John 1:1

An Exegetical Analysis of John 1:1-2: Grammatical and Theological Considerations

This exegetical study of John 1:1-2 is based on a b-greek discussion from June 11, 1998. The discussion initially explores the possibility of an alternate reading for the final clause of John 1:1, proposing that the word θεος (theos) could function as an adjective, resulting in a translation such as “the Word was godly.” This suggestion is prompted by observations of the King James Version translating θεος as “godly” in other New Testament passages (e.g., 1 Timothy 1:4).

The main exegetical issue revolves around the grammatical function and semantic force of the anarthrous predicate nominative θεος in the third clause of John 1:1 (καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος). This inquiry necessarily engages with established grammatical rules concerning the Greek article and its absence, particularly Colwell’s Rule and related discussions by prominent grammarians. Furthermore, the interpretation of the phrase Ἐν ἀρχῇ (En archē) in John 1:1a also presents a significant question regarding its definiteness and implications for the cosmic scope of the Word’s pre-existence. The various proposed translations of these phrases carry profound theological implications for understanding the nature of Christ and the monotheistic framework of Johannine theology.

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. Οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν. (Nestle 1904)

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• For John 1:1-2, the Greek text itself is identical between Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT (2010). The primary differences discussed in the source material relate to punctuation in subsequent verses (John 1:3-4).
• Nestle 1904 places ὃ γέγονεν at the end of verse 3 (καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν.).
• SBLGNT (2010), following NA28 and Westcott-Hort, places ὃ γέγονεν at the beginning of verse 4 (καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν,). This punctuation choice significantly alters the semantic flow between verses 3 and 4.

Textual Criticism (NA28) and Lexical Notes (BDAG)

While the primary discussion for John 1:1-2 does not involve textual variants in the Greek words themselves, the larger context of the prologue (John 1:1-18) brings into focus the editorial punctuation of verses 3-4, which affects the reading of ὃ γέγονεν. Modern critical editions like NA28 and SBLGNT align with Westcott-Hort in placing ὃ γέγονεν at the beginning of verse 4, whereas Nestle 1904 and Antoniades 1904 include it at the end of verse 3. This is discussed by various scholars, including K. Aland and Bruce M. Metzger, who note that this shift in punctuation potentially arose from theological controversies (e.g., Arianism) in the 4th century. While some argue that the NA28/SBLGNT reading creates awkward phrasing in verse 4, others suggest it enhances “rhythmical balance” in the prologue. Metzger’s textual commentary, while acknowledging the Ante-Nicene usage, ultimately favors the reading where ὃ γέγονεν concludes verse 3, arguing for better Johannine sense and style.

Lexically, several key terms warrant attention:

• ἀρχῇ (archē): (BDAG, 139 s.v. ἀρχή 2.) Refers to a “point of time at which something begins, beginning.” Its anarthrous use in Ἐν ἀρχῇ is often interpreted as an absolute beginning, paralleling the Septuagintal rendering of Genesis 1:1. However, some debate whether it denotes *the* absolute beginning of all things or *a* beginning within creation, such as the beginning of the Word’s creative activity.
• Λόγος (Logos): (BDAG, 603 s.v. λόγος 1.e.) In this context, it is a technical term for the pre-existent Christ, embodying “the divine intermediary, through whom God reveals himself and accomplishes his will.” The term carries rich philosophical and theological connotations, drawing from both Jewish (Wisdom literature, Targums) and Hellenistic traditions.
• ἦν (ēn): (BDAG, 276 s.v. εἰμί 1.) The imperfect indicative 3rd person singular of εἰμί (eimi), “to be.” Unlike the aorist, the imperfect tense emphasizes continuous existence or a state of being in the past. It is not different from ἔστιν (estin) in its core meaning of “to be” but carries a past aspect. Grammarians like Aristotle (and subsequently Bauer) recognize that εἰμί can convey various types of information, including existence and predication (identifying substance, quality, relation). In John 1:1, its repeated use emphasizes the Word’s pre-existence and continuous state.
• πρός (pros): (BDAG, 874 s.v. πρός 1.b.γ) With the accusative, it denotes “motion towards, direction, contact, or personal relationship.” In πρὸς τὸν θεόν, it signifies a close, intimate, and distinct relationship of the Word with God, suggesting presence and communion rather than absolute identity.
• Θεός (Theos): (BDAG, 442 s.v. θεός 1.a.) Refers to “God, a god, deity.” In the final clause, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, its anarthrous nature (without the definite article) is central to the exegetical debate.

Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis

The translation of John 1:1-2 hinges on interpreting two key anarthrous constructions:

1. Ἐν ἀρχῇ (En archē):

The absence of the definite article before ἀρχῇ (archē) in the phrase Ἐν ἀρχῇ has led to varied interpretations. Some argue for a “hyper-literal” translation like “In a beginning,” suggesting a non-absolute or specific beginning. However, this is largely contested. Scholars like A. T. Robertson, Blass-Debrunner-Funk, M. Zerwick, R. A. Young, Nigel Turner, C. F. Moule, S. Porter, and Daniel B. Wallace emphasize that prepositional phrases in Greek often omit the article even when the noun is definite, especially when the context is clear. The strong parallel with the Septuagint’s Genesis 1:1 (Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεός) strongly supports the rendering “In the beginning,” denoting the absolute, primordial commencement of all things. The rhetorical echo of Genesis places the Word’s existence prior to and foundational for all creation.

2. καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (kai theos ēn ho logos):

This is the most debated clause. The anarthrous predicate nominative θεός (theos) preceding the verb ἦν (ēn) and followed by the articular subject ὁ λόγος (ho logos) forms a unique grammatical construction. Three main interpretive approaches emerge:

• Adjectival Reading (“the Word was godly” or “the Word was divine”): This interpretation, proposed by some and exemplified by Moffatt’s translation (“…the word was divine”) and Felix Just’s suggestion of “godly/godlike,” posits that θεός functions as an adjective describing the Word’s quality rather than a substantive identifying its being. Proponents point to instances where the KJV translates θεός as “godly” (e.g., 1 Tim 1:4). However, this argument faces significant grammatical challenges. As noted in the discussion, when θεός appears in such contexts to convey an adjectival sense (e.g., “godly sorrow”), it is typically in a genitive construction (e.g., κατὰ θεὸν λύπη, “godly sorrow” in 2 Cor 7:9, 11) or is the object of a preposition like κατά (kata). The cognate Greek adjective for “divine” or “godly” is θεῖος (theios), which John does not use here. Therefore, grammatically, rendering the nominative θεός as an adjective in John 1:1c is widely considered untenable.
• Indefinite Reading (“the Word was a god”): This interpretation suggests that the absence of the article makes θεός indefinite. This is favored by translations like the New World Translation. Proponents argue that the articleless θεός prevents identification with the unique, definite “God” (τὸν θεόν) mentioned in the preceding clause. Edward Andrews, for example, lists contextual arguments, including the Word being “with” God, and the overall biblical teaching on Jesus’s relationship to the Father. However, critics argue that this rendering introduces a polytheistic concept that is foreign to the monotheistic Jewish background of the author and the broader New Testament.
• Definite or Qualitative Reading (“the Word was God” or “the Word was divine/God-like in nature”): This is the most prevalent academic interpretation.
  • Definite: Some scholars, drawing from E. C. Colwell’s rule, argue that a definite predicate nominative preceding the verb often lacks the article. Thus, θεός would be definite, meaning “the Word was God.” However, as Daniel B. Wallace points out, Colwell’s rule actually states that a definite predicate nominative that *precedes* the verb is *usually* anarthrous, not the converse. Wallace cautions that interpreting θεός as strictly definite risks Sabellianism (modalism), implying that the Word *was* the Father, which conflicts with πρὸς τὸν θεόν (with God).
  • Qualitative: The most widely accepted interpretation is that θεός functions qualitatively, describing the *nature* or *essence* of the Word. This means the Word possessed the very attributes and qualities of God. Grammarians like Daniel B. Wallace, H. E. Harner, and Paul S. Dixon support this, noting that the largest proportion of pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives fall into this category. It emphasizes that the Word was “God in nature,” or “of divine kind,” but does not imply complete personal identity with “the God” (τὸν θεόν) mentioned earlier in the verse. The fronted position of θεός (before the verb) is rhetorically emphatic, highlighting this divine quality.

Rhetorically, John’s prologue is carefully constructed. The repetition of “was” (ἦν) emphasizes the Word’s eternal pre-existence. The progression from “In the beginning was the Word” to “the Word was with God” (distinction and relationship) and finally to “the Word was God” (shared nature and essence) is deliberate. Verse 1:2, “He was in the beginning with God,” serves to reiterate and reinforce the unique relationship and co-eternality established in verse 1, potentially to prevent misunderstandings of the qualitative statement in 1:1c. The elegance and parallelism of the clauses point to a profound theological statement rather than an ambiguous one.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

Based on the grammatical analysis and the broader Johannine context, the adjectival and indefinite readings of θεός in John 1:1c face significant linguistic and theological objections. The qualitative interpretation, which understands the anarthrous predicate nominative as describing the essence or nature of the Word, aligns best with established Greek grammar and the theological witness of John’s Gospel.

Below are three translation suggestions for John 1:1-2, reflecting nuances of the qualitative and relational aspects discussed:

1. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This one was in the beginning with God.”
   This translation emphasizes the divine nature of the Word, identifying the Word as fully possessing the essence of God, yet distinct from the Father with whom he was in eternal relationship.
2. “In the beginning the Word existed, and the Word existed in communion with God, and the Word was divine in nature. This same one was in the beginning with God.”
   This rendering more explicitly conveys the continuous existence and shared divine essence of the Word, while clarifying the relational aspect of “with God” and the qualitative meaning of the final clause.
3. “At the very origin, the Word was present, and the Word was facing God, and God-like in essence was the Word. He was present with God at the origin.”
   This option attempts to capture the profundity of “in the beginning” as an absolute origin, the relational proximity of “with God,” and the essential, qualitative divinity of the Word through the emphatic fronting of “God-like in essence.”