Examining the Trinity

Prov. 8:22-30

2012-01-16T00:09:00.000-08:00

Prov. 8:22-30 "Wisdom" and Christ

To further show that Jesus is the first creation of God ("beginning of creation"), we should carefully examine Prov. 8:22-30. The understanding that "Wisdom" in these verses is, in reality, figurative of Jesus in his pre-human existence has always existed in the majority of churches that call themselves Christian. It was commonly noted in the writings of the Church Fathers of the first centuries of Christianity (including such noted scholars as Origen, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, etc.) Many Bible scholars (trinitarians included) have even said that this connection was made in the New Testament at 1 Cor. 1:24.

For example, trinitarian scholar Edmund Fortman writes:

"Paul applied it [Prov. 8:22-30] to the Son of God. The Apologists [Christian writers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries] used it to prove to Gentile and Jew the pre-existence of the Word and his role in creation." - (See CREEDS 5-16: quotes from the writings of Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Justin Martyr which equate the Son with "Wisdom" speaking at Prov. 8:22-30 and admit that he had been created by God as the beginning of God's works - Prov. 8:22.)

Trinitarian scholar Dr. W. H. C. Frend agrees:

"By the time he wrote to the Corinthians in c. 53, Paul had developed in his mind the equation of Christ with the divine Wisdom incarnate (`Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God' [1 Cor. 1:24])." - p. 102, The Rise of Christianity, Fortress Press, 1985.

We even find the extremely trinitarian New Bible Dictionary, 1982, p. 1257, saying:

"it is not unexpected that Paul would view Jesus ... as the Wisdom of God. That Paul saw in Christ the fulfilment of Pr. 8:22 ff. seems apparent from Col. 1:15 ff., which strongly reflects the OT description of wisdom."

And the Gospel writers, according to the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, also may have made the Jesus/Wisdom connection: Luke 11:49 speaks of "a word of the wisdom of God" and the parallel account in Matt. 23:34 ff. "is understood as a word of Jesus." Also, in connection with the Gospels at Matt. 12:42 and Luke 11:31, this trinitarian reference work says:

"This can be understood most easily by thinking of the heavenly wisdom whom men despise: in Jesus this wisdom has finally appeared." - p. 1030, Vol. 3.

The very trinitarian The Ante-Nicene Fathers admits:

Prov. viii 22-25. This is one of the favourite Messianic quotations of the Fathers, and is considered as the base of the first chapter of St. John's Gospel. - ANF 1:488, f.n. #10, Eerdmans, 1993 reprint.

And even that staunchest of trinitarian supporters (and probably the most influential and honored of trinitarian scholars), Augustine, made the "Word/Wisdom" connection with Jesus about 410 A. D. in his famous De Civitate Dei (The City of God), Book XI, Chapter 24.

Why, even at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A. D. Arius quoted this passage as proof that Jesus was not equally God:

"[Arius] had a sharply logical mind and appealed to biblical texts which apparently backed up his arguments - for example, John 17:3....and Proverbs 8:22." - p. 157 (165), Eerdman's Handbook to the History of Christianity, 1977.

And his trinitarian opponent, Athanasius, although sometimes also attempting to appeal to scripture, never refuted this usage of Proverbs 8:22 -

"Athanasius....did not refute Arius by rejecting the relevance of Prov. 8:22." (Even though he attempted to show that Jesus had not been created by quoting Ps. 110:3.) - p. 165 (173), Eerdman's Handbook.

In other words, when Arius quoted Proverbs 8:22 and applied it to Jesus, trinitarian Athanasius didn't dispute that application! Even Athanasius recognized that Wisdom in that scripture was intended to describe the Messiah! We even find Athanasius quoting a letter written by Dionysus, Bishop of Rome (259-268 A.D.) wherein he writes:

"if the Christ is Word and Wisdom and Power, as you know the Divine Scriptures say he is ..." - p. 32, Documents of the Christian Church, Bettenson, Oxford University Press.

Throughout Christendom today trinitarian translators in their reference Bibles refer Revelation 3:14 (which is certainly speaking about Jesus) to Prov. 8:22. For example, the King James Version, Collins Press; the NASB, reference edition, Foundation Press, 1975; and the RSV (with references) published by the trinitarian American Bible Society, all refer Rev. 3:14 to Prov. 8:22. And the GNB (with references) also published by the American Bible Society refers Prov. 8:22 to Rev. 3:14.

It is not surprising that so many Bible translators make this reference. The scholars who have produced the best, most-used texts of the original New Testament Greek used by Bible translators today agree that Rev. 3:14 quoted or borrowed its Greek phrasing from the ancient Greek Septuagint version of Proverbs 8:22 ! These (most, if not all, trinitarian) Bible scholars and their texts in which they have made this connection are:

(1) The Student's Edition of the New Testament in Greek, by Westcott and Hort, p. 613.
(2) The Greek New Testament, 3rd ed., by the United Bible Societies, p. 844.
(3) Novum Testamentum Graece, by Dr. Eberhard Nestle, p. 665.
(4) Novi Testamenti Biblia Graeca et Latin, by Joseph M. Bover, p. 725.

If Rev. 3:14 meant "the source of God's creation" (or "the ruler of creation"), it would be senseless to refer it to Prov. 8:22 where "Wisdom" ("Jesus") says that Jehovah "created me at the beginning of his work" - RSV. All these trinitarian sources, by referring Rev. 3:14 to Prov. 8:22, are clearly showing, instead, that the one who who calls himself "the beginning of his [God's] work" is the same person who calls himself the beginning of God's creation!

Similar references between Jesus' pre-human existence and Prov. 8:22-30 can be found in many trinitarian Bibles at other verses, also. My trinitarian KJV, for example, refers John 1:1, 2 to Prov. 8:30. My trinitarian NASB refers John 1:2, 3 to Prov. 8:30.

Even the trinitarian Today's Dictionary of the Bible, 1982, p. 389, in discussing the Greek word logos (often translated "Word" at John 1:1) tells us:

"Logos - Gr. for the term used by John as a name for Christ. It is he alone who so uses the term in the Prologue to his Gospel [John 1:1-17] and in the Apocalypse [Revelation]." And, "logos has a verb form ... meaning `to reason.' So, denotatively, the term has two Greek meanings, the primary unit of thought, speech and writing - word; and reasoning."

This same article goes on to describe the specialized pagan philosophical/religious meanings that were used in the "Golden Age of Greece" and concludes that it is unlikely that John would have used such paganistic meanings: "It is more likely, however, that John derives his Logos Christology from the personified Wisdom of proverbs 8." (Although this is a trinitarian tactic to avoid crediting Philo's Logos concept as the source of John's Logos concept, it is nevertheless true that Philo himself used the Wisdom of Prov. 8:22-30 as one of the important sources for his development of the popular early first century Jewish Logos concept. - See the LOGOS study.)

And, on p. 654, this same mainstream trinitarian publication says:

"`Wisdom' in [Proverbs 8:22-30] may be regarded not as a mere personification of the attribute of wisdom, but as a divine person, considered by many to clarify what John means by his use of logos (word) in [John] 1:1-17."

And the trinitarian New Bible Dictionary, 1982, which in its preface stresses its dedication to the "convictions for which the Tyndale Fellowship stands - the triunity of God....," states on p. 1256,

"The personification [of `Wisdom'] continues in Pr. 8 and reaches its climax in vv. 22 ff., where Wisdom claims to be the first creation of God and, perhaps, an assistant in the work of creation (8:30; cf. 3:19; the difficult amon, `as one brought up' in [the King James Version], should be translated `master workman,' as in RV, RSV,....)."

And on p. 1221 this same reference work (which Christianity Today describes as "true to the Bible as God's word" and "destined to become a standard that will be turned to often by students and ministers alike") tells us that "the Word" [Jesus] is "personified as `Wisdom'" at Prov. 8:22 !

And staunch trinity-defender of the 19th century, W. G. T. Shedd, admits that "Wisdom" of Prov. 8:22, 23 is certainly the pre-existent Christ! - Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, p. 317.

It is therefore extremely obvious that the identification of "Wisdom" at Prov. 8:22-30 with Jesus is not the invention of the Watchtower Society as some anti-Watchtower trinitarians imply!

So, if you accept the view of the majority of those in "traditional" Christendom throughout the Christian era, you will accept the understanding that "Wisdom" at Prov. 8:22-30 refers to the Messiah.

And if you accept that, then it is clear that the Messiah was created (at least there was a time when he was brought into existence by the Father, Jehovah) before the rest of creation. Note the following trinitarian translations of Prov. 8:22 -

1. "The LORD [Jehovah] created me at the beginning of his work" - RSV, and NRSV.
(Footnote in NRSV says "Or [created] me as the beginning [of his work].").

2."The LORD made me..." - MLB).

3."The Lord formed me..." - Living Bible.

4. "I was made in the very beginning." - Good News Bible.

5."Yahweh [Jehovah] created me..." - Jerusalem Bible and NJB.

6."The LORD created me..." - New English Bible and REB.

7."Jehovah framed me first" - Byington.

8."The LORD created me..." - The Reader's Digest Bible, 1982.

9."I was the first thing made, long ago in the beginning." - Holy Bible: Easy-to-Read
Version, World Bible Translation Center, 1992.

10."The Eternal [Jehovah] formed me first of his creation" - Moffatt.

11."The Lord made me the beginning [arkhe] of his ways for his works" - The Septuagint,
Zondervan, 1976.

12."The LORD created me as the first of his creations" - Holy Bible From the Ancient Eastern
Text (George M. Lamsa's translation from the Aramaic of the Peshitta), Harper and Row
Publ. (Be sure to examine Prov. 8:23-25, 30 in all translations also.)

The Jewish Bibles also translate it similarly:

1."The LORD made me as the beginning of His way, the first of His works of old." - JPS, Margolis, ed., 1917.

2."The LORD created me at the beginning of His course as the first of His works of old." - Tanakh, JPS, 1985.

Why, even that popular trinitarian study Bible, The NIV Study Bible, translates Prov. 8:22 as "the LORD brought me forth as the first of his works" and explains in a footnote for Prov. 8:22:

"brought ... forth. The Hebrew for this verb is also used in Ge 4:1; 14:19, 22 (`Creator')." - Zondervan, 1985.

And the trinitarian The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology tells us:

"Created prior to all the [other] works of creation (Prov. 8:22-31), [Wisdom] discloses to men the original order inherent in creation." - p. 1029, Vol. 3, Zondervan, 1984.

The trinitarian A Dictionary of the Bible, Hastings (ed.) tells us about Wisdom in Prov. 8:

"Wisdom is spoken of in such a way as to make it impossible to believe that only the Divine attribute of wisdom is meant .... It is something outside of, yet standing alongside of, God, created by Him.... Wisdom is further represented as `playing' like a child before Jehovah in His habitable earth, in all the glow of conscious power and as taking special delight in the sons of men." - p. 281, Supplement, 1988 printing.

It is also very clear from scripture that the rest of creation from Jehovah (who alone is the Father)was accomplished through the hands of his first (and only direct - "only-begotten") creation, who was like a master worker for Jehovah. (Remember the trinitarian sources which refer Proverbs 8:30 to John 1:1-3.)

Notice how these trinitarian Bibles render Prov. 8:30:

30 I was beside him, like a master worker" – NRSV.

30 I was beside Him a master builder" – MLB.

30 I was by his side, a master craftsman - Jerusalem Bible and NJB;

30 I was beside him as his craftsman - NAB (1970 & 1991);

30 I was master-workman at his side. - Byington;

30 Then I was the craftsman at his side. - NIV;

30 Then I was beside Him [as] a master craftsman; And I was daily [His] delight, Rejoicing always before Him - NKJV.

30 Then I was beside Him, as a master workman; And I was daily His delight, Rejoicing always before Him - NASB.

30 I was right beside the Lord, helping him plan and build. I made him happy each day, and I was happy at his side. - CEV.

30 Then became I beside him, a firm and sure worker, then became I filled with delight, day by day, exulting before him on every occasion; - Rotherham.

30 Then I was by his side, as a master workman: and I was his delight from day to day, playing before him at all times; - BBE.

30 "I was beside him as a master craftsman. I made him happy day after day, I rejoiced in front of him all the time," - GodsWord.

30 Then I was by him, [as] a master workman; And I was daily [his] delight, Rejoicing always before him, - ASV.

30 Then I am near Him, a workman, And I am a delight--day by day. Rejoicing before Him at all times, - Young's Literal Translation.

30 even I was a workman at His side; and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him; - MKJV.

30 then I was at His side, like a master workman; and I was His delights day by day, rejoicing before Him at every time; - LITV.

30 I was with him forming all things: and was delighted every day, playing before him at all times; - Douay.

30 I was a skilled craftsman beside Him. I was His delight every day, always rejoicing before Him. - Holman Christian Standard Bible.

30 then I was beside him, like a master workman, and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always, - English Standard Version.

30 was beside Him as the leading workman. I was His joy every day. I was always happy when I was near Him. - New Life Bible.

30 I was beside him like a skilled worker. The Lord was happy every day because of me. I made him laugh and be happy all the time. - ETRV.

30 Then I was the craftsman by his side. I was a delight day by day, Always rejoicing before him, - Hebrew Names Version.

30 Then I was by him, [as] a master craftsman; And I was daily [his] delight, Rejoicing always before him, - Updated Bible Version 1.9.

30 I was with him ordring all thinges, deliting dayly and reioysyng alway before hym. - The Bishop's Bible (1568).

30 I was with him, ordringe all thinges, delytinge daylie & reioysynge allwaye before him. - Coverdale (1535).

30 Y was making alle thingis with him. And Y delitide bi alle daies, and pleiede bifore hym in al tyme, - Wycliffe (1395)

30 I was by Him (harmozousa- "arranging all things – f.n.) – The Septuagint, Zondervan, 1970.

…………………….

([Prov.]8:30; cf. 3:19; the difficult amon, `as one brought up' in [the King James Version], should be translated `master workman,' as in RV, RSV,....)." - p. 1256, New Bible Dictionary, 1982.

……………………..

"525 [Amon] m. - workman, architect, ... Prov. 8:30, used of the hypostatic wisdom of God, the maker of the world." - p. 58, Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, Baker Book House, 1979.

…………………….

"525 amon (54c); from 539; an artificer, architect, master workman:--artisans (1), master workman (1)." - (#) is number of times this NASB word was translated from the original language. - Hebrew-Aramaic & Greek Dictionary: http://www.studybibleforum.com/htm_php.php3?do=show_marg_and_gh&b=20&c=8&v=30

(also see New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, - p. 1490, #525.

..........................................................

"I. [Amon]: artisan Je 52:15; Prov. 8:30; ['all undisputed instances have been cited']" - p. 19, A Concise Hebrew And Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, Eerdmans, 1988.

It may be that figures of speech and personification sometimes appear to be carried too far for our tastes today. But if this scripture only shows a quality personified, but not actually a person (as some anti-Watchtower publications claim), how can we explain that "Wisdom" (at Prov. 8:22-30) came into existence before the rest of creation?

The scriptures show that Jehovah (and only Jehovah) has always existed (Ps. 90:2). Since he is from eternity and has obviously always been wise, then Jehovah's own personal wisdom has always existed; it never was created or produced. And since wisdom cannot exist apart from a personality who is capable of using it, and, since the "Wisdom" of Prov. 8:22-30 came into existence before the rest of creation, it cannot represent the wisdom of any other creature (whether angels or men) but a "firstborn Son"!

Therefore, this "Wisdom" (at Prov. 8:22-30) must picture a person who was created "at the beginning of His [Jehovah's] work." The rest of the angelic "Sons of God" were created later (but still before "the beginning" of the creation of the world - Job 38:4-7) through the efforts of this Firstborn Son, "Wisdom," the "Master Worker" who came to be at Jehovah's side.

Colwell's JBL Article - a Definite Rule for John 1:1c

2011-11-12T13:54:00.000-08:00

For the answer to this trinitarian 'rule,' see the DEFinite John 1:1 study on this blog.

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/definite-john-11c.html
or
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/john-11c-primer_21.html

Journal of Biblical Literature [Vol. 52, 1933.]

　

A DEFINITE RULE FOR THE USE OF THE ARTICLE IN THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

E. C. Colwell

University of Chicago

Although Walter Bauer cautiously asserts that hard and fast rules for the use of the article in Hellenistic Greek are an impossibility[1] the grammarians have formulated many rules for which they claim various degrees of reliability. This is true of the use of the article with predicate nominatives, the use with which this study is concerned.

The discussion in A. T. Robertson’s mammoth grammar[2] may be regarded as representative since it is built upon the opinion of other grammarians and quotes largely from them. He emphasizes most strongly the two following rules: (1) predicate nouns tend to omit the article; (2) predicate nouns occur with the article in convertible propositions.

Professor Torrey goes further and claims that in some New Testament passages the article is omitted because of the anarthrous construct state in the Semitic original. He has claimed that six nouns in John are without the article for this reason.[3] Three of his anarthrous nouns (in John 1 49; 5 27; 9 5) [Jn 1:49; 5:27; 9:5] are predicate nominatives, and in each of these cases the predicate noun precedes the verb.

It was a study of these passages, especially John 1 49, that suggested the rule which is advocated in this study. In this verse Nathanael ascribes to Jesus two titles; in one of them he uses the article, in the other he does not: su ei o uioV tou qeou. su basileuV ei tou Israhl[su ei ho huios tou theou. su basileus ei tou Israel: ‘you are the son of the god. you king are of the Israel.’]. What reason is there for this difference? When the passage is scrutinized, it appears at once that the variable quantum is not definiteness but word-order. “King of Israel” in this context is as definite as “Son of God.” It seems probable that the article [ho] is used with “Son of God” because it follows the verb, and is not used with “King of Israel” because it precedes the verb. If this can be established generally in the New Testament, it will of course involve only those sentences in which the copula is expressed. And for such sentences the rule may be stated briefly as follows: A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb. Of course, this can be claimed as a rule only after it has been shown to describe the usage of the Greek New Testament as a whole or in large part.

An important part of this demonstration is found in those passages in which a phrase is used now with the article and now without it. In John 19 21 the title “King of the Jews” is used of Jesus both with and without the article: mh grafe o basileuV twn Ioudaiwn, all oti ekeinoV eipen basileuV twn Ioudaiwn eimi [Me graphe ho basileus ton Ioudaion, all hoti ekeinos eipen Basileus ton Ioudaion eimi: ‘not be writing the king of the jews, but that that (one) said king of the jews I am.’]. It is plain that the Jews are objecting to the superscription because it may be read as a statement of fact; they want it changed so that the readers will know that this title is only a claim made by Jesus. But in each case the title itself remains the same; the article does not occur in the second instance because the predicate precedes the verb. In half a dozen New Testament passages,[4] the same phrase appears with the article after the verb. And in Matt. 27 42, where the title “King of Israel” is applied to Jesus, this appears without the article and before the verb.

The words “Son of God” appear approximately thirteen times as a predicate with the article,[5] in each of the thirteen passages they follow the verb. These words also appear ten times as predicate nominatives without the article; in nine of these passages they precede the verb,[6] and in the tenth (Matt. 27 43) it may be significant that qeou precedes the verb.

