> Something has always bothered me about John 1:1. In the third clause we
> read KAI QEOS HN hO LOGOS. Now I have read in the grammars how QEOS,
> (a) because it is the predicate of the clause, does not require the
> definite article in order to be understood as being definite (i.e. "the
> Word was God" as opposed to "the Word was a god" as in the New World
> Translation). Fine! But that is not the same thing as saying (b) "QEOS
> here is (definitely) definite because it is the predicate." #1 says
> that, even though there is no definite artical, we can still understand
> QEOS to be difinite but it doesn't exactly preclude an indefinite
> understanding. My question is this, I guess: Is, "the Word was a god" a
> legitimate translation from a strictly grammatical point of view (all
> theology aside)?
> --
> MONWi SOFWi THEWi, DIA IHSOU CRISTOU, hWi hH DOXA EIS TOUS AIWNAS TWN
> AIWN; AMHN. Romans 16:27
> But thanks to you as well.
>
There is more to this question than just the article. Note that hO LOGOS
and QEOS are the same case (nominative) which indicates that they both
refer to the same thing. Therefore since hO LOGOS is definite then QEOS
but also be implicitly definite.
In short, no I don't believe "The Word was a God" is a grammatically
possible translation.
cheers,
Andrew Kulikovsky