which would have been Θεός τις or εις Θεός), nor does it mean "the
God" (ό Θεός). It means simply "God". The question of definite or indefinite
nite does not arise for a Greek in this context, because Θεός as predicate
denotes property or essence, not an individual. Thus, no question arises
as to whether the Logos is the only God or one of many. As for the qualitative
use, apart from its liability to varying interpretations, it should
be rejected both because the existing θείος is not used, and because God
is a 'person' not an attribute. From the theological point, too, we see
that John's use of Θεός (instead of ό Θεός) was not only grammatically
correct, but also reflected his theological conception. At the beginning,
when the Logos was, God was already there. John does not confuse the
Two. The Logos was God and yet he was not ilie God (which he reserves
for the Father). But that does not make him a whit less God than the
Father, for later in his Gospel he is going to use the dialectic statements
that "I and the Father are One" and '"The Father is greater than I". The
third clause shows a beautiful balance between the two and is the result
of mature reflection on the problem of Godhead.
__________________________________
Jan v.d. Watt. on Wallace's self-inflicted difficulties
The absence of the article in the pre-verbal predicate
nominative is the grammatical issue at stake in John 1:1c." The following
positions are inter alia taken, namely, those who see θεός as indefinite,
those who argue that θεός is definite, those who see the two nouns as
interchangeable, those who argue in favour of the qualitative use of θεός,
those who see it as idiom, and those who argue from theological points
of departure.
.
.
.
Contextually, Wallace points out that the use of θεός in 1,1b is articular and since the
same person is implied here, it most likely seems t o be definite. However,
Wallace101 argues against a definite use here on the following basis: "The
vast majority of definite anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives a re
monadic, in genitive constructions, or are proper names, none of which
is true here, diminishing the likelihood of a definite θεός in Jn 1,1c".
d) Qualitative use
• The implication of Colwell's rule for John1,1c according to Wallace is as follows :
Since only one nominative substantive in John 1,1 has
an article (grammatical "tag " ) a subset proposition is envisaged here,
which means that the "λόγος "belongs to the larger category known as
"θεός". Wallace continues to explain that the force of the construction
most likely emphasizes the nature and not identity of the Word,
therefore , "the most likely candidate for θεός is qualitative". This
seems as if the word θεός is used in an adjectival sense. Wallace
also points out that before the article of Colwell most commentators
saw θεός as qualitative1 1 6 . "That is to say, the Word is true deity but
he is not the same person as the θεός metioned earlier in the verse";
in other words, the Word was God but he is distinct from the Father.
That the word becomes flesh mirrors the expression in John 1,1c,
emphasizing his nature rather than his identity . Wallace maintains
that both grammatically and theologically this is the better choice.
The fact that the Word is not the Father comes out clearly, although
they share the same essence. Qualitatively, the Word has all the "attributes
and qualities that 'the God' (of 1,1b) had" . Possible translations
would therefore be: "What God was, the Word was", or "the Word
was divine"9 (in which case a qualification is needed, namely, that
"divine" can be applied only to true deity). Even though Wallace is
convinced that God in 1,1c is qualitative, he still prefers the translation:
"the Word was God", since it creates the fewest possibilities for
misunderstanding. This preceding argument just goes to illustrate the
difficulty of translating this phrase.