The title “Son of Man” appears twice in the New Testament as a predicate nominative: once with the article (Matt. 13 37) and once without the article (John 5 27). In the Matthean passage, where it has the article, it follows the verb. In the Johannine passage, where it lacks the article, it precedes the verb.

This variation in the use of the article frequently occurs with the same phrase in the same gospel. In John 8 12 Jesus says, Egw eimi to fwV tou kosmou; [Ego eimi to phos tou kosmou: ‘I am the light of the world’]; in John 9 5 he says, fwV eimi tou kosmou [phos eimi tou kosmou: ‘light I am of the world]. A similar variation occurs in Matt. 12 48 and 50, where Jesus uses the words “my mother” with the article after the verb and without the article before the verb.[7]

One of the most impressive examples of the correlation between word-order and use of the article occurs in Matt. 13 37-39, the explanation of the parable of the tares: o speiron ... estin o uioV tou anqrwpou, o de agroV estin o kosmoV. ... outoi eisin oi uioi thV basileiaV. ta de zizania eisin oi uioi tou ponhrou, o de ecqroV ... estin o diaboloV. o de qerismoV sunteleia aiwnoV estin, oi de qeristai aggeloi eisin. [ho speiron...estin ho huios tou anthropou. ho de agros estin ho kosmos. ... houtoi eisin hoi huioi tes basileias. ta de zizania eisin hoi huioi tou ponerou, ho de echthros... estin ho diabolos. ho de therismos sunteleia aionos estin, hoi de theristai aggeloi eisin: ‘the (man) sowing the fine seed is the son of the man; the but field is the world. ... these are the sons of the kingdom the but weeds are the sons of the wicked (one), the but enemy ... is the devil. the but harvest conclusion of age is, the but harvesters angels are’]. Here in a series of seven clauses the predicate nouns follow the verb and take the article five times; while in the last two clauses equally definite predicate nouns precede the verb and do not have the article. [But see RSV, NIV, ASV, NASB, NEB, JB, and AT, esp. for translation of “non-prepositional” aggeloi “angels”. - RDB]

That Matthew changed from one word-order to the other in a definite attempt to secure variety of style is suggested by another series of clauses similar to the one discussed above: Matt 23 8-10, eiV gar estin umwn o didaskaloV ... eiV gar estin umwn o pathr o ouranioV ... oti kaqhghthV umwn estin eiV o cristoV. [heis gar estin humon ho didaskalos... heis gar estin humon ho pater ho ouranios ... hoti kathegetes humon estin heis ho Christos: ‘one for is of you the teacher ... one for is of you the father the heavenly... because leader of you is one the christ.’]. Here he twice puts the predicate after the verb with the article, but the third time places it before the verb without the article. In neither of these Matthean passages can it be claimed that the predicates which close the series are less definite or concrete than those which precede; nor are the final clauses of the series less convertible than the others.

Further proof of the significant relation between word-order and the use of the article with predicate nouns is easily obtained from the very grammarians who are unaware of its existence. For the examples which they offer of predicate nouns with the article or of predicate nouns without the article fall into the categories established by this rule almost without exception. Thus in Robertson’s list (pp. 768-769) of forty-one predicates in the New Testament which have the article, there are thirty-eight which follow the verb. Again Robertson lists (p.794) the constructions in which the article is omitted. One of these constructions is the predicate nominative, and in both of his examples of anarthrous predicate nominatives the predicate precedes the verb. Blass-Debrunner[8] lists eighteen predicate nouns that take the article, and every one of them follows the verb. No one will be so unkind as to insinuate that these lists were compiled to support a theory of which the compilers had never heard. Robertson and Debrunner were merely looking for examples of predicate nouns with the article; it is significant that they found them after the verb.

Further support for the claim that there is a connection between word-order and use of the article can be found in the nature of the variants which occur in the MSS of the New Testament. That the MSS vary greatly in adding and omitting the article, every scholar who has done any work in textual criticism is aware. Such a simple omission or addition would of itself prove little for the theory advocated here, but when the omission or addition of the article is accompanied by a change of word-order, we have evidence that the relation between word-order and the use of the article was as real to the scribes who copied the MSS as it was to the original authors.

In the course of this study I noted three passages in which the article is used by one group of MSS and omitted by another group with a change in word-order. In each of these passages Westcott and Hort’s Heavenly Twins (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus) disagree; yet both of them support the rule stated in this paper. That is to say, their variation is from one to the other of the alternatives described in this rule. The MSS differ as follows:

　

                    B [4^th century]                                                             a [4^th century]

  su basileuV  ei tou Israhl                         (1) John 1 49               su ei o basileuV tou Israhl
                           [of Israel]                                                                                                   [of Israel]


kaqhghthV umwn estin eiV                     (2) Matt. 23 10       eiV gar umwn o kaqhghthV
                   [of you]                                                                      [of you]

　

    eiV qeoV estin                                           (3) Jas. 2 19                  eiV estin o qeoV
[one]                                                                                                                [one]



It is interesting that B each time has the predicate before the verb without the article, while a [aleph] each time has the predicate after the verb with the article.[9] Further study will doubtless multiply examples of this sort, but these are enough to indicate that the scribes felt that a definite predicate noun did not need the article before the verb and did need it after the verb.

The predicate noun is used in the New Testament with the article 254 times in sentences in which the verb is expressed. It follows the verb 239 times, and precedes the verb 15 times. Predicate nouns which are indubitably definite appear without the article in sentences in which the verb occurs 139 times. 99 times the predicate precedes the verb, and it follows the verb 40 times[10].

These totals include predicates in relative clauses. But the word-order in relative clauses seems to be so definitely fixed as to justify the exclusion of such clauses from this study. Ten definite predicates appeared with the article[11] in relative clauses, all after the verb. Sixteen definite predicates are used without the article in relative clauses, two before the verb (with the relative in the genitive) and fourteen after the verb (with the relative in the nominative). Thus only two out of twenty-six predicates precede in relative clauses.

If the predicates which occur in relative clauses are subtracted, the totals are as follows:

I. Definite Predicate Nouns with Article.............. 244

A. After Verb ................................................... 229 (94%)

B. Before Verb ................................................ 15 (6%)

II. Definite Predicate Nouns without the Article ...123

A. After Verb .................................................... 26 (21%)

B. Before Verb ................................................. 97 (79%)

The close relation between word-order and the use of the article in these cases can be shown by a different grouping of the same figures:

I. Definite Predicates after the Verb ................ 255

A. With the Article .................................... 229 (90%)

B. Without the Article ................................ 26 (10%)

II. Definite Predicates before the Verb ............ 112

A. With the Article ..................................... 15 (13%)

B. Without the Article ................................ 97 (87%)

It is obvious that the significance of these figures rests upon the accuracy with which definite predicate nouns without the article have been identified. There are bound to be mistakes in the list of definite predicate nouns without the article; but an attempt has been made to exclude all nouns as to whose definiteness there could be any doubt.[12] This means, of course, that “qualitative” [abstract?] nouns have been omitted, since all such nouns (and their total in the New Testament is small) are not definite. An inspection of some of the definite predicate nouns without the article will demonstrate that they are definite even though they lack the article.

None of the predicates in the following passages has the article in the original, and each of them precedes the verb. In Hebrews 9 15 it is claimed that Jesus is (the) mediator of a new covenant; in I Timothy 6 10 the love of money is identified as (the) root of all evil; in John 10 2 the one who enters by the door is (the) shepherd of the sheep; in Matt. 5 35 Jerusalem is (the) city of the Great King;[13] in Mark 2 28 the Son of Man is also (the) lord of the Sabbath; in I Cor. 44 Paul says, “It is (the) Lord who must examine me;” in Rev. 21 22 it is said of the New Jerusalem that God is (the) temple in it, etc. etc. This is a fair sample of what lies behind the statistics given above.

The rule that it is the exception that proves the rule finds no exception here. The exceptions to the rule that definite predicate nouns before the verb omit the article are about 15 in number.[14] Half of them are scattered around in Luke, John, II Peter, and Revelation; and in five of these passages there is serious manuscript evidence for the omission of the article according to the rule. The other half of these exceptions (7) are grouped in I and II Corinthians; and there is no significant manuscript evidence for variation here. Five of the seven put the predicate not only before the verb, but also before the subject; e.g., I Cor. 9:1 ou to ergon mou umeiV este en kuriw [ou to ergon mou humeis este en kurio: ‘not the work of me you are in lord?’]. Thus the order in these five Corinthian passages is predicate-subject-verb. This is obviously a stylism temporarily affected by the Apostle to the Gentiles, possibly for the sake of greater emphasis. Aside from these five passages, Paul’s exceptions do not loom up as especially significant.

The other class of exceptions - the omission of the article after the verb - contains more examples.[15] Approximately twenty-six definite predicate nouns omit the article after the verb.[16] Two of these are quotations from the Septuagint; five are adjectives used as substantives; but the remainder have no common characteristics. In I Cor. 12 27 and I Thess. 4 3 the textual evidence gives some basis for reading these passages according to the rule, but elsewhere the MSS are practically unanimous for the exception. The large number of exceptions in Romans is the most notable feature in the list.

I have made a hurried sampling of Greek usage outside the New Testament, with results that vary somewhat and yet on the whole support the figures quoted for the New Testament. In Genesis,[17] chapters 1-41, about fifty-eight definite predicate nouns were counted: forty-five support the rule (4 20; 12 12; etc.); thirteen are exceptions. Eleven of the exceptions are after the verb without the article (e.g., 9 18). In Genesis 9 19 the same sort of manuscript variation as was noted for the New Testament occurs: Codex Alexandrinus reads the predicate after the verb with the article and the Cotton Genesis MS reads it before the verb without the article.

In the Didache there are six definite predicate nouns used with a verb, and all of them support the rule.[18] One comes before and five after the verb. In P. Oxy III four support the rule, and there is one exception. In the Discourses of Epictetus IV. i-iv (about 50 pp. of Schenkl’s text) out of seventeen examples fourteen support the rule and three do not.[19] In all of these sources the percentage of support for the rule is about the same: of the predicate nouns with the article about 90% follow the verb; of the definite predicate nouns without the article about 80% precede the verb.

These dead figures have certain vital implications in at least three fields of New Testament study: grammar, text, and translation or interpretation. The New Testament grammars of the future, when they say that predicate nouns regularly omit the article, will point out that this is not the case in sentences in which the verb occurs, for in such sentences two-thirds of the definite predicate nouns have the article. Nor can this use of the article with predicate nouns be attributed to the presence of a large number of participles as predicate nominatives; for of the 244 predicates with the article only 61 are participles.

The following rules may be tentatively formulated to describe the use of the article with definite predicate nouns in sentences in which the verb occurs. (1) Definite predicate nouns here regularly take the article. (2) The exceptions are for the most part due to a change of word-order: (a) Definite predicate nouns which follow the verb (this is the usual order) usually take the article; (b) Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article; (c) Proper names regularly lack the article in the predicate; (d) Predicate nominatives in relative clauses regularly follow the verb whether or not they have the article.

In the field of textual criticism the rule here advocated has an equally definite contribution to make. It shows in certain specific cases what the probabilities are as to the author’s use or non-use of the article. A fine example of this is II Peter 1 17, cited as an exception to the rule since Westcott and Hort follow Codex Vaticanus [B] in reading the predicate with the article before the verb: o uioV mou o agaphtoV mou outoV estin. [Ho huios mou ho agapetos mou houtos estin: ‘the son of me the beloved of me this is.’] The evidence given in this study as to the extreme rarity of this construction in the New Testament reinforces Tischendorf’s judgement that the variant read by practically all the rest of the MSS is to be preferred. They read the predicate after the verb with the article, outoV estin o uioV mou o agaphtoV mou, [houtos estin ho huios mou ho agapetos mou: ‘this is the son of me the beloved of me.’], the usual Greek construction.

But it is in the realm of translation and interpretation that the data presented here have their most valuable application. They show that 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; if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun in spite of the absence of the article. In the case of a predicate noun which follows the verb the reverse is true; the absence of the article in this position is a much more reliable indication that the noun is indefinite. Loosely speaking, this study may be said to have increased the definiteness of a predicate noun before the verb without the article, and to have decreased the definiteness of a predicate noun after the verb without the article.

The opening verse of John’s Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite noun. Kai qeoV hn o logoV [Kai theos en ho logos] looks much more like “And the Word was God” than “And the Word was divine” when viewed with reference to this rule. The absence of the article does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb; it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it. The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John, for this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas.[20]

The passages in which uioV tou qeou [huios tou theou: ‘son of the god’] appear have often occasioned debate: Is the word “son” definite or indefinite? It is certainly significant that when used without the article these words regularly precede the verb. Nor can it be claimed that the phrase is “qualitative” or indefinite. In John 10 36 Jesus says of himself, uioV tou qeou eimi [huios tou theou eimi: ‘son of the god I am.’]. This is translated as “the son of God” by Goodspeed, Moffatt, the Authorized Version, the American Revised Version, Weymouth, etc. In Matt. 14 33 the disciples exclaim alhqwV qeou uioV ei [Alethos theou huios ei: ‘truly of god son you are.’]. This likewise is definite, and is so rendered in the translations listed above. But in Matt. 27 54 (equals Mark 15 39), Goodspeed and Moffatt translate as indefinite an almost exactly parallel phrase: alhqwV qeou uioV hn outoV. [Alethos theou huios en houtos: ‘truly of god son was this.’]. The evidence given in this paper as to the use of the article with the predicate nouns strengthens the probability that the centurion recognized Jesus as the Son of God (so Weymouth and the older English translations), rather than as a son of God.

[For the answer to this trinitarian 'rule,' see the DEFinite John 1:1 study on this blog.]

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/definite-john-11c.html
or
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/john-11c-primer_21.html

.................................................................

NOTES

1. Griechisch-deutsches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament, GieBen, 1928, s.v.o.

2. Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research,³ New York, 1919, p. 767f. I regret that I did not have access to the 4^th edition, 1923, but the material used is unchanged in the first three editions.

3. C.C. Torrey, “The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel,” Harvard Theological Review XVI, 1923, p. 323f. I have attempted to make a general answer in The Greek of the Fourth Gospel, Chicago, 1931, p. 78f.
4. Matt. 27 11,37; Mark 15 2; Luke 23 3,37; John 18 33.

5. Matt. 16 16; 26 63; Mark 3 11; 15 39; Luke 4 41; 22 70; John 1 39,49; 11 27; 20 31; Acts 9 20; I John 4 15; 5 5.

6. Matt. 4 3,6; 14 33; 27 40,54; Luke 4 3,9; Mark 15 39; John 10 36.

7. A similar variation occurs in Matt. 18 1 and 4.

8. A. Debrunner, Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch,⁶   Gottingen, 1931, p. 156.

9. Tischendorf’s attestation: with B (1) AL 1.33 (2) DGL 1.33. 124. 26^ev 48^ev x^scr (3) 69.a^scrc^scr; with ! [aleph] (1) the great majority of MSS (2)GDQP unc⁸ al pler (3) A 68.

10. The Greek text used was that of Westcott and Hort. No claim of absolute accuracy is advanced for these totals, nor is there any need for absolute accuracy, as no significance is, or can be attached to a definite mathematical proportion.

11. The distribution is interesting: Col. 3, Eph. 2, Rev. 5.

12. The least definite nouns included are found in a group of about ten phrases such as “(the) seed of Abraham,” e.g., John 8 33. Practically all such expressions as o qeoV agaph estin [ho theos agape estin: ‘the god love is’] have been excluded from this study [abstract predicate nouns - RDB]; their inclusion would greatly increase the total for predicate nouns without the article before the verb. Proper names, also, have been excluded because they regularly lack the article whether they appear before or after the verb.

13.
The Septuagint of Psalm 47 3 reads h poliV tou basilewV tou megalou [he polis tou basileos tou megalou: ‘the city of the king of the great’] without a verb.

14. Luke 4 41; John 1 21; 6 51; 15 1; II Peter 1 17; Rom. 4 13; I Cor. 9 1,2; 11 3,25; II Cor. 1 12; 3 2,17; Rev. 19 8; 20 14.

15. Proper Names regularly omit the article in the predicate when after the verb; they are not included here. For relative clauses, cf. p.7.

16. Matt. 20 16; Mark 4 32; 9 35; 12 28; Luke 20 33; 22 24; John 4 18; 18 13,37; Acts 10 36; Rom. 4 11,18; 7 13; 8 16,29; 11 6; I Cor. 12 27; 16 15; II Cor. 5 21; 6 16; Gal. 4 31; I Thess. 4 3; I Peter 5 12; Heb. 11 1

17. Swete’s text was used, and the evidence of the variants given in his brief apparatus is included.

18.
The text used was Kirsopp Lake’s edition of the Apostolic Fathers in the Loeb Classical Library, iv. 7, 14; vi. 3; xiii. 3; xiv. 3; xv. 2.

19.
After verb with article: IV i. 42, 62, 63, 114, 132, 158, 166; iii. 12; iv. 44; after verb without article: IV i. 118; before verb without article: IV i. 60, 71, 73, 94, 158; before verb with article; IV iv. 22, 48.

20. John 20 28.

[For the answer to this trinitarian 'rule,' see the DEFinite John 1:1 study on this blog.]


　http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/definite-john-11c.html
or
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/john-11c-primer_21.html

The Holy One of God

2011-09-15T18:32:00.000-07:00

The Holy One of God

A correspondent asked concerning the ‘Holy One of Israel’ (YHWH) and the ‘Holy One of God’ (Jesus):

"John 6:69 We believe and know that you are the Holy One [hagios] of God."

What say you? [implying that they must be the same person, God]

There are many ‘holy ones’ (hagios - Greek, Strong’s #40 and qadosh - Hebrew, Strong’s #6918) including all Jehovah’s angels. The ‘Holy One of Israel’ obviously means the one whom Israel worships as Holy (Jehovah God alone). The ‘Holy One of God’ means God’s Holy One (this includes those who are considered to be holy by God: angels, King David, Jesus, etc.

We would not consider God to be the ‘Holy One OF God’ any more than we would consider a ‘man OF God’ to be God, or the Prophet OF God, or the Angel OF God to BE God!

Here are some of the uses in the ASV:

Jude 1:14 And to these also Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones [Strong’s #40]

Deuteronomy 33:3 Yea, he loveth the people; All his saints [Strong’s #6918] are in thy hand: And they sat down at thy feet; [Every one] shall receive of thy words.

Psalms 34:9 Oh fear Jehovah, ye his saints [Strong‘s #6918]; For there is no want to them that fear him.

Psalms 106:16 They envied Moses also in the camp, [And] Aaron the saint [Strong’s #6918] of Jehovah.

Daniel 8:13 Then I heard a holy one [Strong’s #6918] speaking; and another holy one [Strong’s #6918] said unto that certain one who spake, How long shall be the vision [concerning] the continual [burnt-offering], and the transgression that maketh desolate, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

The Council of Nicaea (Nicene Council)

2011-08-06T08:00:00.000-07:00

(The reason for the notes beginning at 96 is because this post is an excerpt from paragraphs 36-58 from the post "The History of the Development of the Trinity Doctrine". For additional information concerning the Council of Nicaea, see: HIST. pt. 1, par. 17; HIST. pt. 4, pars. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 10; HIST. pt. 5, pars. 1, 6, 17, 18, 19, 21; HIST. pt. 6, pars. 2, 3 or by clicking here.)

