111 A Grammatical Analysis of John 1,1 positions are inter alia taken, namely, those who see θεός as indefinite, those who argue that θεός is definite, those who see the two nouns as interchangeable, those who argue in favour of the qualitative use of θεός, those who see it as idiom, and those who argue from theological points of departure80. a) An indefinite use (the Word was a god) ‣ It is argued, inter alia by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, that since the pre- vious phrase describes the Word as being with God, this phrase cannot be translated as “the Word is God”. The absence of the definite article with θεός indicates that it should be translated as “the Word was a god”81. Although this translation is possible, the arguments in favor are not strong at all. They seem to be based on the single and sim- plistic argument of the absence of the article. The inconsistency, with which the New World Translation treats these types of constructions82, points to other motivations (perhaps theological or contextual) that influenced this particular translation83. b) A definite use (God) ‣ For an accurate understanding of John 1,1c we must focus on the use of the anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominative. Groundbreaking It should be noted that it is generally accepted that ὁ λόγος is a personification for Je- 80 sus, the Son. See G.R. Osbourne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Downes Grove: Intervarsity Press 1991),108; J.G. van der Watt, Family of the King. Dynamics of Metaphor in the Gospel according to John (Leiden:Brill 2000), 102 sees it as a metaphor. Wallace, Syntax, (see n. 9), 243, see also 41, notes that it is not necessary for a noun to 81 have the article in order for it to be definite. Young, Greek, (see n. 53), 66, 101, in discussing the New World Translation, argues that the reason the article is absent is not because it is indefinite (one of several divine beings as in Arianism), but because it is definite in its own right, and a definite predicate nominative does not have an article when it comes before the verb. With the Jewish cultural setting, one could easily argue that θεός was considered monadic and therefore definite without the article. The NWT’s rendering ‘a god’ would then be incorrect. Therefore, it can be said that the absence of the article pertains to the word order chosen by John to emphasize Christ’s deity. See also Brown, John, (see n. 9), 5. See I. Croft’s, “The New World Translation and its Critics”, Online: http://www.free- 82 minds.org/doctrine/nwt.htm, 1988, ad loc. criticism of the inconsistent translation of the Greek in New World Translation: “In John 1,1, because of the lack of an article (“the”), the Word is called “a god”. However, in Verse 18, which also has no article, the word “God” is capi- talized. There are many examples of similar character.” See Wallace, Syntax, (see n. 9), 267. N. Windham, New Testament Greek for Preachers and Teachers: Five Areas of Ap- 83 plication (Lanham: University Press of America 1991), 180-181 points out that ὁ λόγος ἦν θεός would probably mean that the logos was “a god” or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of θεός but as a distinct being from ὁ θεός . A.J. Kösten- berger, John, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004, 28 points out that if the article was added it would have equated the Word with the Father, something that John does not want to say.