So let’s go back and see what you said originally about that phrase “and the word was God”.
That’s very clear. You said explicitly that the Greek phrase cannot at all be translated “and the word was divine”. You then went further.
That’s also very clear; you were confident that there is no serious Greek scholar in the world who would consider such a translation credible.
I then showed you the following facts.
-
The NET footnote not only identifies this as grammatically possible (contradicting your first point), but says it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to theos here (also contradicting your first point), and then cites two translations which give this rendering (contradicting your second point). How could you say “I still have not found a translation that says “divine”” when the NET footnote cites two of them for you? Additionally, you didn’t comment on the NEB’s rendering, “what God was, the Word was”. Why not?
-
I cited several mainstream commentators who said that the phrase is sometimes translated “the word was divine” (contradicting your second point), specifically on the basis of the grammar (contradicting your first point).[1] And every commentator I cited, said that this was a grammatical reading of the text. This is not “a tiny number of authorities”. This is mainstream acknowledgment that the grammar actually says this. None of them raised any grammatical objection to this rendering, only theological arguments.
Here’s another example.
“On the basis of grammar alone v. 1 can be read as stating at the very least that the Word was divine. The further step of identifying the Word with God depends on contextual considerations. Evidence in this direction firstly comes from the expression μονογενὴς θεός, which is the most probable of the variant readings in vs. 18. Secondly, the identity of Jesus as God appears to be the presupposition of the Gospel as a whole.”[2]
This says explicitly that on the basis of the grammar alone, we reach the rendering “the Word was divine”. It then goes on to say that identification of the Word with God, is dependent on contextual considerations (not grammatical considerations). And this is typical of all the commentaries which prefer the rendering “the Word was God”. None of them say “This is the simple grammatical reading of the text”, they make it clear that their choice of rendering is based on other considerations. Several of them even go so far as to say that they have selected their rendering specifically to avoid making the Word less than God, or giving the impression that the Logos is not God. If you think any of them made a grammatical argument against the rendering “the word was divine”, please just quote it.
I quoted Barnes specifically to demonstrate that the rendering “the word was divine” is not a modern invention, and has a pedigree of being recognized by mainstream “orthodox” theologians. Barnes is a completely legitimate source for that purpose, precisely because he was writing over 100 years ago. This defeats your argument that the reading “the word was divine” is a theologically motivated novelty of modern times, and exists only on the fringe; it’s a mainstream understanding of the text, and has been so for well over 100 years.
-
You said “The text says the “Logos is with Theos and that the Logos is Theos””. Now I know you haven’t actually read the Greek. The Greek actually says “and theos was the logos”. The word order is completely the other way around. That’s the complete reverse of your claim that it reads “the Logos is the Theos”. This word order, with the lack of a definite article, is precisely why so many commentators acknowledge that theos is being used here as the equivalent of an adjective (the way you claimed was impossible), not as a noun (“God”).
-
You said “how can the Logos be both with Theos and Theos at the same time? A contradiction! Substituting ‘Logos’ with ‘Jesus’ changes nothing”. Of course substituting “logos” with “Jesus” changes nothing. But substituting “theos” with “divine” (as the grammar clearly indicates), changes everything. Now there’s no contradiction at all, regardless of whether we read “logos” as “the word” or “Jesus”.
-
I didn’t say anything about arguing di-theism from Hurtado. I’ll get back to that part later since I’m almost out of time and the lexical data on John 1:1 needs to be addressed first.
-
I am so glad you said this.
It’s certainly high time we opened the lexicons. Strap in, it’s going to be a rough ride. Of course “god” is its primary meaning, and the most commonly used. However, you are clearly unaware of the very large semantic range of the Greek word theos; it means a lot more than just “god”. Let’s look at a just a few of its meanings which indicate it certainly does not mean simply “god”, as you claim.
It is used of natural phenomena such as the weather.
“d. ὁ. θ., of natural phenomena, ὁ θ. ὕει (sc. Ζεύς) Hdt.2.13; ὁ θ. ἐνέσκηψε βέλος Id.4.79; ἔσεισεν ὁ θ. (sc. Ποσειδῶν) X.HG4.7.4; of the sun, Hdt.2.24, A.Pers.502, E.Alc.722; δύνοντος τοῦ θ. App.BC4.79; the weather, τί δοκεῖ τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ; Thphr.Char.25.2.” [3]
It is used as the title of rulers. Keep that in mind, it’s important since this is Old Testament and Second Temple Period usage as well.
“3. as title of rulers, θεῶν ἀδελφῶν (sc. Ptolemy II and Arsinoe), Herod.1.30, etc.; Πτολεμαῖος ὑπάρχων θεὸς ἐκ θεοῦ καὶ θεᾶς OGI90.10 (Rosetta, ii B.C.); Ἀντίοχος ὅτῳ θεὸς ἐπώνυμον γίγνεται App.Syr.65; θεὸς ἐκ θεοῦ, of Augustus, OGI655.2 (Egypt, 24 B.C.); θ. ἡμῶν καὶ δεσπότης IPE4.71 (Cherson., ii A.D.)” [4]
“In the Hellenistic period an outstanding ruler may be called a θεός as the creator of a new political order: ὥσπερ γὰρ θεὸν ἐν ἀνθρώποις εἰκὸς εἶναι τὸν τοιοῦτον Aristot. Pol., III, 13, p. 1284a, 11; Plut. Lysander, 18 (I, 443b); Demetrius Poliorketes and his father Antigonos are celebrated as θεοὶ σωτῆπες in Athens (307 B.C.), cf. the hymn in Athen., VI, 63 (p. 253d): ὡς οἱ μέγιστοι τῶν θεῶν καὶ φίλτατοι ¦ τῇ πόλει πάρεισιν.” [5]
It is used of humans who are in positions of authority, such as judges. Note that this usage is in the Old Testament, and Jesus himself even uses it in this way. Jesus knew what this word means; he knew it could be used of humans and doesn’t simply mean “god”.