1 Constantine, still a pagan emperor,[96, 97, 98] was concerned not with religious truth, but about the unity of his empire.[99, 100, 101, 102] He wanted the great rift between the extremely influential Alexandria (and its Western "satellites") and the entire Eastern portion of Christianity (the original home of Christianity) to be healed at once! Furthermore, "he detested Judaism" (p. 75, When Jesus became God and see p. 499. Rise of Christianity, Frend) and, of course, the God which Judaism, including the first Christians, had always worshiped. He therefore called a council of the bishops of the Church to work out a solution that would benefit his empire.

"This council met at Nicaea in the early summer of 325. Three hundred bishops of the Church were present .... The [pagan] Emperor presided [more often his own personal religious advisor, Bishop Hosius, actually presided] over the council and paid its expenses. ['At Nicaea the emperor provided lodging for the bishops in his palace. It was there, too, that the discussions took place, and in the presence of the emperor at that. .... It is understandable if the bishops showed their gratitude by generous efforts to oblige the emperor.' - p. 52, Lohse, Short Hist.] For the first time the Church found itself dominated by the political leadership of the head of the state."[103, 104]

2 Three views were advocated at this council. (Actually, the real question to be decided at this council was only the first step by Alexandrian philosophizers [and their Roman sympathizers] toward establishing a new doctrine of God. The question was only, "Is Jesus absolutely equal to the Father: all-powerful, always existing, and of the very same substance, or not?" The introduction of a "third person" as being equal to God was not yet being attempted officially.)

(1) Basically, Athanasius, the trinitarian from Alexandria, said,

"Yes, Jesus is absolutely equal to the Father. He has always existed beside the Father. He is of the very same substance or essence (Homoousios) [105, 106, 107] as the Father. He is absolute God and must be worshiped as God."

There was a very small minority of Western Bishops at the council who agreed with him (those most influenced by Alexandria and Neo-Platonism, including the trinitarian Bishop Hosius).[108]

(2) There was another (much larger) minority of Bishops at the council who were led by Arius. Basically, Arius said,

"Jesus is not God, although he could be called 'divine.' He was made by God (the Father alone) so there was a time when he did not exist! He was made out of nothing and is, therefore, of an entirely different substance (or Essence) from that of God. He must not be worshiped as the One True God."

(Apparently Arius also believed that in his heavenly pre-existence Jesus had been the highest of angels. But this was not an invention of Arius. It was a much earlier Christian tradition which Arius was upholding - p. 50, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Bernard Lohse, Fortress Press, 1985 - but the more recent trinitarians had rejected it.

"Traditional Christian interpretation has held that this 'angel' [the Angel of Jehovah] was a preincarnate manifestation of Christ as God's Messenger-Servant." - Gen. 16:7 footnote, NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985.)

(3) The vast majority (more than 200 bishops) of those at the Council of Nicaea were led by Eusebius of Caesarea. These were the Semi-Arians (see The American People's Encyclopedia, 1954, p. 8-207). They strongly agreed with the Arians that Jesus was not God[109, 110, 111] and must not be worshipped as God! They believed that Jesus did not always exist. Basically, they said,

"The Father (God alone) generated Jesus (not out of nothing as Arius believed, but) from a substance similar (Homoi ousios) to His own. He is not equal to God, but is subordinate to Him, [118] even though he is above all the rest of creation. Jesus must not be worshiped as the One True God."

"By contrast [with the Arians and semi-Arians], the strongest anti-Arians experienced their present as a sharp break with the past. It was they who demanded, in effect, that Christianity be "updated" by blurring or even obliterating the long-accepted distinction between the Father and the Son.

"For young militants like Athanasius, however, ... Judaism was an offensive, anti-Christian faith." - p.74, When Jesus Became God, Harcourt, 1999.

3 Notwithstanding the vast majority of bishops' unshakably strong insistence upon a non-trinitarian view of God, the determination and power of the Emperor- supported (and Alexandrian and Neo-Platonist-influenced) bishops of the West prevailed after months of stormy debates.

Eusebius of Caesarea presented the baptismal creed of his own Palestinian community to the Nicene Council. It did not satisfy the trinitarians.

"Accordingly, they [Constantine and Hosius primarily] took another baptismal creed, of much the same type as Eusebius's, and altered its text to serve their purpose, in the process creating a new, non-liturgical type of confession. .... In the text itself, they inserted the significant expressions 'true God from true God,' 'begotten not made,' 'from the substance [ousia] of the Father,' and - most important of all, as it turned out - 'of one substance [homoousios] with the Father.' .... From the very beginning, however, people like Eusebius of Caesarea had doubts about the creed, doubts that focused on the word homoousios. This was, to be sure, a vague and non-technical term which was capable of a fairly wide range of senses. [According to historian Gibbon it was a mysterious term "which either party was free to interpret according to their peculiar tenets." - p. 686, vol. 1, Random House.] It could in principle be taken to mean exact sameness of being, but it could also be taken to suggest no more than a significant degree of similarity between Father and Son [Origen, in fact, used the term to show merely a 'unity of will' between the Father and the Son [88] - p. 46, Lohse.] - which, of course, everyone was glad to affirm. On the other hand, the term was non-Scriptural, it had very doubtful theological history, and it was open to what, from Eusebius' point of view, were some dangerous misinterpretations indeed [including the one that was finally adopted and enforced by the Roman Church]." --- The trinitarians, however, assured Eusebius (and the large majority of other Bishops opposed to them) that homoousios in this new creed would not be interpreted in the way they feared.[105] - pp. 134, 135, Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church, 4th ed., Scribners, 1985.

4 After Eusebius failed to get a compromise (concerning "substance" or "essence," but which still rejected any concept promoting any equality for Jesus with God)[111, 112] and the Emperor backed the trinitarians with all his secular power, it was forcefully put to the vast majority of bishops present: sign the trinitarian statement or be exiled and treated as heretics.[113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119] It is not too surprising, therefore, that the majority of them signed (although most of them renounced it afterward).[120, 121, 122] It is surprising, in fact, that, after escaping from the Emperor's presence, so many remained faithful to their Arian and Semi-Arian beliefs. As trinitarian Christian historian Kenneth Latourette describes the situation:

"Constantine banished Arius, ordered the death penalty for those who did not conform, and commanded the burning of the books composed by Arius..." - pp. 50-51, Christianity Through the Ages, 1965, Harper ChapelBooks.

But the small minority of Western trinitarian bishops had won.

"The [new, non-Scriptural Nicene] creed achieved the aim of excluding Arianism and providing the eastern church with a formula to which all could assent in one sense or another [because of the many different meanings possible with such terms as homoousios]." - Williston Walker, History, p. 135.

"The decisions of Nicaea were really the work of a minority, and they were misunderstood and disliked by many [even those] who were not adherents of Arius. In particular the terms ['out of the substance' - exousia] and homoousios ['of the same substance'] aroused opposition, on the grounds that they were unscriptural, novel, ... and erroneous metaphysically." - p. 41, Documents of the Christian Church, 2nd ed., Bettenson, 1967, Oxford University Press.

"But [the Council of Nicaea's] formula of the Son's 'consubstantiality' [homoousios] with the Father was slow to gain general acceptance,[148] despite [Emperor] Constantine's efforts to impose it." - p. 72, The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity, John McManners, Oxford University Press, 1992.

"The Council of Nicaea, then, was not universal. Nevertheless, it is everywhere considered the first ecumenical (or universal) council of the Catholic Church. Several later gatherings would be more representative of the entire Church; one of them, the joint council of Rimini-Seleucia (359), was attended by more than five hundred bishops from both the East and West. If any meeting deserves the tilte "ecumenical," that one seems to qualify, but its result - the adoption of an Arian creed - was later repudiated by the Church. Councils whose products were later deemed unorthodox not only lost the "ecumenical" label but virtually disappeared from the official Church history." - p. 75, When Jesus Became God, Harcourt, 1999.

5 In contrast to the conduct of the trinitarians we find the conduct of the Arians and Semi-Arians during the Nicene Council (which we must read in the extremely biased accounts of the Athanasians since their opponents' accounts, records, and doctrinal evidence were destroyed by the prevailing Athanasians) to be a much more proper example for those professing to be Christian:

"The Arians .... recommended the exercise of Christian charity [love] and moderation, urged the incomprehensible nature of the controversy, disclaimed the use of any terms or definitions which could not be found in the Scriptures, and offered, by very liberal concessions, to satisfy their adversaries without renouncing the integrity of their own principles. The [trinitarians] received all their proposals with haughty suspicion and anxiously sought for some irreconcilable mark of distinction, the rejection of which might involve the Arians in the guilt and consequences of heresy. A letter was publicly read and ignominiously torn [by the trinitarians], in which [Arian] Eusebius of Nicomedia ingenuously [honestly, openly, honorably, with a superior character - Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary] confessed that the admission of the homoousion,[105, 106, 107, 108, 110] or Consubstantial [a non-Biblical, paganistic term], a word already familiar to the platonists, was incompatible with the principles of their theological system. The fortunate opportunity [for the trinitarians] was eagerly embraced by the [minority group of Western, trinitarian] bishops, who governed the resolutions of the Synod, and, according to ... Ambrose, they used the sword, which heresy itself had drawn from the scabbard, to cut off the head of the hated monster [Arianism and semi-Arianism]." - pp. 685-686, Gibbon, vol. 1, Random House.

6 In other words, trinitarian Gibbon, who admittedly dislikes the non-trinitarian Arian teaching, tells us that the Arians wished to keep peace and unity by compromising as much as they honestly could. They wanted to confine the discussion to the Scriptures alone and not introduce any philosophic and paganistic teachings.[15, 79, 107, 108, 143] And they wanted to conduct this Council or Synod in the spirit of Christian Love. But the trinitarians would have none of it and actually searched for a way to have the non-trinitarian majority persecuted as heretics! And when the Arian spokesman, in the spirit of Christian honesty and openness, wrote that one thing they simply could not compromise with was the use and potential meanings of the pagan non-Biblical term ("Homoousious" or "of equal substance" - a term introduced at the council by Emperor Constantine himself), the trinitarian bishops immediately and publicly tore up the letter and started the proceedings for heresy!

7 Which side seems more in line with the teachings of Christ and his Apostles to you? (Compare Matt. 5:5-12; 5:39; 6:14-15; Gal. 5:19-24.) Don't we find the trinitarian Athanasians - even DURING this most significant Council - more like those the Apostles warned us about at 2 Tim. 4:3-5 and 1 John 3:10-12? Don't we find the more humble, peace-loving Arians and Semi-Arians more in line with 1 John 4:17, 20, 21? Who is more like the self-righteous ones in religious authority in these scriptures: Matt. 12:9, 14; 22:15; 23:23, 34 - the Athanasians? The Arians and Semi-Arians?

"Nicaea cost the Church its independence, however, for the Church became imperial from this time and was increasingly dominated by the Emperor."[123]

"Nevertheless ... Constantine's unification of state and church did not please everyone. .... it had indeed required a mental and spiritual turnabout to belong to a church which, instead of being perpetually proscribed ["outlawed," persecuted - see 2 Tim. 3:12, John 15:19-20] was subsidized and directed from the lateran palace under the guidance of the Emperor."[124]

8 Up to this point Christians had been persecuted by those around them, including the government itself - just as foretold by Christ and the inspired Bible writers, but they would not persecute in return (also as commanded by Jesus). Then at this single stroke a new God was to be worshiped by all Christians, and these newly-proclaimed "orthodox" (trinitarian) Christians were no longer persecuted, proscribed. Those being persecuted in accord with Christ's prophecy were still the non-trinitarians who continued on the narrow road (Matt. 7:13-14) as commanded by their Lord and Savior.

"The Bishop of Rome (Pope) was given the royal palace of the Laterni [the Lateran Palace] and magnificent new churches. The liturgy borrowed imposing features from official and court ceremonial." Even "episcopal [bishops'] courts were given jurisdiction in civil cases." - Grant, pp. 220, 221.

St. Jerome's doubts about the desirability of such a position for the church echoed a feeling of disgust that went wide and deep among the members of the church:

"This feeling had ancient roots. Before official recognition of the church, many Christian writers had detested not only the Roman state but the whole Greco-Roman and particularly Greek philosophical culture in which the Alexandrians and other apologists had tried to dress the Jewish doctrines of Christianity."[125]

9 Yes, the religion which Christ himself had said was no part of the world (Jn 17:16; compare 1 Jn 2:15-17) was now gladly fusing itself wholly with that world. Protestant Church historian Neander noted,

"the consequence would be a confusion of the church with the world ... whereby the church would forfeit her purity, and, while seeming to conquer, would herself be conquered." - General History of the Christian Religion and Church, vol. 2, p. 161.

She herself had become a large part of the adulteress (or the Harlot - Rev. 17:1-6; 18:2-3) which she had been so clearly warned against.

"Ye adulteresses [ASV footnote: 'That is, who break your marriage vow to God'], know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore would be a friend of the world maketh himself an enemy of God." - James 4:4, 5, ASV.

Influences Upon The Nicene Council

10 But, to get back to the influences upon that infamous council, the most influential person at the Nicene Council was Bishop Hosius of Cordova (sometimes translated “Ossius” or “Osius of Cordoba”) who actually presided over most of the Council sessions. He was the representative for the Pope (the Bishop of Rome) and the most trusted, most influential “Christian” advisor for the Emperor himself. As the leader of the Western, Alexandria-influenced bishops he was committed to the trinity idea. It is he who ultimately convinced the Emperor to decide (against the large majority of bishops present) in favor of the “Jesus is God” doctrine.[126, 127] In fact, Constantine relied almost exclusively on this trinitarian advisor and had very little interest in the actual decision of this council (except that it must permanently resolve the religious dissension in his Empire):^{“Constantine had basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in Greek Theology” - p. 51, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Lohse, Fortress Press, 1985.

11 About 20 years before Emperor Constantine convened the Nicene (or Nicaean) Council, the famous Bishop Hosius of Cordova was the “leading spirit” of the Council of Elvira in 306 A.D.[128] As The Catholic Encyclopedia tells us:

“It is significant that the leading bishop at Elvira [Bishop Hosius] was to preside at the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325."[129]

12 It is significant indeed! Was this “leading spirit” himself guided by Holy Spirit and Holy Scripture? Well, let’s look at the results of the Council of Elvira, for, as Jesus forewarned:

“You will know them by their fruits.” - Matt. 7:16, NASB

Here, then, are the “fruits” of the Council of Elvira: its published canons. According to The Catholic Encyclopedia (p. 185),

“[The Council of Elvira] published the oldest known positive law concerning clerical celibacy."[130]

And what is “clerical celibacy”? Again The Catholic Encyclopedia (p. 100) informs us:

“Celibacy is the ecclesiastical law in the western [Roman Catholic] Church imposed on clerics forbidding ... those in holy orders from marriage.”

13 Now turn to God’s inspired word at 1 Timothy 4:1-7 (NEB):

“... some will desert from the faith and give their minds to subversive doctrines inspired by devils, through the specious falsehoods of men whose own conscience is branded with the devil’s sign.”

And exactly how can we recognize those who “desert from the faith and give their minds to subversive doctrines”?

“THEY FORBID MARRIAGE and demand abstinence from foods.” - 1 Tim. 4:3, NRSV.

Throughout the history of Biblical Israel God allowed his priests and high priests to marry (even John the Baptist’s father was a married priest - Luke chapter 1). And the Christian servants of God were permitted to marry (and remain married) throughout the writings of the New Testament Scriptures (e. g., 1 Tim. 3:2, 4) and up to the time of Hosius.

So what was it that inspired Bishop Hosius to include this God-defying command to forbid marriages in the edicts of the Roman Church? Well, 1 Tim. 4:1 clearly shows the source of that spirit, but the actual agent of that spirit at this time was the very popular and influential surrounding pagan mystery religions and philosophies!

In particular, Hosius and his Alexandrian-influenced confederates borrowed extensively from the Alexandrian trinity cult of Serapis-Isis-Horus:

“The contributions of the Alexandrine cult to Christian thought and practices were even more considerable .... Its priests took on the head-shaving [“tonsure” of Catholic priests] and the characteristic garments of the Egyptian priests, because that sort of thing seemed to be the right way of distinguishing a priest. One accretion followed another."[131]

More specifically:

“the ceremonial burning of candles ... was a part of the worship of the Serapeum .... her [Isis’] images stood in the temple, crowned as the Queen of Heaven and bearing the infant Horus in her arms. The candles flared and guttered before her and the wax ex-votos hung about the shrine. The novice was put through a long and careful preparation, he took vows of celibacy, and when he was initiated his head was shaved and he was clad in a linen garment .... The garments of ritual and symbol and formula that Christianity has worn, and still in many countries wears to this day were certainly woven in the cult and temples of Jupiter-Serapis and Isis that spread now from Alexandria throughout the civilized world.'[132, 133, 134, 135]

Rome itself was greatly influenced by its own celibate pagan priests (in addition to those of Jupiter-Serapis-Isis above which Rome also had imported).

“When the worship of Cybele, the Babylonian goddess, was introduced into Pagan Rome, it was introduced in its primitive form, with its celibate clergy.” - p. 220, The Two Babylons, Hislop.

14 And the highly-respected and very popular religion of Mithraism (which Emperor Constantine himself favored) was well-known for its celibate priests.

“Originally was one of the lesser gods of the ancient Persian pantheon, but he came to be regarded as the spiritual Sun, the heavenly Light,... and already in the time of Christ he had risen to be co-equal with, though created by, Ormuzd (Ahura-Mazda), the Supreme Being....” (pp. 136-137) “Mithraism had its austerities, .... It had also its nuns and its male CELIBATES.” - p. 143, The Paganism in our Christianity, Weigall, New York, 1974.

So we see that in both Alexandria and Rome the customary perception of a priest included the unscriptural pagan concept of celibacy!

15 For those who accept the authority of the Holy Scriptures and the testimony of history, there can be absolutely no doubt as to what “spirit” motivated Hosius, who was the “leading spirit” of the Council of Elvira, and motivated the Roman Church which accepted the paganistic doctrines he advocated. “[those who] desert the faith and who give their minds to subversive doctrines inspired by devils” include those who “forbid marriage and inculcate abstinence from certain foods.” (Incidentally that same Roman Church did “inculcate abstinence from certain foods”: The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1976, admits, in the article entitled “Abstinence”: “The law of abstinence is binding to all over 14 years of age .... It forbids the eating of meat and soups of meat stock, gravy and sauces of meat. On days of complete abstinence these foods may not be eaten at all.” - p. 17.)

“In 325 the Council of Nicaea declared that those who were unmarried at ordination could not marry afterward ....” - p. 280, The Christian Book of Why, John C. McCollister (Lutheran minister and university professor - graduate of the Trinity Lutheran Seminary), NY, 1983. - - Also see p. 660 f.n., Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, vol. 3, Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1944.

