Hohman

 

John,

 

In your role as Ruling Elder at Northside, I am seeking your advice/guidance regarding the correction of what I perceive to be an erroneous statement made in a recent Sunday School class, one you attended.

In an effort to correct this perceived miscommunication, I tendered the following to John Roberts:

John,

I have expressed my appreciation for your classes on more than one occasion, and I want to begin by reiterating that appreciation. I have benefited from them and value the opportunity to participate in the discussions.

Unfortunately, perhaps either because my comment was inartfully phrased or I may have misunderstood your response, I left class concerned that our discussion may have given those in attendance the impression that Charles Taze Russell’s translation of John 1:1c, as reflected in the New World Translation, is correct; namely, “the Word was a god.”

The specific issue I intended to raise concerned the Greek construction kai ho logos eimi theos.

Although I am not sufficiently knowledgeable in either Koine or modern Greek to claim certainty regarding all the grammatical issues involved, I do have some familiarity with the use of articles. I understood you to say that Greek does not have definite articles. I suspect, however, that you may have meant that the noun theos is anarthrous in John 1:1c—that is, that it appears without the antecedent definite article.

If so, I do not believe it was clearly established during the discussion that the absence of the article before θεός cannot, by itself, legitimately support translating the verse, “the Word was a god.” My understanding is that John 1:1 simultaneously expresses both distinction and deity: “the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

The Greek construction more naturally communicates something along these lines: The Word was distinct from the God with whom He existed, yet the Word was Himself fully and truly theos, possessing the divine nature.

I realize, of course, that class time is limited, and I readily acknowledge the possibility that I misunderstood either your statement or the context in which it was made. If the session was recorded, perhaps reviewing that portion of the discussion would help determine whether there was a misunderstanding.

Because of the technical nature of this subject and because I did not want to create unnecessary confusion or prolong the discussion during class, I thought it would be better to raise the matter with you in this manner. If you would care to discuss it further, I would be very happy to do so.

 

SDG,

Tom Rhudy

In a subsequent discussion, John Roberts (hereinafter “JR”) stated that Koine Greek did not have a definite article and indicated that he did not believe any members of the class had been confused by the discussion. I recognize that you subsequently indicated that you did not understand JR to have said that “a God” was an acceptable translation of John 1:1(c). Nevertheless, Greg Freihofer stated that he understood JR to have affirmed “a God” as an acceptable translation of John 1:1(c).

Irrespective of whether any member of the class was, in fact, confused by the statement, the substantive issue remains. JR did not deny having made the statement, and the translation thereby affirmed “a god” is theologically significant because it denies, or at minimum materially diminishes, the full deity of Jesus Christ as affirmed by historic Christian orthodoxy.

I would respectfully draw your attention to the fact that Koine Greek does, in fact, employ the definite article in numerous grammatical contexts, several examples of which are identified below. It is certainly true that Koine Greek does not possess an indefinite article corresponding directly to the English “a” or “an.” That observation, however, is not germane to the issue under discussion.

At no point was the question of whether Koine Greek possesses an indefinite article the substantive issue before the class. The pertinent grammatical question was whether an anarthrous noun (viz., a noun appearing without the antecedent definite article) necessarily requires the insertion of the English indefinite article in translation. It does not. The absence of the Greek definite article does not, by itself, establish that the noun should be rendered with the English indefinite article.

Accordingly, the fact that Koine Greek lacks an indefinite article does not, standing alone, provide grammatical justification for rendering John 1:1(c) as “the Word was a god.” The grammatical function of the anarthrous θεός in this particular construction must be considered within the syntax and context of the passage rather than determined simply by the absence of the definite article.

One of the most important points in understanding Koine Greek articles, especially in New Testament interpretation, is that Greek has a definite article, but it does not have a separate indefinite article equivalent to English a/an.

1. The Greek definite article

Koine Greek has a definite article:

• ὁ — masculine singular nominative
• ἡ — feminine singular nominative
• τό — neuter singular nominative/accusative

And it changes according to gender, number, and case:

	Masculine	Feminine	Neuter
Nom. sg.	ὁ	ἡ	τό
Gen. sg.	τοῦ	τῆς	τοῦ
Dat. sg.	τῷ	τῇ	τῷ
Acc. sg.	τόν	τήν	τό
Nom. pl.	οἱ	αἱ	τά
Gen. pl.	τῶν	τῶν	τῶν
Dat. pl.	τοῖς	ταῖς	τοῖς
Acc. pl.	τούς	τάς	τά

Thus:

ὁ λόγος
= the word

θεὸς
= God / a god / deity depending upon context

The absence of an article does not, by itself, mean "a."

2. Greek has no indefinite article

English distinguishes:

the God
a god

Koine Greek does not have two corresponding articles.

So Greek can write:

ὁ θεός
literally, "the God"

but also:

θεός
which might be translated:

• God
• a god
• deity
• divine

depending on its syntactical and contextual function.

This is particularly important in interpreting John 1:1c:

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

Literally, the construction is approximately:

"and God was the Word"

or more naturally:

"and the Word was God."

The important observation is that θεός lacks the article, while ὁ λόγος has the article.

That fact alone does not justify translating θεός as "a god."

As you are one of Northside’s Ruling Elders, I leave the matter in your hands. If you feel confident those in attendance were not misled, the matter should end here. However, if you feel as though clarification is required, then I would encourage that clarification sooner rather than later.

 

Tom