“4. one set in authority, judge, τὸ κριτήριον τοῦ θ., ἐνώπιον τοῦ θ., LXXEx.21.6, 22.8; θεοὺς οὐ κακολογήσεις ib.22.28(27).” [6]
“ⓐ of humans θεοί (as אֱלֹהִים) J 10:34f (Ps 81:6; humans are called θ. in the OT also Ex 7:1; 22:27; cp. Philo, Det. Pot. Insid. 161f, Somn. 1, 229, Mut. Nom. 128, Omn. Prob. Lib. 43, Mos. 1, 158, Decal. 120, Leg. All. 1, 40, Migr. Abr. 84).” [7]
Let’s move on. How about the rendering “divine”, which you claimed was not even remotely possible? Yes, theos can be used as an adjective meaning “divine” (the example here is in the genitive, but don’t get too excited about that, there’s more to come).
“δ. Almost as a substitute for the adj. divine IMg 6:1f; 15 (cp. Ath. 21, 4 οὐδὲν ἔχων θεοῦ [of Zeus]).” [8]
Again, here’s another lexicon pointing out that not only does it have a range of meanings (including humans “worthy of reverence and respect as magistrates”), but it can also be used “as an adjective divine”. This lexicon even suggests this as the usage in John 1:1.
“θεός, οῦ, ὁ and ἡ (1) as the supreme divine being, the true, living, and personal God (MT 1.23; possibly JN 1.1b); (2) as an idol god (AC 14.11); feminine goddess (AC 19.37); (3) of the devil as the ruling spirit of this age god (2C 4.4a); (4) as an adjective divine (probably JN 1.1b); (5) figuratively; (a) of persons worthy of reverence and respect as magistrates and judges gods (JN 10.34); (b) of the belly when the appetite is in control god (PH 3.19).”[9]
This is a standard mainstream professional lexicon; nothing fringe here. But let’s move on, there’s still more to come. Let’s go back to that standard professional Greek lexicon, Liddell, Scott, Jones. Please don’t tell me you’re going to describe this as fringe.
Here we have LSJ stating specifically that theos has an adjectival usage, specifically meaning “divine” (which we already knew from several commentators and a couple of lexicons). LSJ describes this usage as being applied in a range of ways, including the comparative. But there’s also something else.
“III. as Adj. in Comp. θεώτερος, divine, θύραι θ., opp. καταιβαταὶ ἀνθρώποισιν, Od.13.111; χορὸς θ. Call.Ap.93, cf. Dian.249, D.P.257. (Derived by Hdt.2.52 fr. τίθημι (κόσμῳ θέντες τὰ πρήγματα), by Pl.Cra.397d fr. θεῖν. Etym. dub.) [In Ep. (twice in Hom.) and Trag. (E.Ba.47, 1347, al., not in Com. exc. Men.Pk.397), as monosyll, by synizesis, θεοί Il.1.18, Thgn.142; θεῶν h.Cer.55, 259; θεοῖς Thgn.171; θεοῖσιν Od.14.251; θεούς h.Cer.325: even in nom. θεός before a vowel, E.Or.399 (cf. Pors. ad loc.), HF347; in Pi.P.1.56 apptly. a short monosyll.], Myc. te-o.” [10]
See where it says “even in nom. θεός before a vowel”? That is telling us that when theos is used in the nominative, without an article, before a vowel, it’s being used in the adjectival sense to mean divine.
With this in mind, let’s return to our passage.
John 1:
1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. [11]
Do you see that? It says καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. That’s right, it’s nominative theos without the definite article, and placed before a vowel (ἦ[ν]). That indicates that theos here is adjectival, meaning “divine”. The reasons typically given for an alternative rendering are not grammatical, but theological.
[1] “So the theological inclusio that frames John’s Gospel (1:1 and 20:28) is especially important, even though the phrase in 1:1c lacks a definite article in the predicate, kai theos ēn ho logos (καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος) and is therefore sometimes translated “the Word was divine” rather than “the Word was God.””, Neil G. Richardson, “God, NT View Of,” ed. Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2006–2009), 599; “In other words, John is saying, “The Word was divine.””, Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Rev. and expanded, 2nd ed.; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 75; R. E. Brown considers the NEB rendering more accurate than saying simply that the Word was “divine” [The Gospel according to John, I, 1966, 5].", J. Schneider et al., “God, Gods, Emmanuel,” ed. Lothar Coenen, Erich Beyreuther, and Hans Bietenhard, New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), 81.
[2] Stephen Voorwinde, “John’s Prologue: Beyond Some Impasses of Twentieth-Century Scholarship,” Westminster Theological Journal 64, no. 1 (2002): 43.
[3] Henry George Liddell et al., A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 791.
[4] Henry George Liddell et al., A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 791.
[5] Hermann Kleinknecht et al., “Θεός, Θεότης, Ἄθεος, Θεοδίδακτος, Θεῖος, Θειότης,” ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–), 68.
[6] Henry George Liddell et al., A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 791.
[7] William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 451.
[8] William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 451.
[9] Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg, and Neva F. Miller, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Baker’s Greek New Testament Library; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 196.
[10] Henry George Liddell et al., A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 791.
[11] Kurt Aland et al., Novum Testamentum Graece (28th Edition.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012), Jn 1:1.