16 It becomes clear, then, why the Athanasians refused to agree to stick to the Holy Scriptures as their support for a multiple-person God during the Nicene Council: The western pagan-borrowing, Alexandrian-influenced “Christians” had been bending and ignoring Scripture for so long that it was already a clearly established pattern. Scripture had to be ignored in order to adopt popular paganisms. It should come as no surprise, then, that these paganizing Alexandria and Rome-influenced western bishops would not stick to scripture (in spite of the pleas by the majority of bishops present at the council) as the sole basis for their desired adoption of the trinity doctrine at the Nicene Council.

17 Why even during that very same council, according to Prof. McCollister above, they forced the inclusion of the pagan-inspired scripturally condemned practice of “forbidding marriage” (and “inculcating abstinence from certain foods"[135a])! This certainly shows the “fruits” of these men and the “fruits” of the Nicene Council as a whole!

18 Yes, embracing the more popular and influential pagan philosophies and religious doctrines and marrying them to god’s pure religion was more important to them than God’s inspired word. A clear example of the figurative “adultery” the Bible warns against!

19 But what about that “Christian” emperor who convened the Nicene Council and finally decided its “canons” himself? Saint Constantine some churches have named him. Was he really a trinitarian Christian? Was he a Christian at all?

As we have seen, [96, 97, 98, 99] Constantine, throughout his reign, was more pagan than Christian and didn’t even ask to be baptized as a Christian until he lay upon his death bed.

“Toward the close of his life he favored the [non-trinitarian] Arians ... and he even banished many Roman Catholic [trinitarian] bishops. In the year 337 he fell ill ..., was baptized, and died after a reign of 31 years.” - Encyclopedia Americana, p. 555, v. 7, 1944.}

^{20 Not only did Constantine “favor” the Arians in his later years and help them to dominant positions in the Church that they retained for many years after his death,[136] but he made an extremely significant gesture as he lay upon his death bed!

“Not until his last illness did he fully accept Christianity. Then he cried, ‘let there be no ambiguity!’ and asked for baptism [by an Arian, non-trinitarian bishop].” - Compton’s Pictured Encyclopedia, v. 3, p. 456, 1950.

Yes, instead of calling in his old friend and advisor, Hosius, or even Athanasius, he called for Eusebius of Nicomedia, (the leader of the Arian party since the death of Arius) to baptize him! This certainly ended any ambiguity!

“[Eusebius of Nicomedia] baptized Constantine in 337, and became patriarch of Constantinople in 339 [the capital of the empire at that time].” - Americana, 1944, v. 10, p. 585.

What a powerful and significant deathbed confession by Saint Constantine![137]

21 In other words, Constantine, upon the insistent advice of Hosius, had forced the trinitarian views of Athanasius and the Alexandrians upon a reluctant Church. Shortly after, however, he began exiling the trinitarians and restoring the Arians and Semi-Arians. Then, when he finally decided to fully become a Christian himself, he chose to be baptized as an Arian Christian to dispel any perception of ambiguity about himself and his desires for the empire.}

22 It must be made perfectly clear that the original Nicene Creed, as formulated in 325 A. D. and forced upon the Church, did not yet attempt to include the holy spirit as an equal member of a “Godhead.” The Nicene Council was just the first step in the Alexandrian process of making an official trinity for Christendom.

“...the early Church did not forthwith attain to a complete [trinity] doctrine; nor was it, in fact, until after the essential divinity [‘deity’] of Jesus had received full ecclesiastical sanction [325 A.D. or later] that the personality of the Spirit was explicitly recognized, and the doctrine of the Trinity [fully and officially] formulated. .... It is better to regard the spirit as the agency which, proceeding from the Father and the Son, dwells in the church as the witness and power of the life therein.” - Encyclopedia Americana, v. 14, p. 326, 1944-1957 (at least).

Quotes: Holy Spirit is a Force from God, Trinitarians Admit

2011-08-02T08:00:00.000-07:00

In the Old Testament (OT) it is clear that the inspired Bible writers intended holy spirit (ruah or ruach in Hebrew) to be understood as an invisible, powerful force from God. Even many trinitarian scholars will admit that.

For example, The Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 269, 1976, admits:

"In the OT the Holy Spirit means a divine power..."

And the New Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House Publishers, 1984, pp. 1136,1137, says:

"Spirit, Holy Spirit. OT, Heb. ruah 378 times ...; NT, Gk. pneuma 379 times." And "Divine power, where ruah is used to describe ... a supernatural force...." And "At its [the Old Testament's concept of ruah, God's spirit] heart is the experience of a mysterious, awesome power - the mighty invisible force of the wind, the mystery of its vitality, the otherly power that transforms - all ruah, all manifestations of divine energy." And "at this early stage [pre-Christian] of understanding, God's ruah was thought of simply as a supernatural power (under God's authority) exerting force in some direction."

The Encyclopedia Americana tells us:

"The doctrine of the Holy Spirit [as a person who is God] is a distinctly Christian [?] one.... the Spirit of Jehovah [in the OT] is the active divine principle in nature. .... But it is in the New Testament [NT] that we find the bases of the doctrine of the Spirit's personality." And "Yet the early Church did not forthwith attain to a complete doctrine; nor was it, in fact, until after the essential divinity of Jesus had received full ecclesiastical sanction [in 325 A.D. at the Council of Nicaea] that the personality of the Spirit was explicitly recognized, and the doctrine of the Trinity formulated." Also, "It is better to regard the Spirit as the agency which, proceeding from the Father and the Son, dwells in the church as the witness and power of the life therein." - Vol. 14, p. 326, 1957 ed.

And the Encyclopedia Britannica Micropaedia, 1985 ed., Vol. 6, p. 22 says:

"The Hebrew word ruah (usually translated `spirit') is often found in texts referring to the free and unhindered activity of God, .... There was, however, no explicit belief in a separate divine person in Biblical Judaism; in fact, the New Testament itself is not entirely clear in this regard....
"The definition that the Holy Spirit was a distinct divine Person equal in substance to the Father and the Son and not subordinate to them came at the Council of Constantinople in AD 381...."

Many historians and Bible scholars (most of them trinitarians) freely admit the above truth. For example: "On the whole, the New Testament, like the Old, speaks of the Spirit as a divine energy or power." - A Catholic Dictionary.

An Encyclopedia of Religion agrees:

"In the New Testament there is no direct suggestion of the Trinity. The Spirit is conceived as an impersonal power by which God effects his will through Christ." - p. 344, Virgilius Ferm, 1945 ed.

Even the trinitarian New Bible Dictionary tells us:

"It is important to realize that for the first Christians the Spirit was thought of in terms of divine power." - p. 1139, Tyndale House Publishers, 1984.

And the respected (and trinitarian) New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology confirms:

"As in earlier Jewish thought, pneuma [`spirit'] denotes that power which man experiences as relating him to the spiritual realm of reality which lies beyond ordinary observation and human control. Within this broad definition pneuma has a fairly wide range of meaning. But by far the most frequent use of pneuma in the NT (more than 250 times) is as a reference to the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit, that power which is most immediately of God as to source and nature." - p. 693.

"The Spirit in the earliest Christian Communities and in Acts. `Holy Spirit' denotes supernatural power, altering, working through, directing the believer .... This is nowhere more clearly evident than in Acts where the Spirit is presented as an almost tangible force, visible if not in itself, certainly in its effects. This power of the Spirit manifests itself in three main areas in Luke's account of the early church [Acts]. (a) The Spirit as a transforming power in conversion. [p. 698] .... (b) The Spirit of prophecy. For the first Christians, the Spirit was most characteristically a divine power manifesting itself in inspired utterance. The same power that had inspired David and the prophets in the old age (Acts 1:16; 3:18; 4:25; 28:25) [p. 699] .... (c) The Spirit was evidently experienced as a numinous power pervading the early community ....
"The Spirit in the Pauline Letters. [p. 700] .... It is important to realize that for Paul too the Spirit is a divine power whose impact upon or entrance into a life is discernible by its effects." - pp. 693-701, Vol. 3, Zondervan, 1986.

"The emergence of Trinitarian speculations in early church theology led to great difficulties in the article about the Holy Spirit. For the being-as-person of the Holy Spirit, which is evident in the New Testament as divine power ..., could not be clearly grasped.... The Holy Spirit was viewed NOT AS A PERSONAL FIGURE BUT RATHER AS A POWER" - The New Encyclopedia Britannica.

For more, see:
Holy Spirit - Links to Information

Exposing the False Reasoning Behind Holy Spirit 'Proof-Texts'

2011-07-22T09:52:00.001-07:00

Many who believe that the Holy Spirit is a person or God Himself rely only on a few selected, so-called 'proof-texts'.

The following links lead to research showing how the most frequently used so-called 'Proof Texts' are not proof of the Holy Spirit's Godhood or personhood in any way.

(Links to more guides can be found at the bottom of this list.)

Gen. 1:26
Gen. 1:26 - "Let Us Make Man in Our Image" (SFBT); This scripture prove Trinity? (SFBT); Image (Examining the Trinity); How is Man Made in God's Image? (Gen. 1:26) (SFBT); ("Let us make man in our image") - ELOHIM 3-6; I-AM 5; (Examining the Trinity)

Mt. 12:32

Blasphemy to Christ: forgiven; to HS: not - HS (Last 20 par.) (and f.n.#10 &11);(Examining the Trinity); BOWHS (f.n.) (Examining the Trinity); Matthew 12:32 "whoever says something against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven" (Examining the Trinity)

Mt. 28:19

What does Mt. 28:19 mean? (JWQ&A; Quote from WT 2002 April 1st); Mt. 28:19 "...in the NAME of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit" (Examining the Trinity); Mt. 28:19 - NWT (DNWT); Does Mt. 28:19 prove that the Holy Spirit is God? (SFBT); Concerning Mt. 28:19... (JWQ&A); 2 Cor.13:14 "Jesus", "God", "and the...Holy Spirit" (SFBT); Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew 14th century manuscripts (JWQ&A); Some comments by scholars and translators (JWQ&A); Online references that discuss the possible spurious origins of Matt. 28:19 (JWQ&A)

John 6:7-15

John 6:7-15 Holy Spirit as a "he" (Examining the Trinity); Why, in John 16:7, is the holy spirit spoken of as a "helper"? (Examining the Trinity)

Acts 5:3,4

Acts 5:3, 4 Lied to the Holy Spirit...lied to God? (Examining the Trinity); Acts 5:3 "play false" (INDNWT); The Doctrine of the Trinity and Acts 5:3, 4 (JW United); The Holy Spirit - God's Active Force (JW United)

Acts 8:29

Does Acts 8:29 prove that the Holy Spirit is a person? (SFBT)

Acts 10:38

"Anointed with Holy Spirit" (Examining the Trinity)

Acts 13:2

Acts 13:2 "The holy spirit said: “...for the work to which I have called them.'” (Examining the Trinity); The Holy Spirit "speaks" at Acts 13:2 ('Reasoning From Scripture' Archive)

Acts 28:25

Acts 28:25 "The holy spirit aptly spoke through Isaiah" (Examining the Trinity)

Rom. 8:27

Rom. 8:27 (phronema) (INDNWT); Rom. 8:27 - Why is the Greek word translated differently in the NWT? (Jehovah's Witnesses United); Rom. 8:27 "Mind of the Spirit" (Examining the Trinity)

1 Cor. 12:11

1 Cor. 12:11 "The holy spirit wills" (Examining the Trinity); Do scriptures personifying the "Holy Spirit" mean that it is a person? (SFBT)

2 Cor. 3:17
2 Cor. 3:17 "The Lord is the Spirit." (Examining the Trinity)

2 Cor. 13:14

2 Cor. 13:14 "the sharing in" (INDNWT); 2 Cor.13:14 "Jesus", "God", "and the...Holy Spirit" (SFBT); HS fn. #13 (Examining the Trinity); 2 Cor. 13:14 "Jesus", "God", "and the...Holy Spirit" (Examining the Trinity); 2 Cor.13:14 "Jesus", "God", "and the...Holy Spirit" (Examining the Trinity)

Eph. 4:30

Eph. 4:30 "Do not grieve the Holy Spirit" (Examining the Trinity); How can the Holy Spirit be "grieved"? (SFBT); What about scriptures that seem to show the Holy Spirit being personified? (SFBT)

1 John 5:7

The 'Johannine Comma' - 1 John 5:7 (INDNWT); But Your Bible's Been Changed! (From God's Word); Newton proved that the words in 1 John 5:7 were spurious... (Pastor Russell); 1 John 5:7 (KJV) (Examining the Trinity); How does the accuracy of the New World Translation Bible compare to other translations? (SFBT); 1 John 5:7 proof of the Trinity? (SFBT); "Word" and 1 John 5:7, KJV ("Oneness") (JWQ&A); "Jehovah" in the New Testament (end notes) (SFBT, 10th par. end note #1, 10th par. "Zondervan")

1 John 5:8

1 John 5:8 (Examining the Trinity); Trinitarian reasoning - water and blood persons too? (SFBT); How can the Holy Spirit be "grieved"? (SFBT); What about scriptures that seem to show the Holy Spirit being personified? (SFBT)

More material:

Trinity 'Proof' Texts Refuted (From In Defense of The New World Translation of The Holy Scriptures)

What About Trinity "Proof Texts"? (From the Official Website of Jehovah's Witnesses)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

(Still can't find what you're looking for? Try using the Scripture Index.)

The "Definite" John 1:1

2011-07-15T08:00:00.000-07:00

The "Definite" John 1:1 (View Index to this and all related papers.)

(Note: I did the bulk of the personal research for this paper and wrote the first versions containing about 90% of the present one in the late 1970's. Since then I have changed some terms such as "possessive" to "prepositional" and "mass" or "amount" nouns to "non-count nouns," etc. – RDB.)

1 Of all the evidence used by English-speaking[1] trinitarians to support their teaching of a three-in-one God, the one that is probably most used and declared to be the most straightforward and conclusive is found at John 1:1. Since we must believe that God would make such an essential understanding (John 17:3; 2 Thess. 1:8) of exactly who God is perfectly and unmistakably clear, we need to examine very closely this "clearest" evidence trinitarians are able to point to and see if it really is as clear as it must be in order to prove "the essential Christian doctrine" (Encyclopedia Britannica, p. 637, vol. 5, 14th ed.). And if this evidence should prove to be less than unmistakably clear, where would that leave all the rest of the trinitarians' "evidence"?

2 Here is John 1:1 as found in the trinitarian New International Version (NIV):

(1a) "In the beginning was the Word, (1b) and the Word was with God, (1c) and the Word was God." You can easily see that, although at first glance it seems to be saying that the Word (Jesus) was God, it does not say "(1) The Father, (2) the Son, and (3) the Holy Spirit are three Persons who equally make up the one true God." But that is the clear statement (or its equivalent) which should be repeatedly stated throughout the Bible if such an essential teaching were true. John 1:1c, however, is only a clear statement that two individuals are apparently called "God." But how clear is it even for that?

3 As usually translated it says Jesus, the Word (ho logos), was with God (ho theos). In the next breath it says he was God (theos). This is hardly a clear statement!

As Count Leo Tolstoy, the famous Russian novelist and religious philosopher, said:

"If it says that in the beginning was the ... Word, and that the Word was...with God, it is impossible to go on and say that it was God. If it was God, it could stand in no relation to God." - The Four Gospels Harmonized and Translated, p. 30.

Many trinitarian scholars, in fact, are forced to reject the interpretation that John 1:1c says that Jesus was the same "God" that he was with. Famed trinitarian scholars A. T. Robertson and B. F. Westcott, for example, were both forced to that conclusion - p. 96, Selected Notes On The Syntax Of New Testament Greek, Wallace, 3rd ed., 1981. Prof. Philip B. Harner also came to that conclusion, p. 85, JBL, vol. 92, 1973. (See the HARNER study.)

In fact, the best texts of the prologue [John 1:1-1:18] are so unclear and impossible [for trinitarians only] that some Bible scholars have even felt it necessary to say they believe there has been a copyist's error in a very early copy of this manuscript which has been copied and recopied into all the succeeding manuscripts which are still available today.

Professor Allen Wikgren (trinitarian) has shown one possibility for a copyist's error. Professor Wikgren commenting on a scripture (John 1:18) where Jesus is called "God/god" (theos) in the very oldest and best manuscripts now in existence writes:

"It is doubtful that the author would have written [`only-begotten god'], which may be a primitive, transcriptional error in the Alexandrian tradition (YC/QC)." - p. 189, A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament, 1971, United Bible Societies (UBS).

4 When trinitarian Prof. Wikgren said that a very early copyist's error may have been YC/QC, he meant that the Greek word "God" (and "god" - none of the earliest manuscripts used punctuation or beginning capitalization [e.g. "God," "Word," "Christ," etc.]) - is theos and in the earliest manuscripts this was written in abbreviated form (`QC,'[with a line over the top] an ancient manuscript form of `ths''). He is saying that the Greek word for "son" (huios) was also often written in abbreviated form as `YC' with a line over the top to show it is an abbreviation. This is the ancient form for 'us (huios, "son"). So his conclusion is that it is doubtful that Jesus would be called QC ("God" or "god") in this scripture (see the OBGOD study paper on John 1:18 for reasons why trinitarian scholars don't like Jesus being called the only-begotten god or God), but that it is more probable that a very early copyist made a slip and accidentally wrote QC ("god") for YC ("son"). (Trinitarian scholar Philip Schaff notes this same possibility in his History of the Christian Church, Eerdmans, vol. 1, p. 552, f.n. #2.)

Thus, instead of "only-begotten god (or `God')" which would occur only here at John 1:18, we would have the more familiar "only-begotten son." Whether this hypothetical error was the result of an eye-to-hand error or sloppy handwriting on the part of John (or a very early copyist) or some other reason is beside the point.

5 It is easy to see that a YC/QC change at John 1:18 could also account for the even stranger (in context) use of QC ("god") at John 1:1c. In other words, the very same copyist who, according to Wikgren, may have misread John's handwriting (or made a natural slip of the pen or had sloppy handwriting, etc.) at John 1:18 might have easily made the very same "error" at John 1:1c and so have written "and the word was a god (or `God')" instead of what John may have intended instead: "and the Word was a son."

It is also worth considering that QC would also be an abbreviated form for theios or "divine." This could be another explanation for those trinitarian Bibles which have translated Jn 1:1c as, "And the Word was divine."

And yet, as with all scripture, we must not assume that an error has been made at John 1:1c (or John 1:18) just because it is a possibility, and we may not like what it seems to be saying in the earliest manuscripts at hand. If all the oldest and best manuscripts that are available today say "and the Word was theos," then we must accept that as scripture until some older manuscript (or other real evidence) shows otherwise. I would not want to be guilty of knowingly teaching with false scripture!

Therefore, assuming, as we must for the present, that John actually wrote "and the Word was theos," we have to discover which of the actual meanings for theos was really intended: "God" or "a god."

