113 A Grammatical Analysis of John 1,1 needs to be translated first (the word order in Greek is more flexible). Our phrase should be translated as “the Word was God” and not “God was the Word”91, since generally speaking the “subject will be distinguished from the predicate nominative by having the article”92. Now, the question is: how do you distinguish between the subject and the predicative no- minative if the word order does not guide you as is the case in English? Wallace93 offers a detailed explanation. Two kinds of semantic relationships should be noted in this regard, according to Wallace.94 a) A subset proposition where the predicative nominative describes the class to which the subject belongs. The subject and predicative nominative are therefore not interchangeable, since “is” (ἦν) does not necessarily means “equals”. God is not fully encapsulated in the Word, but the Word fully belongs to the class of God. Less frequent, but possible, is b) the convertible proposition which indicates “an identical exchange”. Complete interchangeability in trans- lation is possible (equation mark). This leads the interpreter to answer two questions: a) how can the sub- ject be distinguished from the predicative nominative, since word order is not a criterion? b) what is the semantic relationship between the two; this will help in determining whether there is an equation or a subset. Wallace95 formulates a general “rule” that “when only one nominative substantive has such a grammatical ‘tag’ (i.e. article, pronoun, proper name), the semantic relationship will be that of particular (subject) to class (predicate nominative). That is, the construction will be a subset proposition”. However, “when both substantives meet one of the three qualifications (tags) for the subject, then they become interchangeable” (2000:45)96. Wallace97 has his reserves about the definite translation of John 1,1c. He remarks the following about the proponents of such definite translations: “their basis has usually been a misunderstanding of Colwell’s rule.98 They have understood the rule to say that an anarthrous pre-verbal predicative noun will usually be definite”99. They however miss Colwell’s emphasis on Wallace , Syntax, (see n. 9), 41. 91 Wallace, Syntax, (see n. 9), 242-243. 92 Wallace, Syntax, (see n. 9), 41ff. 93 Wallace, Syntax, (see n. 9), 41. 94 Wallace, Syntax, (see n. 9), 43. 95 The detailed discussion about the grammar in this case can be found in Wallace, 96 Syntax, (see n. 9), 42ff. Only his conclusion in connection with John 1,1 is going to be reflected here. Wallace, Syntax, (see n. 9), 267-268. 97 See also Wallace, Syntax, (see n. 9), 290. 98 Wallace, Syntax, (see n. 9), 267. 99