The Indefinite Article in John 1:1 and Its Implications

The controversy over the presence of the indefinite article in John 1:1 has been a subject of extensive scholarly debate, with implications for understanding the nature of the Word (Logos) as presented in the Gospel of John. While the New World Translation (NWT) retains the indefinite form of theos (god) without the article, many other translations opt to insert the article to form 'the God.' This article aims to explore the linguistic and theological background of this issue, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the grammatical structure inherent in the original Greek text.

The Greek Language and Its Unique Features

First, it is crucial to recognize the distinct nature of the Greek language, which is often different from languages like English. Greek does not have an indefinite article equivalent to 'a' or 'an' in English. This absence can lead to different interpretations when translating directly into English. In Greek, the presence or absence of the definite article (the) can significantly alter the meaning of a sentence. The absence of the article can make a noun either qualitative or indefinite, indicating a member of a class rather than a specific instance.

John 1:1 in Context

In the opening verse of the Gospel of John, the text reads Bekos eV ho Logos (Theos) (John 1:1). This phrase is often translated as 'and the Word was God' or 'and the Word was a god.' The choice between these translations hinges on whether ho theos (the God) or theos (god) is intended. Scholars argue that the use of theos without the article indicates a qualitative or indefinite reference, suggesting that the Word shares qualities of divinity rather than being a specific god.

Linguistic Analysis and Scholarly Opinions

Scholar Philip Harner, in his article 'The Logos in John's Gospel' (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973), highlights the importance of the qualitative aspect of theos in John 1:1. He notes, 'the noun theos cannot be regarded as definite' and suggests that it should be interpreted in a qualitative sense. Harner's analysis supports the view that theos without the article refers to a qualitative god, aligning with other translations that render the verse as 'the Word was divine' or 'the Word was a divine being.'

Theological Implications

The theological implications of this interpretation are significant. By translating John 1:1 as 'the Word was divine' rather than 'the Word was God,' the text emphasizes that the Logos shares the qualities of divinity rather than being a specific, transcendent deity. This can be seen as a form of Trinitarian theology, albeit a more nuanced one, rather than a strictly Monotheistic portrayal. It allows for a clearer distinction between the Word and the Father, without implying the Word's status as a distinct entity separate from the divine nature.

Comparative Translation

To illustrate the diversity of translations, let us consider a few examples from various translations and scholars:

*> The Coptic Version of the New Testament (George William Horner, 1911) renders it as '[A]nd a God was the Word.' *> The Literature of the New Testament (Ernest Findlay Scott, 1932) provides '[A]nd the Word was of divine nature.' *> The New Testament in German (Curt Stage, 1907) translates it as '[T]he Word was itself of divine being.'

These diverse translations underscore the scholarly consensus that the Greek text without the article indicates a qualitative reference to divinity rather than a specific deity.

Critique of Translational Bias

Some translations, particularly the NWT, have been critiqued for inserting the article to conform to Trinitarian theology. According to John L. McKenzie S.J., a Jesuit scholar, the verse should be translated as '[T]he Word was with the God the Father and the word was a divine being.' This translation aligns with the grammatical structure of the Greek text and respects the original meaning. It emphasizes the qualitative nature of the Word's divinity rather than his status as a specific deity.

Conclusion

The controversy over the indefinite article in John 1:1 is not merely a linguistic issue but a theological one. By adhering to the original Greek text and maintaining the indefinite form of theos, translations such as the NWT offer a more nuanced and grammatically accurate interpretation of the Logos. This approach helps prevent themisinterpretation of the Gospel of John as affirming the Word's status as a distinct, second person of a Trinity, while still recognizing his divine nature.