6 Let's look at some Bible translations that differ from the majority of trinitarian translations. Some use the term "divine." (1) Trinitarian Moffatt's highly acclaimed New Translation of the Bible and (2) trinitarian Smith-Goodspeed's An American Translation both say that the Word "was divine." The translations by (3) Boehmer, (4) Stage, and (5) Menge all say the Word was "of divine being." (6) John J. McKenzie, S. J., writes in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated `the word was with the God (equals the Father), and the word was a divine being.'" - p. 317, Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1965, published with Catholic Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur.

Why have these translators refused to make a more literal translation ("the Word was God"), as many other trinitarians have done? After all, if the original Greek of a scripture is written in such a manner that it can honestly be translated into English with several different meanings (as so frequently happens), an honest translator will invariably pick the meaning that is closest to his own beliefs and prejudices. And an honest trinitarian would, therefore, translate John 1:1c as "and the Word was God" If he felt he could honestly do so! So why have some trinitarian translators refused to so translate it?

7 The Greek words, grammar, and context clues used here by John have convinced them something else was clearly intended at John 1:1c. Rather than make a highly probable error (with extremely serious consequences - John 17:3 and 2 Thess. 1:8), they have very carefully selected a word ("divine") that has several meanings.

If they had honestly believed that John was saying that Jesus is God, they certainly would not have hesitated to say "the Word was God." Why, then, did some trinitarian translators of Christendom, some of the best Bible scholars and translators in the world, choose the word "divine"? Well, what does "divine" mean? According to the best authority on word meanings it means - "1a: of or relating to God: proceeding from God...b: of or relating to a god; having the nature of a god; like a god or like that of a god." - Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 1962.

Notice that the number one meaning is "of God" or "from God." It may be that these translators have honestly felt that this understanding is correct, and John originally wrote "and the Word was of God (QY –"of God" abbreviation - instead of QC)." Or they may even have believed that the abbreviated form of QC (ancient form of ths) found in all the earliest manuscripts of John 1:1c was an abbreviation for "divine" (theios) rather than "god" (theos).

We see that the #1b meaning for "divine" would make John 1:1c read "and the Word was like a god." If these translators had that definition of "divine" in mind, we could understand John 1:1c to mean "and the Word was like a god."

8 See how the word "divine" is used in the footnotes for Genesis 18:2-8 and Gen. 1:26 in the highly trinitarian New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1977 ed.: The three angels are "divine beings" and,

"the plural us, our probably refers to the divine beings who compose God's heavenly court (1 Ki. 22:19; Job 1:6)."

Nelson's Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, Unger and White, p. 159, 1980 ed., speaking of an angel, says:

"... refers to a divine being or messenger sent to protect the three Hebrews (Dan. 3:28)."

9 Examine the explanation of the strongly trinitarian author of Christianity Through the Centuries which shows how the strongly anti-trinitarian Arius of the 4th century viewed God and Jesus:

"Arius believed that Christ was a being, created out of nothing, subordinate to the Father.... To Arius He was divine but not deity." - p. 143, Earl E. Cairns, Ph. D., 1977.

Even Arius' opponent, hyper-trinitarian Athanasius, believed that men can be divine: Speaking of Christ, "`He was made man,' said Athanasius, `that we might be made divine.'" [Some other trinitarian publications translate this as "that we might be made GOD" - A History of Christianity, Latourette, 1953.] - pp. 116-117, A Short History of the Early Church, Dr. H. R. Boer (trinitarian), 1976, Eerdmans Publishing. (Compare 2 Peter 1:4 TEV, GNB, JB, MLB, and the NT translations by Charles B. Williams, 1963 ed., and William F. Beck, 1964 ed.) Famous Christian of the 2nd century, Irenaeus, writing about certain exemplary Christian elders of the 1st and 2nd centuries, calls one of them "divine" (theios) - The Apostolic Fathers, Lightfoot and Harmer, Baker Book House, pp. 539 and 553.

And the Apostle Paul could feel a divine jealousy - 2 Cor. 11:2 RSV, MLB, CBW, NEB, Moffatt. Yes, even the greatest defender of the doctrine of the trinity of all time, Augustine, said that the Scriptures themselves "were truly divine" and he spoke of "our true divine," Moses - Book xviii, chapters 37 and 42, The City of God, pp. 646, 651, Random House, 1950.

Notice what the Encyclopedia Britannica reveals about John 1:1, Jesus, and the word "divine."

"The Logos [`the Word'] which having been in the beginning, and with God, and `divine,' had entered human life and history as the Word `made flesh.' .... but the identification of Jesus with the Logos was not tantamount to recognizing him as `God.' Neither the `Word of God' in Hebrew nomenclature nor the Logos in Greek speculation was `God,' though it was definitely `divine.'" - p. 25, vol. 13, 14th ed.

10 Now let's see how some other translations have rendered John 1:1c.

(1) The New Testament in an Improved Version (Unitarian) says: "the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."

(2) The New World Translation (Jehovah's Witnesses) says: "and the Word was a god."

(3) The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson (Christadelphian?) says in the interlinear section: "a god was the Word."

(4) The Four Gospels - A New Translation by Prof. Charles C. Torrey says: "the Word was with God, and the Word was god."

(5) Das Evangelium nach Johannes by Siegfried Shultz says: "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word."

(6) Das Evangelium nach Johannes by Johannes Schneider says: "and godlike sort was the Logos [Word]."

(7) Das Evangelium nach Johannes by Jurgen Becker says: "and a god was the Logos."

Notice how these 7 different translations use the word "god" (or `godlike'), clearly differentiating between it and the only true God!

Even the very trinitarian Greek expert, W. E. Vine, (although, for obvious reasons, he chooses not to accept it as the proper interpretation) admits that the literal translation of John 1:1c is: "a god was the Word". - p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983 printing.

Equally trinitarian Professor C. H. Dodd, director of the New English Bible project, also admits this is a proper literal translation:

"A possible translation [for John 1:1c] ... would be, `The Word was a god.' As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted." - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, vol. 28, Jan. 1977.

11 The reason Prof. Dodd still rejects "a god" as the actual meaning intended by John is simply because it upsets his trinitarian interpretations of John's Gospel! - See WT, p. 28, Oct. 15, 1993.

Highly trinitarian NT scholar Murray J. Harris also admits that grammatically John 1:1c may be properly translated, `the Word was a god,' but his trinitarian bias makes him claim that "context" will not allow such an interpretation! - p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.

Trinitarian Dr. Robert Young admits that a more literal translation of John 1:1c is "and a God[2] (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word" - p. 54, (`New Covenant' section), Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, 1977 printing.

Highly respected trinitarian scholar, author, and Bible translator, Dr. William Barclay wrote: "You could translate [John 1:1c], so far as the Greek goes: `the Word was a God'; but it seems obvious that this is so much against the whole of the rest of the New Testament that it is wrong." - p. 205, Ever yours, edited by C. L. Rawlins, Labarum Publ., 1985.

Professor Jason David BeDuhn tells us, “Grammatically, John 1:1 is not a difficult verse to translate. It follows familiar, ordinary structures of Greek expression. A lexical (‘interlinear’) translation of the controversial clause would read: ‘And the Word was a god.’ A minimal literal (‘formal equivalence’) translation would rearrange the word order to match proper English expression: ‘And the Word was a god.’ The preponderance of evidence, from Greek grammar, from literary context, and from cultural environment, supports this translation….” - p. 132, Truth in Translation, University Press of America, 2003.

And as we saw above, John J. McKenzie, S. J., writes in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated `the word was with the God (equals the Father), and the word was a divine being.'" - p. 317, Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1965, published with Catholic Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur.

12 You see, in ancient times many of God's servants had no qualms about using the word "god" or "gods" for godly men, kings, judges, and even angels.

Yes, as trinitarian scholar Dr. Robert Young tells us in the preface to Young's Analytical Concordance in the section entitled "Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation":

"65. God—is used of any one (professedly) MIGHTY, whether truly so or not, and is applied not only to the true God, but to false gods, Magistrates, judges, angels, prophets, etc., e.g. Ex. 7:1; ... John 1:1; 10:33, 34, 35; 20:28 ...." - Eerdmans Publ., 1978.

Notice how John 1:1 has been listed as an example of "God" (or "god") being applied to someone other than the true God (as in the case of "judges, angels, prophets, etc."). Dr. Young also specifically tells us that John 1:1 is literally "and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word." p. 54, Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary. Certainly a trinitarian scholar such as Dr. Young would interpret John 1:1c to mean "the Word was the true God" if he could honestly do so! Obviously he felt there was something wrong with that interpretation.

New Testament Greek expert Joseph H. Thayer also defined theos:

"[Theos] is used of whatever can in any respect be likened to God or resembles him in any way: Hebraistically, i.q. God's representative or vicegerent, of magistrates and judges." - p. 288, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.

Angels are literally called "gods" (Hebrew - elohim) at Ps. 8:5, 6. We know angels are called "gods" here because this passage is quoted at Heb. 2:6, 7, and there the word "angels" is used in New Testament Greek. In fact, the highly trinitarian NKJV actually translates the elohim of Ps. 8:5, 6 as `angels' ("For you have made him a little lower than the angels.")

The very trinitarian New American Bible (1970), St. Joseph ed., states in a footnote for Ps. 8:6:

"The angels: in Hebrew, elohim, which is the ordinary word for `God' or `the gods;' hence the ancient versions generally understood the term as referring to heavenly spirits [angels]." So how does noted trinitarian Dr. James Moffatt translate (at Ps. 8:6) this word that means "God" or "gods" and which is here applied to angels? Again, as at John 1:1, he translates the word for "God/god" as "divine"! "Yet thou hast made him little less than divine [elohim]." ("Heavenly beings," NIV - see NIVSB footnote for Heb. 2:7.)

The equally trinitarian New Bible Dictionary tells us:

"Sons (children) of God" - "a. Individuals of the class `god'.... `Son of God' in Heb. means `god' or `godlike' rather than `son of (the) God (Yahweh)'. In Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps. 29:1; 89:6, the `sons of God' [angels] form Yahweh's heavenly train or subordinates." - p. 1133, New Bible Dictionary, (second ed.), 1982. Also note p. 1134. And see "Sons of God" in Today's Dictionary of the Bible, p. 591 and An Encyclopedia of Religion, p. 726, (1945 ed.).

The NIV Study Bible [1985 ed.] states:

"In the language of the OT ... rulers and judges, as deputies of the heavenly King, could be given the honorific title `god' ... or be called `son of God'." - footnote for Ps. 82:1. And, in a footnote for Ps. 45:6, this same highly-respected trinitarian publication says: "In this psalm, which praises the [Israelite] king..., it is not unthinkable that he was called `god' as a title of honor (cf. Isa. 9:6)."

And trinitarian Murray J. Harris also admits that Ps. 45 calls the ancient Israelite king "God" (Elohim).

"It should be observed, to begin with, that to address the king as Elohim ["God" or "god"] was not to deify him. As surely as Israelites believed that the king was distinct from other men, they believed he was distinct from Elohim ["God"]. In whatever sense the king was `divine,' it was not an actual or intrinsic divinity that he possessed. Nor was the king regarded as an incarnation of Deity. Rather, he was `Yahweh's anointed {"christ" or "messiah"},' in the sense that he served as Yahweh's deputy on earth, exercising a delegated yet sovereign authority.

{Harris' footnote here says: "[Mettinger] observes that since the king does on earth what God does in heaven `one is almost tempted to speak of the king as the "image and likeness of God on earth"' (263). According to A. R. Johnson (`Divine Kingship' 42), `in Israelite thought the king was a potential "extension" of the personality of Yahweh.'"} And as anointed leader {a "messiah"} of God's chosen people, the king was, by the gracious divine will, God's adopted SON (2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 2:7; 89:27-28 [Engl. vv. 26-27]). Yet, in accounting for this unique application of the title Elohim {Ho Theos in the Septuagint} to a king, one must reckon with more than simply the king's divine election and his unique role in standing in loco dei {`in place of God'}. The king may exceptionally be addressed as `God' also because, endowed with the Spirit of Yahweh, he exhibits certain divine characteristics. .... {The psalmist} forestalls misunderstanding by indicating that the king is not elohim without qualification. Yahweh is the king's `God.' {Ps. 45:7, be sure to compare Micah 5:4 (esp. NIVSB f.n.); 2 Cor. 11:31; Eph. 1:3, 17; 1 Pet. 1:3; Rev. 3:12 where the Father is called Jesus Christ's God! - RDB} Such an explanation does not rule out the possibility that the {psalmist} is also stressing the intimate and unique relationship that exists between the king and Yahweh..." - pp. 200-201, Jesus As God.

And on p. 202 Harris also tells us:

"Another consideration that may partially explain this unique form of address {`God' or `god' in Ps. 45:6} is the relative fluidity of the term Elohim in the Hebrew Bible, where on occasion it is used of the heavenly beings around Yahweh's throne (Ps. 8:6 [Engl. v.5] [LXX, aggelous]; 97:7; 138:1), judges (Ps. 82:1, 6; cf. Ps. 58:2 [Engl. v.1] and also John 10:34-36), Moses (Exod. 7:1; cf. 4:16), and the apparition of Samuel (1 Sam. 28:13; cf. Isa. 8:19). It is also relevant to note that Isaiah 9:5 [Engl. v.6] combines the two terms used in Psalm 45 to address the king (viz., {`mighty' and `God'}) and applies the title to the ideal king of the future .... Because, then, Israelites regarded the king as God's viceroy on earth, his legitimated son who exhibited divine qualities, it is not altogether surprising that ... a Davidic king should exceptionally be given a title that was in fact not reserved exclusively for Deity." {The footnote for this point in the text says: "It is proper to speak of an `identity' between the king and God (as Egnell does, 175) only in the sense that ideally the king is godlike in his character and conduct. He is not `one' with God by nature but may become partially `one' with him in practice and may therefore not inappropriately, if only exceptionally, be called `God.'"} - p. 202, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.

Lest anyone should still think the ancient Israelite king should actually be considered absolutely equal with the one true God, Harris quotes another scholar:

"`Royal ideology reaches its highest point in this passage {Ps. 45:6}, but doubtless it is entirely right to remember in connection with this text that `one swallow does not make a summer,' and that Old Testament teaching viewed as a whole always clearly asserts the king's subordination to Yahweh'." - Harris quotes E. Jacob here in footnote #61, p. 200.

But many trinitarian apologists rarely take such sensible advice when it concerns the Bible's use of the same rarely-used terminology in connection with the king and Christ, Jesus! Carefully compare the explanations above for the ancient Israelite kings (who are also called "son," "christ," etc.) being infrequently called "God" with the equally infrequent use of that same term for Jesus.

13 Let's back up for a moment and look at Exodus 7:1 which Dr. Young (above) put in the same category as John 1:1c (i.e. "God" or "god" scripturally referring to one other than the true God). Ex. 7:1 is literally translated: "So he said, Yahweh to Moses, `See, I made you God to Pharaoh'" - The NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament. The word "God" (or "god") here is elohim in Hebrew and is the same word used for "God" when describing the only true God, Yahweh (or `Jehovah' in the English form of His Name). However, it may also be translated "a god."[3]

That is why we see so many different versions of this scripture even in trinitarian Bibles: "I have made thee a god to Pharaoh" - KJV. "I appoint you a god to Pharaoh" - MLB. "I have made you like a god for Pharaoh" - NEB. "I have made you like God" - NIV. "I made you as God" - RSV and NASB. "I have made you as God" - NAB. The Greek Septuagint Version uses the very same Greek word for "God" (or "god") as is used at John 1:1b and it too is translated "I have made thee a god to Pharao" - Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton translation published by Zondervan, 1980 printing.

Now if trinitarian Bibles can translate the literal "I made you God/god" at Ex. 7:1 into "I have made thee a god" or "I have made you like a god," then it is no less honest to translate John 1:1c as "the Word was a god" or even, "the Word was like a god" (cf. the #1b. definition for "divine" quoted above).

The meaning of Ex. 7:1 is perfectly clear to all Jews and Christians. God is telling how he made Moses a very powerful person, more powerful than any other human being at that time and a direct representative of the only true God. But suppose that some sect of Judaism or Christendom had decided to worship a multiple "God." They could have picked Moses to be one of the multiple personalities of that "God." Therefore they could worship both the Father and his Chosen One, Moses, (Ps. 106:23) as a "Binity" (two persons making up the "one" true "God"). To do this they would search the scriptures for justification. There are many they could use (or misuse); but let's examine Ex. 7:1 in this respect. They would, of course, translate it very literally: "I made you God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother is your prophet." So not only did the Father make Moses God, they would say, he even gave that God his own prophet. What could be a clearer statement, these "Binitarians" would say, of Moses' Godhood? One of them could even describe Moses who was "with God" (2 Chron. 15:2; Ex. 3:12; Josh. 1:5) in the beginning (of the formation of the nation of Israel) like this: "In the beginning was the Chosen One (Ps. 106:23), and the Chosen One was with God (Josh. 1:5), and the Chosen One was God (Ex. 7:1)." In view of the scriptures cited Moses could have been described that way in Biblical Greek or Hebrew, but the more appropriate translation would be "In the beginning was the Chosen One, and the Chosen One was with God, and the Chosen One was a god (or `like a god')."

14 The Hebrew word elohim is the word most often translated "God" in the Old Testament. It is also used at 1 Sam. 28:13. It is used to describe what the spirit medium told Saul that she "saw." In describing what she said was the "spirit" of the dead Samuel, she called it elohim.

Here is how that word (elohim) has been translated in various Bibles at 1 Sam. 28:13:

1. "gods" - KJV
2. "a god" - RSV - "the word `god' here [in the RSV] means a being from another world."
(footnote in The New Oxford Annotated Bible - An Ecumenical Study Bible, Oxford University Press, 1977).
3. "a god" - ("or `a divine being'." - footnote) Rotherham's Emphasized Bible.
4. "a godlike being" - The Holy Scriptures, JPS.
5. "a godlike being" - ("a divine being" - footnote) Englishman's Hebrew-English Old Testament, Zondervan.
6. "a preternatural being" - NAB.
7. "a godlike form" - MLB.
8. "a spirit" - NIV, GNB, and NKJV.
9. "a DIVINE BEING" ("or, god" - footnote, NASB) - NASB and NRSV.
10. "a god" - King James II Version; Moffatt; and Byington.

It's not too surprising, then, that even the famed trinitarian Lutheran Bible scholar, Franz Delitzsch, in his translation of Acts 28:6 into Hebrew has used elohim without the article for "a god"! Also, in that same translation Delitzsch has used elohim without the article at John 1:1c - "the Word was [elohim]" - Hebrew New Testament, Franz Delitzsch, The Trinitarian Bible Society, London.

15 We see influential members of Christendom calling other godly men "god" in the very early history of the Church.[1] (See the MYGOD study paper.) St. Augustine, for example, showed this understanding of the meaning of "god." Writing around 410 A.D. and speaking of godly men, he said:

"For created gods are gods not by virtue of what is in themselves, but by a participation of the True God." - The City of God, Book XIV, Chapter 13, as quoted in On The Two Cities, pp. 60-61. (Also see Book IX, Ch. 23, where Augustine says that godly men and angels are gods!)

