THE WRONG ANALYSIS OF JOSE VENTILACION ON Jn 1:1 By Lay Person Scripturist

THE RESPONSE OF BROTHER DUANE REGARDING THE WRONG ANALYSIS OF JOSE VENTILACION ON JOHN 1:1

Jose Ventilacion said:

THE IDENTITY OF THE GOD IN THE SECOND CLAUSE OF JOHN 1:1

Let’s continue to find out the identity of the God mentioned in the second clause by going to the Greek text for clarification.

What is the Greek word for the term God in the nominative case – the subject of the sentence? It is O THEOS which is pronounced as HO THEOS in the Erasmian pronunciation. The Greek letter OMICRON (o) before the term THEOS is an article in Greek which corresponds to the article “THE” in English. Therefore, the Greek phrase HO THEOS is translated as THE GOD in English.

However, during the process of translation into English, the article THE is no longer included in the translation but is left out. A Greek grammarian will explain to us why:

Many times, Theos occurs with the def. art. ho, but it is not so rendered in translation because, in Eng., we never refer to God as the God, except if He is designated as belonging to someone specifically, such as the God of Abraham (Matt. 22:32). (Zodhiates, Spiros, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament, AMG Publishers, Chattanooga, TN (1992), p. 730)

Going back to the second clause, is there an article before the term God in the Greek text? Yes. The word for God is TON THEON. Why is it now TON THEON instead of HO THEOS? Because when the word God is in the accusative case – the direct object in the sentence, the HO THEOS becomes TON THEON. That’s the way the Greek language was structured. You could see this arrangement in the Greek text of the second clause of John 1:1 but you could not notice it in the English translation since the article “the” was not translated in John 1:1b but was left out during the process of translation.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE GREEK ARTICLE

What is the significance of Greek article before the term God? Another Greek grammarian will explain to us the significance of the Greek article:

When Greek uses a noun it almost always uses the definite article with it. The Greek for God is theos and the definite article is ho. (Barclay, William, The Gospel of John, Vol. 1, The Westminster Press, Kentucky, 2001, p. 46)

Therefore, when it says O THEOS in Greek, it means THE GOD in English. When it says TON THEON, it also means THE GOD. THE O is an article in the nominative case (subject of the sentence) and TON is an article in the accusative case (direct object).

What is the usage of the article in the Greek language?

(1) The article is used far more frequently than any other word in the Greek NT, almost 2,000 times, or one out of seven words. (Wallace, Daniel B., Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan (1996), pp. 207, 223)

Since there is an article (TON) before the term God in the second clause of John 1:1 (TON THEON), it is an indication which tells us that the “true” God is identified in the second clause. Who is the “true” God introduced by the article TON in the second clause? A Greek grammarian will tell us about him:

In many instances when the def. art. ho occurs before Theos, God, particular reference is made to God the Father (Zodhiates, Spiros, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament, AMG Publishers, Chattanooga, TN (1992), p. 730).

Therefore, whenever we encounter in the Greek text that the word THEOS is introduced by the article HO, it is referring to the Father. Going back to the second clause of John 1:1, the TON THEON is referring to the Father. We are not surprise about this truth since it was Christ himself who taught us that the Father is the “only” true God in John 17:3.
Considering this fact, how should the second clause be translated into English? If we would utilize the interlinear translation (a word-for-word translation), the second clause would be translated this way: AND THE WORD WAS WITH THE GOD.

What else is the significance of the article especially when it is being placed before the noun God in the Greek text?

2. The article is frequently used to identify monadic or one-of-a-kind nouns, such as “the devil,” “the sun,” “the Christ.” The monadic article points out a unique object, for example, “the sun” is monadic because there is only one sun.

Since the term God is a monadic noun (one-of-a-kind), it is always being introduced by the article in the Greek. The monadic article points out the identity of the unique or the only true God in the second clause of John 1:1. The only true God in John 1:1 is the Father. The same goes true with John 17:3 in which the article TON was used before the term THEON – TON MONON ALETHINON THEON – the only true God. The term is referring to the Father (John 17:1).

If the true God is always introduced by the article, what about the word θeo [THEOS] in the third clause of John 1:1? Does it contain an article? No, it does not have an article before it. It just simply says THEOS, not HO THEOS.

What is the usage of the term THEOS in the third clause of John 1:1 in the absence of an article? A Greek grammarian will explain to us its function:

Now when Greek does not use the definite article with a noun, that noun becomes much more like an adjective (Barclay, William, The Gospel of John, Vol. 1, The Westminster Press, Kentucky (2001) p. 46).

The term THEOS (God) in the third clause of John 1:1, in the absence of the article, is functioning as an adjective. It is not functioning as a NOUN but as an ADJECTIVE. If it is a NOUN, then John 1:1 will come up with two Gods instead of just one since the second clause has already the TON THEON. Therefore, THEOS in the third clause is an ADJECTIVE.