Even earlier was the Christian who wrote the Epistle to Diognetus. Dr. Boer in his A Short History of the Early Church, p. 50, 1976 ed., says:

"The Apologists presented the Christian faith to their readers with dignity and simplicity. The author of the Epistle to Diognetus, writing about 150 A.D., describes the manner in which the Father sent the Word into the world in this way: `Did he send him, as a man might think, on a mission of domination and fear and terror? Indeed he did not, but...as a King sending his own son who is himself a king; he sent him as God'."

16 Now trinitarian Boer himself admits that this letter was written long before the trinity doctrine had even been developed by "the Church" (see HIST study). And Boer further admits:

"Justin and the other Apologists [including, of course, the writer of the Epistle to Diognetus] therefore taught that the Son is a creature. He is a high creature, a creature powerful enough to create the world, but nevertheless, a creature. In theology this relationship of the Son to the Father is called Subordinationism. The Son is subordinate, that is, secondary to dependent upon, and caused by the Father." - p. 110, A Short History of the Early Church, Eerdmans (trinitarian), 1976.

"Before the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) all theologians viewed the Son as in one way or another subordinate to the Father." - pp. 112-113, Eerdman's Handbook to the History of Christianity (Trinitarian), 1977; and p. 114, The History of Christianity, A Lion Handbook, Lion Publishing, 1990 revised ed.

It is therefore more than a little strange that the author of this very early Christian letter would actually call Jesus "God"!

17 When we examine the actual Greek text of this very early Christian letter the mystery is solved. The writer of this letter has used theos without the article ("a god") at this verse (7:4) and at 10:6. In fact, the Encyclopedia Britannica translates verse 10:6 as

"If thou too wouldst have this faith, learn first the knowledge of the Father [see John 17:3]...knowing Him, thou wilt love Him and imitate his goodness; and marvel not if a man can imitate God: he can if God will. By kindness to the needy, by giving them what God has given to him, a man can become a god [theos without the definite article] of them that receive, an imitator of God." - p. 395, vol. 7, 14th ed. (Also see Early Christian Writings, Staniforth, Dorset Press, p. 181, and The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Roberts and Donaldson, p. 29, vol. 1, Eerdmans, 1993 printing.)

So, not only has this early Christian author taught that a Christian who truly helps his neighbor "becomes a god [theos without the article and coming before the verb in the Greek]," but at the verse in question (7:4) he clearly says about Jesus that the Father "sent him as a god [theos without the article]." - see The Apostolic Fathers, Lightfoot and Harmer, pp. 495, 498, Baker Book House.

Yes, when we see how this first (or second) century Christian used theos without the article for men (10:6), we then know that he really said at verse 7:4: "The Father sent the Word into the world in this way:....he sent him as a god"! - - - - - Compare this description of "the Word" with that of John 1:1.

Also, Clement of Alexandria (circa 150 A. D. - 215 A. D.) was "one of the most learned fathers of the church". - Encyclopedia Americana, 1957, vol. 7, p. 87a.

The Encyclopedia Britannica tells us that Clement of Alexandria taught that the object of Christ's incarnation and death

`was to free man from sin ... and thus in the end elevate him to the position of a god.' - p. 799, vol. 5, Britannica., 14th ed.

Yes, Clement wrote:

"that man with whom the Logos dwells...becomes ['a god']" (Compare John 1:1). And "the Logos of God became man that from [a] man you might learn how man may become ['a god']." - quoted in The Mystery Religions by S. Angus, p. 106, 1975 ed., Dover Publications.

This same publication explains,

"We should remind ourselves that though `God' [or, more properly, `a god'] is the literal rendering of theos [Greek] or deus [Latin], `Divine' might better convey to our minds what these terms conveyed to the minds of men living in the Graeco-Roman world [of the first centuries A.D.], to whom they were of a more fluid nature than they have since long become in scholastic theology." - p. 107.

18 All of this shows (for the first 400 years of Church history, at least) that many of those early writers (including Origen, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus[4], Clement of Alexandria, Theophilus, the writer of `The Epistle to Diognetus,' and even super-trinitarians Athanasius and St. Augustine of the 4th and 5th centuries) continued to use the term theos (without the article) as John sometimes did ("a god"). They saw nothing wrong with calling certain men "gods" if they were sincerely trying to follow God and be his representatives or ambassadors. Just because it sounds strange to our ears today in modern English is no reason to ignore the facts!

This is a fact acknowledged by even the most trinitarian experts:

Some of these trinitarian sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, faithful Israelite kings, etc.) and God's angels as gods (or a god) include:

1. Young's Analytical Concordance of the Bible, "Hints and Helps...," Eerdmans, 1978 reprint;

2. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #430, Hebrew & Chaldee Dict., Abingdon, 1974;

3. New Bible Dictionary, p. 1133, Tyndale House Publ., 1984;

4. Today's Dictionary of the Bible, p. 208, Bethany House Publ., 1982;

5. Hastings' A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 217, Vol. 2;

6. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 43, Hendrickson publ.,1979;

7. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, #2316 (4.), Thayer, Baker Book House, 1984 printing;

8. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 132, Vol. 1; & p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984;

9. The NIV Study Bible, footnotes for Ps. 45:6; Ps. 82:1, 6; & Jn 10:34; Zondervan, 1985;

10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7, 1970 ed.;

11. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. 5, pp. 188-189;

12. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 317, 324, Nelson Publ., 1980 printing;

13. Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God, p. 202, Baker Book House, 1992;

14. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, V. 2, Daily Study Bible Series, pp. 77, 78, Westminster Press, 1975;

15. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (John 10:34 & Ps. 82:6);

16. The Fourfold Gospel (Note for John 10:35);

17. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Jamieson, Fausset, Brown
(John 10:34-36);

18. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:6-8 and John 10:35);

19. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:1).

20. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ('Little Kittel'), - p. 328, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.

21. The Expositor's Greek Testament, pp. 794-795, Vol. 1, Eerdmans Publishing Co.

22. The Amplified Bible, Ps. 82:1, 6 and John 10:34, 35, Zondervan Publ., 1965.

23. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, John 10:34, 35.

24. B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament, John 10:34-36.

(also John 10:34, 35 - CEV: TEV; GodsWord; The Message; NLT; NIRV; David Guzik - http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1080614802-6850.html#132

Pastor Jon Courson, The Gospel According to John - http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1080614376-7939.html)

19 Even distinguished NT scholar (trinitarian) Robert M. Grant, when discussing the writings of the noted 2nd century Christian, Theophilus, said that this respected early Christian wrote that if Adam had remained faithful, he would have become `perfect' and would have been `declared a god'! Dr. Grant then added that this corresponds with Jesus! So this highly respected trinitarian NT scholar admits that Jesus himself was called a god in John's Gospel. - p. 171, Greek Apologists of the Second Century, The Westminster Press, 1988. being `declared a god' elsewhere in the Gospel of John
A careful study of the Logos [Word] concept, as the first readers of John's Gospel were already familiar with it, shows that they clearly understood the Word [Logos] to be "the Son of God," "Firstborn of God," "with God," and "a god" but certainly not God Himself.

Remember what the Encyclopedia Britannica said about the Logos of Jn 1:1:

"The Logos [`the Word'] which having been in the beginning, and with God, and `divine,' had entered human life and history as the word `made flesh'. .... but the identification of Jesus with the Logos was not tantamount to recognizing him as `God.'

Yes, and this is highly significant for a proper understanding of Jn 1:1 - those Hellenistic Jews to whom John was first writing his Gospel were very familiar with the only Bible-based, Jewish concept of the Logos at that time.

20 The writings and teachings of the famed Jewish philosopher Philo were known throughout the world of the Hellenistic Jews. Philo taught that only the Father was God (ho theos - "the god") and that the Logos ("the Word") was "the Son of God," the "mediator between God and man," "the firstborn Son," the one "through whom the cosmos was created," the one who was created by God and who was "with God" in the beginning but was not God.

Philo used the word theos to describe this Logos, but he always used it WITHOUT the article: theos, "a god." And he always used theos WITH the article (ho theos), "the god" to describe the one who alone was truly God (the Father). - See the LOGOS study paper.

This is what was already understood by those for whom the Gospel of John was written. When they read the Prologue of the Gospel of John there was no mystery, no need of explanations. They already had a concept of the Logos, and that is why John made no explanations concerning his use of the term (which seems so baffling to so many trinitarian apologists today). And the understanding of these Hellenistic Jews was that "the Logos was with God in the beginning, and he was a god"!

If John didn't want this understanding, he would have made it very certain by carefully wording it and explaining that he was using the Logos concept differently from the way they would naturally understand it. But he makes no changes, no explanations! The Logos is"a god"!

21 William Barclay, "world-renowned Scottish New Testament interpreter, was noted as a profound scholar and a writer of extraordinary gifts. .... He was the minister of Trinity Church, Renfrew, Scotland, and later, Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism at the University of Glasgow."

Barclay comments on John 1:1c in Many Witnesses, One Lord, 1973 ed., pp. 23, 24:

"theos [at John 1:1c] has not got the definite article in front of it. When a Greek noun has not got the article in front of it, it becomes rather a description than an identification, and has the character of an adjective rather than of a noun.... John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God."

This world-renowned scholar, translator, and trinitarian minister of the Trinity Church has written a famous study guide on the New Testament called The Daily Study Bible Series.

Barclay, like a number of other respected trinitarian scholars and translators (see the QUAL and HARNER studies), has attempted to resolve the impossibilities of the "orthodox" trinitarian interpretation of John 1:1.

In his Daily Study Bible Series: The Gospel of John (volumes 1 and 2), Westminster Press, 1975, Barclay tells us:

"When John said `the Word was God' he was not saying that Jesus was identical with God; he was saying...that in him we perfectly see what God is like." - p. 39, vol. 1.
He further clarifies this understanding on pp. 143-144, 161-162, of vol. 2:

"An ambassador does not go out as a private individual armed with only his own personal qualities and qualifications. He goes out with all the honour and glory of his country upon him. To listen to him is to listen to his country; to honour him is to honour the country he represents; to welcome him is to welcome the ruler who sent him out." - pp. 143-144.

"Jesus goes on to say something else. One thing no Jew would ever lose was the grip of sheer loneliness of God. The Jews were unswerving monotheists [they believed God is one single person, the Father alone, Jehovah]. The danger of the Christian faith is that we may set up Jesus as a kind of secondary God. But Jesus himself insists that the things he said and the things he did did not come from his own initiative or his own power or his own knowledge but from God. His words were God's voice speaking to men; His deeds were God's power flowing through him to men. He was the channel by which God came to men.

"Let us take two simple and imperfect analogies, from the relationship between student and teacher. Dr. Lewis Muirhead said of that great Christian and expositor, A. B. Bruce, that men `came to see in the man the glory of God.' Every teacher has the responsibility of transmitting something of the glory of his subject to those who listen to him; and he who teaches about Jesus Christ can, if he is Saint enough, transmit the vision and the presence of God to his students. That is what A. B. Bruce did, and in an infinitely greater way that is what Jesus did. He transmitted the glory and the love of God to men."

".... Sometimes if a divinity student has been trained by a great preacher whom he loves, we will see in the student something of the teacher and hear something of his voice. Jesus did something like that only immeasurably more so. He brought God's accent, God's message, God's mind, God's heart to men.

"We must every now and then remember, that all is of God. It was not a self-chosen expedition to the world which Jesus made. He did not do it to soften a hard heart in God. He came because God sent him, because God so loved the world. At the back of Jesus, and in him, there is God." - pp. 161-162, vol. 2.

22 This particular trinitarian "defense" tells us that Jesus is not actually God himself but instead perfectly represents that God. The ambassador is representing the one who sent him and speaks that one's thoughts and commands, but the ambassador is not the ruler who sent him - merely a representative!

This type of defense by some of the very best trinitarian scholars probably explains such popular Bible translations of John 1:1c as: "What God was, the Word was." - NEB, and "He was the same as God" - TEV and GNB, and may also be the reason for "divine" in some translations of John 1:1c.

But, remember, no matter how well anyone (whether man, angel, or Jesus himself) represents God he is still not God! And if we want everlasting life we must know God (John 17:3) and not confuse him with his representative (no matter how good that representative may be)!

23 As this highly respected trinitarian scholar, Barclay, puts it:

"Jesus's glory lay in the fact that, from his life, men recognized his special relationship with God. They saw that no one could live as he did unless he was uniquely near to God [Jn 1:1; 1:18]. As with Christ, it is our glory when men see in us the reflection of God." - p. 220, vol.2.

Or, as he more succinctly states it: "in Jesus we see the picture of God" - p. 153, vol. 2.

But we must never forget: we must never give the worship due God himself to a picture of God!! No matter how good the picture, it is still idolatry! (See "Christ, who is the image of God")

John 1:1 and the Use of the Article With Theos

24 The importance of the definite article (the word "the" in English; ho in NT Greek) when it is used with the Greek word for "God"/"god" (theos in Greek) is a major point of disagreement between non-trinitarians and some trinitarians when they discuss John 1:1 where theos appears without the article.

A few trinitarians will even deny the significance of the article ("the") and say that theos is usually translated as "God" whether it has the article or not, and, therefore, even though there is no article with theos at John 1:1, the probability (they say) is very high that theos in John 1:1 means "God" and not "god" (or "a god").

25 Most trinitarian scholars, however, will admit the importance of the article when distinguishing between "the only true God" and "a god" ("a mighty one"). However, some of them will attempt to prove that the article is properly understood to be there because of the "peculiarity" of the Greek grammar used at John 1:1c. Therefore, they will tell you, since the article is "understood" to be with theos at John 1:1c, then the Word is the God (the "understood" article showing that the only true God was meant)!

26 Let's start by looking at the first statement. Is it true that the use of the article with theos (in the nominative case, theos, as used at John 1:1c) makes little or no difference in distinguishing between "god" and "God"? - (See the THEON ["RDB's Rule"] study for significance of the article usage in the accusative case - theon - and lack of significance of the article usage in the genitive case - theou.)

Here's what Professor J. G. Machen says in his New Testament Greek for Beginners, p. 35:

"The use of the article in Greek corresponds roughly to the use of the definite article in English. Thus [logos,] means `a word'; [ho logos] means `the word'."- Macmillan, 1951.

So, basically, the word "the" (the definite article, ho in NT Greek, when used with a singular masculine nominative case noun - such as theos) shows that the noun it is used with is one certain, special thing. "The boss" is one certain individual, whereas "a boss" is indefinite and could be any one of millions of individuals.

If we examine all the uses of "God" and "god" in the nominative case (theos - the same form found at Jn 1:1c, not theou, theo, etc.) in all the writings of the Gospel writers, we see that it always has the article ("the" or ho in NT Greek) with it when the inspired Bible writer is referring to the God of the Bible [5]. Therefore it is of essential importance to know if John intended that the definite article really should be "understood" to be with theos at Jn 1:1c.

Grammatical "Rules" for a Definite John 1:1c

27 Many trinitarian defenses (or offenses) for their favored translation of John 1:1c pretend to refer to rules of Greek grammar. Many people, trinitarian and non-trinitarian alike, are afraid to begin a study of anything that sounds so difficult. But take heart! It really isn't nearly as difficult as it sounds to understand the so-called rules of Greek grammar that are involved and to prove them false to anyone who is willing to listen.

28 The first thing you need is any good interlinear Greek-English version of the New Testament Christian Greek Scriptures. You can obtain a trinitarian-biased interlinear from most Bible book stores. Or you can get a non-trinitarian-biased interlinear from any Jehovah's Witness (at a much more reasonable cost).

You may also need the use of several different Bible translations (public libraries usually have these for checkout) and a very brief refresher course in the meaning of a few words that may sound intimidating at first but that are really quite simple.

29 A "rule" preferred by some trinitarians for "proving" that Jesus is called "God" at John 1:1c is called "Colwell's Rule." This "rule" was first developed by E. C. Colwell and published by him in the Journal of Biblical Literature in 1933.

To understand Colwell's Rule we need to learn (or review) the meanings of 5 terms:

(1) The DEFINITE ARTICLE is simply the word "the" in English. In NT Greek the definite article is oJ (or ho) when it used with a singular masculine predicate noun (such as "God").

(2) The INDEFINITE ARTICLE is simply the word "a" (or "an") in English. There is no indefinite article in Greek. However, it is usually provided by the English translator when there is no definite article present with a noun in the original Greek - see below.

(3) The BE VERBS are all the different ways we use "be" in English. For example, we say "I am tall" instead of "I be tall." Instead of "they be tall" we say "they are tall" or "they were tall." Here, then, are the most-used "be verbs": Am, is, are, was, were, be, been.

(4) The SUBJECT is the person or thing which is "doing" the verb in a sentence. For example: "He is a man." Who or what is "doing" the "be verb" in that sentence? "He" is; so the word "He" is "doing" the verb "is," and, therefore, "He" is the subject.

Therefore, "cow" in "the purple cow was his pet" is the subject. And "house" in "my old house is now a restaurant" is the subject.

(5) The PREDICATE NOUN (also called the predicate nominative) is the person or thing which is the same as the subject and usually follows a be verb in the English language. If the sentence has a be verb as the only verb (or as the main verb), then the predicate noun (if there is one in that sentence) can easily be found by following this formula:

(A) Say the subject.

(B) Say the be verb.

(C) Ask, "What?".

For example: "He is a man." "He" is the subject (it's "doing" the be verb "is"). So (A) say the subject ("He"), and (B) say the be verb ("is"), and (C) ask "what?": "He is what?"

The answer is "man," so "man" is the predicate noun. Remember that, like the subject, the predicate noun must be a person or thing (not a describing word like "tall," "green," "good," "seven," etc.).

Word Order

30 The predicate noun in English is nearly always found after the be verb. In the ancient Greek manuscripts of the Bible, however, the predicate noun frequently comes before (precedes) the be verb. For example, at John 18:37a John writes in NT Greek: "king are you." Notice that the subject "you" comes after the verb and the predicate noun "king" is before the be verb "are." This is correctly translated into English as "You are a king" - NIV. Since there is no definite article ("the") with "king," English-language translators properly supply an indefinite article ("a king"). - see any Bible, John 18:37a. This is also the case at John 1:1c where the predicate noun (theos) comes before (precedes) the be verb ("was"): "and god [theos] was the word." We see that here at John 1:1c the predicate noun precedes the verb and the subject follows the verb.

If you have gone over the 5 terms above until you are certain of their meanings, you will have no trouble understanding Colwell's Rule (and no trouble disproving it!).
Here, then, is how Bowser (What Every Jehovah's Witness Should Know) quotes Colwell's Rule:

"`The absence of the [definite] article does not make the predicate [noun] indefinite when it precedes the verb.'" - p. 57, material in brackets added for clarity.

Bowser then adds:

"Even a casual look at the Greek text in John 1 shows that the predicate [noun] `God' precedes the verb `was' and consequently the testimony of John is that `the Word was God.'"(Cf. p. 99, So Many Versions, Kubo & Specht, Zondervan Publ., 1983.)

31 Remember that we have already seen in all the Gospels and all the writings of John that when "the only true God" is intended (in non-"preposition-modified" nominative form) a definite article is used with it: "the God."[5] And, when "a god" is meant, there is no definite article with the word. So Bowser, by adding his own interpretation, has made it appear that Colwell's Rule insists that, if the predicate noun comes before the verb, it must be translated as though it had a definite article! In the case of John 1:1c that would mean that even though "god" (theos) does not have an article with it in the Greek (which would normally mean that "a god" was intended), it must be translated as though it did and therefore must be translated "The Word was the god." And since the definite article coming before "god" (theos) means the only true God is being spoken of, then John 1:1c must mean "The Word was God."

It's obvious, then, that it all boils down to whether a definite article ("the") must be understood to be with theos or not at John 1:1c.

32 But notice what Colwell himself really said. Colwell published his rule in a 1933 JBL article entitled, "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament." In that article he wrote: "A predicate nominative [or predicate noun] which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a `qualitative' noun solely because of the absence of the article; if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun in spite of the absence of the article." - p. 20, JBL, 1933, vol. 52.

Nowhere did Colwell ever say that all (nor even most) predicate nouns that precede the verb in NT Greek are definite nouns. Not any inviolable rule of NT Greek grammar, but context alone, says Colwell, must guide the translator in such cases. And, as we have already seen (and according to some of the best trinitarian scholars themselves - see the QUAL study), the context of John 1:1 makes it clear that if the Word were with the God of the Bible he could not himself be that God. Even context alone makes it certain that John meant "the Word was a god."

33 But let's return to the trinitarian misinterpretation of Colwell's Rule: "a predicate noun that has no definite article must be considered definite anyway when it comes before the verb in NT Greek."

One of the first things a beginning student of New Testament Greek learns is that word order has very little, if any, significance as far as the meaning is concerned. (This is especially true when one is examining nominative case nouns - see the THEON study.) For example, respected NT Greek authorities, Dr. Alfred Marshall and Prof. J. Gresham Machen tell us in their NT Greek primers that, unlike English, NT Greek does not use word order to convey meanings but instead uses the individual endings on each word (inflections).

"The English translation must be determined by observing the [Greek word] endings, not by observing the [word] order." - New Testament Greek for Beginners, Machen, p. 27. (cf. New Testament Greek Primer, Marshall, pp. 7, 22 and p. 417, A. T. Robertson.)

And in a later example illustrating predicate nouns Prof. Machen gave this example: "ho apostolos anthropos estin [word-for-word translation: `the apostle man is']," and he translated that sentence (which has an anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb as in John 1:1c) as "the apostle is a man." - p. 50, New Testament Greek For Beginners, The Macmillan Company, 1951. Also see p. 148, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, where trinitarians Dana and Mantey translate an example they admit is parallel to John 1:1c as "And the place was a market," The Macmillan Company (see PRIMER pp. 1-2 for similar examples).[6]

34 But even if you haven't even begun studying NT Greek, you can prove the trinitarian misinterpretation of Colwell's Rule to be completely false simply by actually going through the Gospel of John in a Greek-English Interlinear New Testament and finding all the places where a predicate noun precedes the be verb. (Skim through and find all the `be' verbs, then see if there is a predicate noun that has no definite article coming before that verb. Then check all Bible translations to see if that predicate noun is translated with a definite article or not.) - For a detailed examination of all proper examples (those most equivalent to Jn 1:1c) see the Appendix of this paper.

35 Personal names such as "Jesus," "Abraham," "Mary," etc. should not be included as they may take a definite article in NT Greek or not according to the whim of the writer and yet in English are always translated without the definite article.[7]

We also need to be aware that a definite plural noun when translated into English uses the definite article ("the men"), but the indefinite plural noun does not take an indefinite English article ("men").

And more confusing yet are nouns which are not "countable" (that is, they are things that are found in indeterminate amounts: "soup," "flesh," "blood," "wine," "honey," etc. rather than things we can count: "three cows," "two peas," "ten prophets," etc.) but may also be treated as plurals. Since the use of plural examples can be so confusing concerning the definite and indefinite articles in English translations (and since plurals were not used at Jn 1:1c anyway), I try to avoid using them as proper examples. And I avoid even more strongly the ambiguous, confusing "amount" nouns as proper examples. [[More recently, I have discovered that others have called these "amount" nouns "non-count" nouns. Examples of count nouns include "flesh," "blood," "wine," "wheat," "soup," "water," "gold," "silver," etc. Most confusing are words which have more than one meaning: one as a count noun and one as a non-count noun. For example, "stone" may be considerd as a mass: "the house was made of stone." In that example "stone" would be a non-count noun. But when used in a different sense ("he picked up a stone"), it is a count noun! We find these examples in English: "spirit," "hair," "marble," "light," etc. ]]

36 We must also remember the problem with "possessive" (or prepositional) constructions.[8] They, like personal names, should not be included in our listing of all the proper examples of John's use of predicate nouns coming before the verb. Colwell used such improper "prepositional" examples almost exclusively to "prove" his rule.

We should also know that some scholars, like trinitarian P. B. Harner, exclude predicate nouns that are with numerals ("three angels") as also having irregular article usage - see p. 76 f.n., JBL, vol. 92, 1973 [or HARNJBL]. (Some writers even had irregular article usage with nouns modified by any adjective.) I have also noticed that trinitarian scholars Wallace (1981), Harner, and even Colwell himself (and perhaps all Bible language scholars) do not include the 5 "TIME/SEASON" predicate nouns (John 5:10; 10:22 [10:23 in some Bibles]; 19:31; and 1 John 2:18 [2 occurrences]) [9]. Appositives, too, exhibit article irregularity [10]. Therefore, I have excluded these from my lists of article-dependent constructions.

37 You will find that when John uses an unmodified predicate noun (without a definite article) before the verb (as in Jn 1:1c), most Bible translators (trinitarian and non-trinitarian alike) translate it as an indefinite noun (often even in spite of ambiguous contexts) just as the New World Translation has done at John 1:1c. For example: John 4:19 "...you are a prophet" (compare all Bible translations). Also see John 6:70; John 8:44 (a); John 9:24; John 10:1; etc.

Let's look in more detail at John's use (or lack thereof) of the definite article with other titles applied to Jesus which are used as in Colwell's Rule.

All the uses of the word "prophet" in which John used the predicate noun ("prophet") before the verb are (1) John 1:21, (2) John 4:19, and (3) John 9:17. According to Colwell's Rule, then, it would be senseless for John to have used the article with "prophet" since it is automatically "understood" to be there! In other words, Colwell's Rule (as "interpreted" by some trinitarians, at least) would have "prophet" written without a definite article and translated as "the Prophet" (not "a prophet")! So, let's examine every usage of "prophet" when used this way by John.

(1) John 1:21 reads literally in the original NT Greek: "The prophet are you?". Why would John have used the article ("the") here when Colwell's Rule virtually precludes it? He used the definite article because John did not know of Colwell's "rule" or anything even remotely similar.

He used it because the article was needed even though the predicate noun came before the verb. At the very least John wanted us to be absolutely certain of what he meant and, therefore, had to use the definite article. By not using it, there would surely have been doubt (unless Colwell's Rule had really existed) as to whether he intended "a prophet" or "the Prophet." So John used the article to make sure we understood that John the Baptist was being asked if he were the Prophet. (Not only do all trinitarian Bibles make "the Prophet" definite at John 1:21, but many - including NIV, TEV, GNB, REB, NKJV, JB, NJB, NASB, AT, NAB [1970 & 1991 editions], LB, KJIIV, Moffatt, and Phillips - actually CAPITALIZE "Prophet" and, thereby, show the truly one-of-a-kind nature intended by this term: truly comparable to "God" vs. "a god.") Compare the articular post-verb "the Prophet" at Jn 7:40.

"The Prophet," of course, referred to the Messiah (see p. 894, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, W. E. Vine, 1983 printing; p. 130, Today's Dictionary of the Bible, 1982, Bethany House Publ.; and pp. 765, 770, 984, New Bible Dictionary, 2nd ed., 1982, Tyndale House Publ.). So this is a title which properly applies to Jesus (even though John the Baptist was the one being questioned at this point) and was understood in the highest, one-of-a-kind sense: "The Prophet of prophets."

Dr. William Barclay, highly-respected trinitarian NT scholar tells us about `the Prophet' of Jn 1:21 -

"[The Jews] waited and longed for the emergence of the prophet who would be the greatest of all prophets, the Prophet par excellence. But once again John denied that this honor was his." - The Gospel of John, vol. 1, revised ed., The Daily Study Bible Series, 1975.

This verse (Jn 1:21 - "The Prophet") probably, then, provides the best comparison with the "God"/"a god" understanding of the Bible writers. "The Prophet" of John 1:21 is a title for a prophet who is "The Prophet of prophets" in the highest, one-of-a-kind sense just as The God is "The God of gods" in the highest, one-of-a-kind sense. - Be sure to analyze Mark 11:32 also.[11]

(2) John 4:19 reads literally in the original Greek: "I am beholding that prophet are you." This time John did not use the article with "prophet." So, Colwell's Rule shows that "prophet" should be translated into English with an understood "the" because the predicate noun "prophet" came before the verb, right?....... WRONG! Look at any translation.

In the Bible translations I have examined (including KJV, RSV, NRSV, TEV, GNB, NEB, REB, NIV, NASB, JB, and NJB) it is always translated: "I see you are a prophet." (None of those translations have capitalized "prophet" at this scripture.) This is identical to the construction in John 1:1c. (Not only does the predicate noun come before the verb, but the subject comes after the verb exactly as in John 1:1c.)

Now let's examine the only other instance where John uses "prophet" as a predicate noun coming before the verb.

(3) John 9:17 reads literally in the Greek: "The [man] but said that `prophet he is.'" Again Colwell's Rule insists (according to some trinitarian interpretations) that the predicate noun "prophet" be translated with an "understood" definite article. So all trinitarian translations of this verse must say: "The man said, `He is the Prophet.'" Right?.... Wrong again! Look at any Bible translation of John 9:17.

In the 16 different translations I have examined it is always translated: "The man said, `He is a prophet.'" Notice that even the context is not decisive in this case!

So a person must ask himself, why would the Apostle John use the article with an important title for Jesus ("The Prophet") at John 1:21 and not use it with an even more important (according to some trinitarian interpretations) title for Jesus (theos) at John 1:1c ? If "prophet" must have the article with it before it can be translated "the Prophet" (John 1:21) even though it is a predicate noun coming before the verb, and it is consistently translated "a prophet" (John 4:19 and John 9:17) in trinitarian translations when it does not have the article with it, then it should certainly be no surprise to any NT Greek scholar or translator when an honest translator renders the identical construction at John 1:1c as "and the Word was a god"! A study of all John's writings simply does not allow for the trinitarian interpretation: "and the Word was God (or `the God')"!

We can also find that all the uses of the word "king" in which John used the predicate noun ("king") before the verb are found at John 18:37. (Actually he used one more, but it is with a "possessive" construction - Jn 1:49.) The two uses at John 18:37 read literally in the Greek: "said therefore to him the Pilate... `king are you?'." And Jesus answered "You are saying that king I am."

Again we would expect (if Colwell's Rule had any real significance) this to be translated: "Pilate said to him, `Are you the King?'" and Jesus answered "you are saying I am the King." But see how it is actually translated even by trinitarian translators: "Are you a king, then?" and "You are saying I am a king." Yes, all 16 Bible translations I have checked rendered it "a king." Not one of them even capitalized it (not "the King" nor even just "King"). Again, notice that not even context would be decisive in determining the proper meaning in this case. And still not even one of the trinitarian Bible translators chose to use "Colwell's Rule"!

38 It may be worthwhile to look at all the instances where John calls Jesus "Lord" under the conditions for "Colwell's Rule."

(1) John 21:7 says literally in the Greek: "the disciple...said `The Lord it is'."

(2) Later in John 21:7 it says literally in the NT Greek: "Peter, having heard the Lord it is...."

(3) John 21:12 says literally in the original Greek: "having known that the Lord it is...."

Some scholars feel that since "Lord" is being used somewhat more like a personal name for Jesus than were the above titles ("prophet" and "king") it may be subject to the same article irregularity problem as are personal names: that is, sometimes an article is used with it and sometimes it is not. But that would still not explain John's usage here. There would be no reason to use the article with "Lord" in the first place if it were being used like a personal name here, and Colwell's Rule (if it or an equivalent had really existed) would have made its use here doubly redundant! If John felt it necessary to use the definite article here to call Jesus "the Lord," he certainly would have felt it even more necessary under identical grammatical conditions to use it in calling Jesus "God"!

We see that, in spite of Colwell's Rule, John doesn't hesitate to use the definite article with a predicate noun that comes before the verb if he truly intends that noun to be considered definite!! In fact, trinitarian NT Greek scholar Philip B. Harner states:

"the fact that John sometimes uses this type of clause [articular predicate noun coming before the verb] supports the view that he did not necessarily regard an anarthrous predicate as definite simply because it precedes the verb." - p. 83, Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 92, 1973.

39 Respected trinitarian NT Greek scholar J. H. Moulton also states that predicate nouns are frequently without the article in the Scriptures. He adds, however, that the inspired Bible writers did use the article with a predicate noun "if the predicate noun is supposed to be a unique or notable instance"! - p. 183, vol. 3, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, 1963. John 1:21 examined above ("the Prophet are you") is a clear example of this.

Highly-regarded trinitarian scholar A. T. Robertson adds:

"If he [Moulton] had added ... that the article also occurs WHEN IT IS THE ONLY ONE OF ITS KIND, he would have said all that is to be said on the subject." - A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, p. 768. (Noted trinitarian scholars Blass & Debrunner also agree with Moulton and Robertson above - see p. 148 [#273], A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian Literature, The University of Chicago Press, 1961.)

40 Now what could be more unique or notable (if John really intended a "trinitarian" interpretation at John 1:1c) than saying "the Word was God"? But John did not use the article here! And the prime example of "the only one of its kind" certainly must be the only true God, but, again, John does not use the article at Jn 1:1c to indicate such an understanding!

[[Other examples of "the only one of its kind" include "The Devil" and "The Christ." Even though both of these words are most often used in this "one of a kind" sense, they, like the word for God (theos), also may be used in a lesser sense for other persons. But when diabolos (devil) and christos (christ) are meant for the one of a kind individual (Satan or Jesus), we find that the definite article is always used with them (barring the same exceptions noted above in this study: appositives, used with personal name, connected to preposition, etc.). - See the CHRIST study. And here are the nominative uses of 'Devil': Matt. 4:5, 8, 11; 13:39; Lk 4:3, 6, 13; 8:12; 1 Pet. 5:8 (appositive); Rev. 2:10; 12:9 (appositive), 12:12; 20:2 (appositive); 20:10.]]

Why, then, if he really meant that Jesus is the One True God, didn't he use the definite article at John 1:1c ? Because, as he did with other terms sometimes used for Jesus ("prophet," "king"), he intended for them to be taken as indefinite nouns ("a prophet," "a king," and "a god") when the article was not used.

41 It should also be pointed out that 3 Kings 18:27 in the ancient Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament (1 Kings 18:27 in English Bibles) has a very similar construction to John 1:1c. It has theos as a predicate noun without a definite article and coming before the be verb: "for God [or `a god'] he is." But the Septuagint translation by Sir Lancelot Brenton (Zondervan Publishing) says "for he is a god."!! Compare other translations of 1 Kings 18:27: "a god" is obviously intended here! This is a clear (and very significant) "violation" of "Colwell's Rule"! - Cf. Judges 6:31 (and Ezek. 28:2 in many Bibles.)

Also notice the great parallel between John 1:1c and John 10:34. Even some of the staunchest trinitarians unwittingly make the comparison.

John 10:34 - "I said, `gods you are'" ("Colwell's construction").

Just as at John 1:1c, we find at John 10:34 an anarthrous predicate noun ("gods" - theoi) coming before the verb. Does this mean, then, that those so described at John 10:34 must be "the Gods" (in the highest sense) as "Colwell's Rule" would have it? Were these God-appointed judges of Israel, then, actually equal to God?

Footnotes for John 10:34 and 36 in the extremely trinitarian The NIV Study Bible, 1985, Zondervan Corp. say:

" `you are gods.' The words Jesus quotes from Ps 82:6 refer to the judges (or other leaders or rulers), whose tasks were divinely appointed (see Ex. 22:28 and NIV text note; Dt 1:17; 16:18; 2 Ch 19:6)." And, "If...men can be spoken of as `gods' (as Ps 82:6 speaks of human rulers or judges), how much more may the term [`god'] be used of him whom the Father set apart and sent!" - (Cf. The Epistle to Diognetus, DEF- 7-8.)

42 How very true! just as God Himself called certain men "gods" (even with an anarthrous predicate noun coming before the verb as in John 1:1c) because their "tasks were divinely appointed" so, too, John calls Jesus "a god" at John 1:1c. Certainly Jesus' task was "divinely appointed"!

Or, as "world-renowned Scottish New Testament interpreter" and trinitarian minister Prof. William Barclay tells us: at John 10:34 Jesus

"quoted Psalm 82:6.... The judge is commissioned by God to be god to men. This idea comes out very clearly in certain of the regulations in Exodus. Exodus 21:1-6 tells us how the Hebrew servant may go free in the seventh year. As the Authorized Version [King James Version] has it, verse 6 says `Then his master shall bring him unto the judges.' But in the Hebrew, the word which is translated `judges' is actually elohim, which means `gods.' The same form of expression is used in Exodus 22:9, 28. Even scripture said of men who were specially commissioned to some task by God that they were gods." - p. 77, The Daily Study Bible Series: The Gospel of John (vol. 2), William Barclay, The Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1975.

Trinitarian scholar Barclay continues:

"Jesus claimed two things for himself [at John 10:36]. (a) He was consecrated by God to a special task [as were those men God called `gods' earlier because they `were specially commissioned to some task by God'].... The very fact that Jesus used this word [`consecrated'] shows how conscious he was of his special task. (b) He said that God had despatched him into the world. The word used is the one which would be used for sending a messenger or an ambassador or an army. Jesus did not so much think of himself as coming into the world, as being sent into the world. His coming was an act of God; and he came to do the task which God. had given him to do.

"So Jesus said:...it was possible for scripture to speak of judges as gods, because they were commissioned by God to bring his truth and justice into the world. Now I have been set apart for a special task; I have been despatched into the world by God." - pp. 77, 78.

It is very clear that Jesus explained at John 10:34-36 that he deserves the title "god" (see the New English Bible for a proper rendering of John 10:33) even more than all the others who had been "specially commissioned to some task by God" earlier and could be properly called "gods"!

And how significant it is that this admission should come only in the Gospel of John, and that it should be expressed in the same "Colwell's Construction" as found at John 1:1c!

43 So, just as trinitarian translators all follow the grammatical rules and the customary meanings of NT times for "god/gods" to translate John 10:34 as "you are gods," they obviously should follow the same grammatical rules and understanding of John's meaning for "god/gods" at John 1:1c to translate "the Word was a god"! (See The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 3, pp. 187, 188. This same trinitarian work, in discussing Ro. 9:5, also admits: Even if Jesus were being called theos here, "Christ would not be equated absolutely with God, but only described as a being of divine nature [a god], for the word theos has NO ARTICLE." - vol. 2, p. 80.)