Are there Greek grammarians who also advocate this position? Take a look at how other bible scholars put it:

The closing words of v. 1 should be translated, ‘the Logos was divine’. Here the word theos has no article, thus giving it the significance of an adjective (Strachan, Robert, The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance and Environment, page 99).

“Where THEOS without the article, is used as an attribute, simply expresses the notion of kind. It is an adjective . . .” (Scott, Frank, Preacher’s Complete Homiletic, p. 19).

Are there Bible translators who favor the rendition that the Greek word THEOS is an adjective (divine) instead of a noun? Take a look at two of the translations made by bible scholars:

The Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine. (A New Translation by James Moffatt)

In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine. (A New Translation by Edgar J. Goodspeed)

Therefore, if the term God in the third clause of John 1:1 functions as an adjective, our Trinitarian friends could no longer summon this verse as a proof-text that our Lord Jesus Christ is God. This type of understanding (that the verse does not support the alleged deity of Christ) does not compromise the biblical truth about the absolute oneness of God as taught by Christ in John 17:1, 3. Once the verse is understood as promoting the alleged deity of Christ, our Trinitarian friends are face with a big dilemma: how to reconcile the fact that the second clause teaches that the one true God is the Father and the third clause portrays a different God whom they believe is Jesus Christ. They will be guilty of polytheism and that would be the biggest thorn on their eyes which they could not remove by themselves if they would continue to insist that Jesus Christ is the THEOS in the third clause of John 1:1.

—————————————————–

MY RESPONSE:

John 1:1 (TON THEON), it is an indication which tells us that the “true” God is identified…TRUE. The third phrase, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος the Word. The focus is THE WORD as the predicate nominative as the unique and only Word in the same way Greek promote TON THEON in the previous phrases as the one and only God.

Actually, his statement affirm that Jesus is “the God” because ho theos in used of Jesus in John 20:28.

Ventilacion has only cited one actual Greek grammarian, Daniel Wallace. Zodhiates is a word study, which is close.

So, because he recognizes Wallace as an authority on Greek Grammar, he is being very selective in what he is using. Daniel Wallace talks about John 1:1 a lot in his Greek grammar.

When talking about the use of the nominative “logos” in John 1:1, he says:

John 1:1 ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Again, a subset proposition is envisioned here. The λόγος belongs to the larger category known as θεός. The force of this construction is most likely to emphasize the nature of the Word, not his identity. That is to say, the Word is true deity but he is not the same person as the θεός mentioned earlier in the verse.

Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 45–46.

But his most extensive treatment of John 1:1 (which this person misses all together) comes when discussing something called Colwell’s Rule:
Application of Colwell’s Construction to John 1:1

John 1:1 states: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. In the last part of the verse, the clause καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (John 1:1c), θεός is the PN. It is anarthrous and comes before the verb. Therefore, it fits Colwell’s construction, though it might not fit the rule (for the rule states that definiteness is determined or indicated by the context, not by the grammar). Whether it is indefinite, qualitative, or definite is the issue at hand.

a. Is Θεός in John 1:1c Indefinite?

If θεός were indefinite, we would translate it “a god” (as is done in the New World Translation [NWT]). If so, the theological implication would be some form of polytheism, perhaps suggesting that the Word was merely a secondary god in a pantheon of deities.

The grammatical argument that the PN here is indefinite is weak. Often, those who argue for such a view (in particular, the translators p 267 of the NWT) do so on the sole basis that the term is anarthrous. Yet they are inconsistent, as R. H. Countess pointed out:

In the New Testament there are 282 occurrences of the anarthrous θεός. At sixteen places NWT has either a god, god, gods, or godly. Sixteen out of 282 means that the translators were faithful to their translation principle only six percent of the time.…

The first section of John-1:1–18—furnishes a lucid example of NWT arbitrary dogmatism. Θεός occurs eight times-verses 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, 18—and has the article only twice-verses 1, 2. Yet NWT six times translated “God,” once “a god,” and once “the god.”

If we expand the discussion to other anarthrous terms in the Johannine Prologue, we notice other inconsistencies in the NWT: It is interesting that the New World Translation renders θεός as “a god” on the simplistic grounds that it lacks the article. This is surely an insufficient basis. Following the “anarthrous = indefinite” principle would mean that ἀρχῇ should be “a beginning” (1:1, 2), ζωὴ should be “a life” (1:4), παρὰ θεοῦ should be “from a god” (1:6), Ἰωάννης should be “a John” (1:6), θεόν should be “a god” (1:18), etc. Yet none of these other anarthrous nouns is rendered with an indefinite article. One can only suspect strong theological bias in such a translation.
According to Dixon’s study, if θεός were indefinite in John 1:1, it would be the only anarthrous pre-verbal PN in John’s Gospel to be so. Although we have argued that this is somewhat overstated, the general point is valid: The indefinite notion is the most poorly attested for anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives. Thus, grammatically such a meaning is improbable. Also, the context suggests that such is not likely, for the Word already existed in the beginning. Thus, contextually and grammatically, it is highly improbable that the Logos could be “a god” according to John. Finally, the evangelist’s own theology militates against this view, for there is an exalted Christology in the Fourth Gospel, to the point that Jesus Christ is identified as God (cf. 5:23; 8:58; 10:30; 20:28, etc.).

b. Is Θεός in John 1:1c Definite?

Grammarians and exegetes since Colwell have taken θεός as definite in John 1:1c. However, their basis has usually been a misunderstanding of Colwell’s rule. They have understood the rule to say that an anarthrous pre-verbal PN will usually be definite (rather than the converse). But Colwell’s rule states that a PN which is probably definite as determined from the context which precedes a verb will p 268 usually be anarthrous. If we check the rule to see if it applies here, we would say that the previous mention of θεός (in 1:1b) is articular. Therefore, if the same person being referred to there is called θεός in 1:1c, then in both places it is definite. Although certainly possible grammatically (though not nearly as likely as qualitative), the evidence is not very compelling. The vast majority of definite anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives are monadic, in genitive constructions, or are proper names, none of which is true here, diminishing the likelihood of a definite θεός in John 1:1c.

Further, calling θεός in 1:1c definite is the same as saying that if it had followed the verb it would have had the article. Thus it would be a convertible proposition with λόγος (i.e., “the Word” = “God” and “God” = “the Word”). The problem of this argument is that the θεός in 1:1b is the Father. Thus to say that the θεός in 1:1c is the same person is to say that “the Word was the Father.” This, as the older grammarians and exegetes pointed out, is embryonic Sabellianism or modalism.30 The Fourth Gospel is about the least likely place to find modalism in the NT.
p 269 c. Is Θεός in John 1:1c Qualitative?

The most likely candidate for θεός is qualitative. This is true both grammatically (for the largest proportion of pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives fall into this category) and theologically (both the theology of the Fourth Gospel and of the NT as a whole). There is a balance between the Word’s deity, which was already present in the beginning (ἐν ἀρχῇ … θεὸς ἦν [1:1], and his humanity, which was added later (σὰρξ ἐγένετο [1:14]). The grammatical structure of these two statements mirrors each other; both emphasize the nature of the Word, rather than his identity. But θεός was his nature from eternity (hence, εἰμί is used), while σάρξ was added at the incarnation (hence, γίνομαι is used).

Such an option does not at all impugn the deity of Christ. Rather, it stresses that, although the person of Christ is not the person of the Father, their essence is identical. Possible translations are as follows: “What God was, the Word was” (NEB), or “the Word was divine” (a modified Moffatt). In this second translation, “divine” is acceptable only if it is a term that can be applied only to true deity. However, in modern English, we use it with reference to angels, theologians, even a meal! Thus “divine” could be misleading in an English translation. The idea of a qualitative θεός 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.

Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 266–269.

The most important is the last section. “The Word was divine” is an acceptable translation, as long as we understand that in the Jewish mindset (Jesus, his disciples, and the early Church) only God was divine.

I decided to send an email to Dr. Daniel Wallace just to confirm if he believes that Christ is God.

Dr. Daniel Wallace said, ” I’m OK with translation θεός in John 1.1c as ‘divine’ as long as we understand ‘divine’ to mean that whoever belongs to that category is true deity. The article is not used because it would otherwise identify the person of the Son with the person of the Father. The way John has expressed this idea is the most concise way he could have said that the Father and Son are the same being but distinct persons. The REB comes closest to this when it translates “what God was, the Word was.”

I would argue against the view that θεός with the article can only refer to the Father. John 20.28 easily demonstrates the ludicrousness of that approach!”

So, this position does not work even if it were correct. It would be saying the Word is divine! That is the meaning if it is an adjective. In other words it says the same thing for a Jew for whom there is one God! But more likely the article on Ho LOGOS helps us separate the subject from the predicate nominative in 1:1C (That lacks an article). The word with the article John 1:1c gives us the subject. You have to render the verse as a whole. The one without the article gives us the predicate nominative so the Word was God. As for the second clause. Yes the word was with God is the second clause. But to a Jew there is only ONE GOD, so to claim one is divine is to claim that figure is God. It has a referecne to the Father on the one hand in 1:1B and the Son on the other as Logos in 1:1c.. John 20:28 makes all of fthis clear as the same author (JOHN) has Thomas say to Jesus “My Lord and My God.” If he is not God, he would not have accepted this declaration. Thus John’s ending fits the beginning of his gospel in terms of saying who Jesus is.