[The above example (Jn 10:34) has a plural predicate noun, and even though I try to avoid such examples, I couldn't resist this one which is the only "Colwell's example" in the NT which clearly concerns the distinction between "God" and "god" which is so important to the proper understanding of Jn 1:1c. (Even Harner and Wallace include them in their lists of "Colwell constructions." Wallace notes that it is a quote by Jesus from the Septuagint, however.) Also, I don't believe plural examples are improper if one takes into consideration (1) the fact that they are considered indefinite in English without an indefinite article ("a," or "an") and (2) the difficulties with "plural/amount" nouns. That is, "gods" as used in Jn 10:34 is truly an indefinite plural predicate noun ("the gods" would be a definite plural) rather than the confusing "plural/"amount" noun [also called a 'non-count noun'] (e.g., "soup," "wine," "honey," etc.]

The Diaglott "Defense"

44 Trinitarian apologist Bowser (What Every Jehovah's Witness Should Know) concludes his misinterpretation of Colwell's Rule with this further misinformation:

"Incidentally, the LITERAL translation that accompanies the Greek text [of John 1:1c] in the Emphatic Diaglott also bears witness to the fact that `the Logos (Word) was God.'" - pp. 57-58.

This is completely dishonest and Bowser must know that. He also knows that an uninformed person glancing at John 1:1 in the Diaglott would probably agree with his dishonest statement.

As you may know (and Bowser certainly knows), The Emphatic Diaglott is an interlinear translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. It has the literal, word-for-word translation along with the Greek text on the left-hand page and there it has "and a god was the Word" at John 1:1c. On the right-hand page it has an emphatic translation which is "based upon that in the left-hand column."

"In this [right-hand] column the EMPHATIC SIGNS are introduced, by which the Greek words of Emphasis are designated ....
".... [This peculiar system of emphasis] of the Greek language cannot be properly expressed in English except by the use of typographical signs, such as, Initial Capital Letters, italics, SMALL CAPITALS, and CAPITALS." - p. 8, Diaglott introduction.

45 So, you see, the literal left-hand column for John 1:1 in the Diaglott uses capitalization according to standard English usage: "In a beginning...the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word."

But, in the right-hand column the translator uses capitalization to show what degree of emphasis was being put upon the various words in the original NT Greek!

Therefore, in the right-hand column it reads: "In the Beginning...the LOGOS was with GOD, and the LOGOS was God."

Notice that "LOGOS" is all capitals and the first "GOD" is also all capitals. This merely shows a certain degree of emphasis found in the original Greek! Now notice the second "God" has only an initial capital letter. This, too, merely denotes another type of emphasis found in the original NT Greek!

Also, Bowser has dishonestly "quoted" the Diaglott: "the Logos (Word) was God." He didn't capitalize "LOGOS" as it actually was in the Diaglott (all capitals) but did capitalize "God" as it appeared—the second time (with an initial capital letter)...the first usage which actually denoted the only true God was in all capitals: "GOD."

To show that "God" in the right-hand column does not have to mean "the only true God," let's look at Acts 28:6 in the Diaglott. The literal left-hand column says: "they said, A god him to be." But the emphatic right-hand column says: "they said, `He is a God.'" I don't think any Bible translator has decided that these pagans were calling Paul "the only true God." (Check all translations.) It is clear (as shown in the left-hand column) that the Diaglott intends "he is a god," but, because of the method used to show Greek emphasis, "god" is written with an initial capital letter in the emphatic right-hand column!

The "General" Rule

46 In the appendices of the 1950 edition of the New World Translation, the 1971 large-print edition of the NWT, and the 1969 edition of The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures is a discussion of John 1:1. It also discusses a "rule" used by some trinitarians as "proof" for the interpretation: "the Word was God." This "rule" is similar to Colwell's Rule but is not so specific. This "rule" was explained in Green's Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek Testament where it is called a "general rule." The same evidence used to explode the misinterpreted Colwell's Rule also does away with this "general rule."

However, since it is more specific, Colwell's Rule is not answered by all the evidence that disproves the "general rule" as found in the appendices noted above. Some of the evidence found there (all of which disprove the "general rule"), however, also disproves Colwell's Rule.

So, if Walter Martin (in his vague, unsupported attack on the New World Translation's rendering of the scripture that "taught the deity of Christ") really has questions based on the grammar of John 1:1c (as he implied in his cassette tape, Jehovah's Witnesses: Jesus Christ and the Trinity) that are not answered in the appendices noted above, then they are mysterious indeed! I have seen no other attempts at grammar justification for a "trinitarian" John 1:1 interpretation that wouldn't be answered there. (Including the "qualitative" interpretation: See the QUAL or HARNer study paper.)[12]

47 It's certainly strange that Dr. Martin was so vague and wouldn't even give us a hint as to what his "Greek-grammar based objections" actually are! He may be referring to Colwell's Rule (if anything), but, even though the NWT appendices were written to counter the "general rule," some of their evidence also disproves Colwell's Rule.

The "general rule" described in Green's Handbook is simply, "The subject takes the [definite] article, the predicate [noun] omits it."[13] In other words, according to this "rule," it doesn't even matter where you find the predicate noun (before or after the verb); it still may omit the definite article and be considered definite anyway. This is admittedly a general "rule" which means "sometimes it works (infrequently in this case), sometimes it doesn't"! I believe this "general rule" probably works only with improper examples (mostly "prepositional") as does Colwell's Rule.

48 The above-mentioned appendices of the NWT list many examples in the Gospel of John where the "general rule" does not work according to trinitarian wishes. Among these are many that also apply to Colwell's rule as we have already seen. These include John 4:19; 6:70;[16] 9:24, 28; 12:6; and 18:37.

Notice that there is never any hesitation by Bible writers to call the Father "the god." - John 6:27; John 8:42; John 17:1-3; Col. 1:3; 2 Thess. 2:16; James 1:27; and many more. But where is Jesus ever clearly called "the god," and where is the Holy Spirit ever clearly called "the god"?

It is highly significant, therefore, that John (as Dr. A. T. Robertson informs us) purposely omitted the definite article at Jn 1:1c and that that omission is "essential to the true idea"! - A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 768. In fact, trinitarian scholars Philip B. Harner (Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 92, p. 85, 1973); Daniel B. Wallace (Selected Notes on the Syntax of New Testament Greek, p. 96, 1981); and Dr. B. F. Westcott (see quote in the study paper NWT 16-17) specifically deny that John 1:1c could possibly be properly interpreted as having a definite theos: "the word was the god"! (See QUAL and HARNER studies.)

And let's not forget, as noted above, that one of the best and most-respected trinitarian works, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology candidly admits for another scripture where an anarthrous theos is applied to Jesus by some trinitarian interpreters: Even if it were proper to interpret it that way, still, "Christ would not be equated absolutely with God, but only described as a being of divine nature, for the word theos has no article." - vol. 2, p. 80, Zondervan Publishing, 1986.

We can see, then, that "the clearest statement of the trinity" in the scriptures is really no such thing. It's not even a clear statement that Jesus, alone, is equally God! So, if this "clearest" statement of a trinity doctrine is really so terribly poor, where does that leave the rest of the scriptural trinitarian "evidence"?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The "Definite" John 1:1 (Appendix)

APPENDIX
In the following list if the predicate noun (p.n.) has no article, it has "an." (anarthrous) written before it. "Art." (articular) means the article ("the") is with it (making it an improper example for a John 1:1c - type rule, of course). Other improper examples have "prep.," "abstract," "numeral," etc. written after them.

"Prep." indicates that the p.n. has a phrase joined to it (prepositional), e.g., 'son of man'; 'slave to me'; etc. "Abstract #": the p.n. is abstract and/or an indeterminate amount (Today these are often called 'non-count nouns'). "No subject" means the subject is clearly understood only by the verb form used. "Participle"[14] means the subject is not present but only imperfectly identified by a participle ("having," "saying," etc.).

All Verses by John Where the Predicate Noun Precedes Its Verb

an. Jn 1:1 (verse under study)
an. John 1:12 - prep.
an. Jn 1:14 - plural (amount)
art. Jn 1:21 ("the Prophet" - NASB)
an. Jn 1:49 (b) - prep.
an. Jn 2:9 - accusative, not p.n
an. Jn 3:6 (a) - plural (amount)
an. Jn 3:6 (b) - abstract #
an. Jn 3:29 - participle

-an. Jn 4:9 (a)
an. Jn 4:9 (b) (adj.?)

#an. Jn 4:19
an. Jn 4:24 - abstr. # - NO VERB
an. Jn 5:27 - prep.
art. Jn 6:51 (b) - prep.
an. Jn 6:63 - abstract

-an. Jn 6:70
an. Jn 8:31 - prep.
an. Jn 8:33 - prep.
an. Jn 8:34 - prep.
an. Jn 8:37 - prep.
an. Jn 8:39 - prep.
an. Jn 8:42 - prep.
an. Jn 8:44 (a) (?? no subj.??)
an. Jn 8:44 (b) - no subject

#an. Jn 8:48
an. Jn 8:54 (a) - abstract
an. Jn 8:54 (b) - prep.
an. Jn 9:5 - prep
an. Jn 9:8 (a) - no subject
an. Jn 9:17 - no subject

-an. Jn 9:24
an. Jn 9:25 - no subject
an. Jn 9:27 - prep.
an. Jn 9:28 (a) - prep.

-an. Jn 10:1
an. Jn 10:2 - prep.
an. Jn 10:8 - plural
an. Jn 10:13 - no subject
art. Jn 10:21 - prep.

-an. Jn 10:33
an. Jn 10:34 - plural
an. Jn 10:36 - prep.
an. Jn 11:49 - prep.
an. Jn 11:51 - prep.
an. Jn 12:6 - prep
an. Jn 12:36 - prep.
an. Jn 12:50 - abstract
an. Jn 13:35 - (poss. pronoun)
art. Jn 15:1 (b)
an. Jn 15:14 - prep.
an. Jn 17:17 - abstract
an. Jn 18:26 - prep.

-an. Jn 18:35
#an. Jn 18:37 (a)
?an. Jn 18:37 (b) - no subject (except in TR and in 1991 Byzantine text)
an. Jn 19:21 - prep.an.
art. Jn 20:15
art. Jn 21:7 (a)
art. Jn 21:7 (b)
art. Jn 21:12

an. 1 Jn 1:5 (b) - abstract #
an. 1 Jn 2:2 - prep.
an. 1 Jn 2:4 - participle
an. 1 Jn 3:2 - prep.
an. 1 Jn 3:15 - participle
an. 1 Jn 4:8 - abstract
an. 1 Jn 4:16 - abstract
an. 1 Jn 4:20 - no subject
an. 1 Jn 5:17 - abstract

art. 2 Jn :6 (b)

an. Rev. 1:20 (a) - prep.
an. Rev. 1:20 (b) - numeral
an. Rev. 2:9 - accusative, not p.n.
an. Rev. 3:9 - accusative, not p.n.
an. Rev. 13:18 - prep.
an. Rev. 14:4 - no subject/plural
an. Rev. 17:9 - numeral
an. Rev. 17:10 - numeral
an. Rev. 17:11 - numeral
an. Rev. 17:12 - numeral
an. Rev. 17:14 - prep.
an. Rev. 17:15 - plural
an. Rev. 18:7 - no subject
art. Rev. 19:8 - prep.
art. Rev. 19:9 - prep.
an. Rev. 19:10 (a) - prep.
art. Rev. 20:14 - numeral
an. Rev. 21:3 - prep.
an. Rev. 21:22 - prep.
art. Rev. 21:23 - prep. - NO VERB
an. Rev. 22:9 - prep.

_______________________

91 total (excluding John 1:1c)

The 3 (or 4 for translations using the Received Text or the 1991 Byzantine text) closest examples to Jn 1:1c have the anarthrous predicate noun before the verb and the subject after the verb. These 3 (or 4) proper examples are shown above with a numeral sign (#) before them. And they also exclude personal names, abstract nouns, numerals, prepositional constructions (prep.), "time/season" nouns, clauses in which the subject is missing [but understood by the verb], clauses in which the subject is "represented" by a participle ["having," "saying," "hating," etc.], plurals [especially plural/amount: 'blood,' 'wine,' 'honey,' 'flesh,' 'fat,' etc.].

Here, then, are all the proper examples (truly comparable to Jn 1:1c) from the writings of John (W and H text)[15] for an honest examination of "Colwell's Rule" (or any related rules, including Harner's "qualitative" rule, concerning the simple, unmodified anarthrous predicate noun coming before the verb):

H,W 1. John 4:19 - ("a prophet") - all Bible translations

H,W 2. John 8:48 - ("a Samaritan") - all translations

H,W 3. John 18:37 (a) - ("a king") - all

[H,W 4. John 18:37 (b) - ("a king") - in the Received Text (TR) and in 1991 Byzantine Text]

H = Also found in Harner's list of "Colwell Constructions"

W = Also found in Wallace's list of "Colwell Constructions"

These are all indefinite nouns. All modern trinitarian Bible translations I have examined render them as indefinite!

If we wish to supply more examples, we must include some which are less perfect than these three (or four). The best we can do is to include all those constructions (Westcott and Hort text) which comply with the other qualifications above but which, unlike Jn 1:1c, have the subject before the verb also. Since trinitarian scholars themselves include such examples, they should not object if we also include all such examples.

When we add those constructions to our list, we have:

H 1. John 4:9 (a) - indefinite ("a Jew") - all translations

H,W 2. John 4:19 - indefinite ("a prophet") - all

H,W 3. John 6:70 [16] - indefinite ("a devil"/"a slanderer") - all

H,W 4. John 8:48 - indefinite ("a Samaritan") - all

H,W 5. John 9:24 - indefinite ("a sinner") - all

H,W 6. John 10:1 - indefinite ("a thief and a plunderer") - all

H,W 7. John 10:33 - indefinite ("a man") - all

H,W 8. John 18:35 - indefinite ("a Jew") - all

H,W 9. John 18:37 (a) - indefinite ("a king") - all

[H,W 10. John 18:37 (b) - indefinite ("a king") - in Received Text and in 1991 Byzantine text]

These are all indefinite nouns (not definite, not "qualitative"). All trinitarian Bible translations I have examined render them as indefinite! We should have enough examples to satisfy the most critical (but honest) scholar now. (And I wouldn't strongly resist the use of those "no subject" examples above which clearly intend the subject as being a certain pronoun included with the verb, e.g., "[he] is," which would then bring our total of proper examples to around 20.)

So when all the proper (those most closely equivalent to the actual usage found at John 1:1c) examples found in John's writings [17] are examined in various trinitarian Bibles (KJV, NASB, RSV, NIV, etc.), we find they are always translated with indefinite concrete nouns such as "you are a prophet" (Jn 4:19) which perfectly corresponds with a rendering of John 1:1c as "The Word was a god"!

----------------------------

Since a proper understanding of John 1:1c is our real objective, only the writings of John can provide the answer.[18] However, other (trinitarian) scholars have also examined some of the writings of the other gospel writers in an attempt to justify a trinitarian rule for Jn 1:1c. Therefore let's also examine all the proper examples found in the synoptic gospels which are most nearly parallel to Jn 1:1c.

In the Gospel of Matthew here are all the predicate nouns I found which precede their verbs: Matt. 2:23; 4:3, 6; 5:9, 34, 35 (bis); 6:23; 8:9; 12:8, 27, 50; 13:39 (b), 13:39 (c); 14:26, 33; 16:23; 21:13; 22:32 (b); 23:8 (b), 31; 25:35, 43; 26:48; 27:6, 40, 42, 54.

According to Harner (see HARNER study) here are all the predicate nouns that precede their verbs in the Gospel of Mark: Mark 2:28; 3:35; 6:49; 11:17; 11:32; 12:35; 14:70; 15:39.

In the Gospel of Luke we find the following predicate nouns that precede their verbs: 1:32, 76; 4:3, 9, 22; 5:8; 6:5; 7:8, 39; 9:38; 11:19, 29, 35, 48; 13:16; 17:10; 19:9, 21, 22; 20:6, 38; 21:22; 22:59; 23:6, 50.

The underlined verses above are all the non-prepositional predicate nouns which precede their verbs in the synoptic gospels. Here is a closer examination of them and how they have been translated in the KJV and the four most-respected (for scholarship and accuracy - see, for example, the evaluation of theses Bibles in Zondervan's So Many Versions?) trinitarian Bibles (RSV, NASB, NIV, ASV):
1. Mt 2:23 - indefinite ("a Nazarene") - all (KJV, RSV, NASB, NIV, ASV) n.s.

2. Mt 6:23 - indefinite plural/amount ("darkness") - all - pl.
3. Mt 8:9 - indefinite - may be prepositional - ("a man") - all
4. Mt 13:39 (c) - indefinite plural ("angels") - all except KJV - pl.
5. Mt 14:26 - indefinite ("a ghost") - all - n.s.
6. Mt 23:8 (b) - indefinite plural ("brothers/brethren") - all - pl.
7. Mt 25:35 - indefinite ("a stranger") - all - n.s.
8. Mt 25:43 - indefinite ("a stranger") - all - n.s.
9. Mt 26:48 - pronoun - ("he") - cannot use articles with pronoun - n.s.
10. Mk 6:49 - indefinite ("a ghost") - all - n.s.
11. Mk 11:32 - indefinite ("a prophet") - all - n.s. ?
12. Mk 14:70 - indefinite ("a Galilean") - all - n.s.
13. Lk 5:8 - indefinite ("a sinful man") - all - n.s.
14. Lk 7:39 - indefinite ("a sinner") - all - n.s.
15. Lk 11:35 - indefinite plural/amount ("darkness") - all - pl.
16. Lk 17:10 - indefinite plural ("slaves/servants") - all - pl.
17. Lk 19:21 - indefinite ("a harsh man") - all - n.s.
18. Lk 19:22 - indefinite ("a harsh man") - all
(Lk 20:6 - accusative case)
19. Lk 22:59 - indefinite ("a Galilean") - all - n.s.
20. Lk 23:6 - indefinite ("a Galilean") - all
21. Lk 23:50 - indefinite ("a counsellor") - KJV,ASV - see interlinears
("a member") - NASB, RSV, NIV
n.s. = no subject; pl. = plural;

Notice that for the 4 most respected, most accurate Bible translations available today all of the non-prepositional examples in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are understood to have indefinite predicate nouns. Not definite - not "qualitative" - BUT 100% INDEFINITE !

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although Watchtower Society (WTS) research and scholarship is usually at least the equal of (and often superior to) that of other sources, I have tried to rely most heavily on other sources in Christendom itself (preferably trinitarian) or my own independent research and conclusions to provide evidence disproving the trinitarian 'proof' being examined in this paper. The reason is, of course, that this paper is meant to provide evidence needed by non-Witnesses, and many of them will not accept anything written by the WTS. They truly believe it is false, even dishonest. Therefore some of the preceding information, all of which helps disprove specific trinitarian "proofs," may be in disagreement with current WTS teachings in some specifics (especially when I have presented a number of alternates). Jehovah's Witnesses should research the most recent WTS literature on the subject or scripture in question before using this information with others. - RDB.