114 Jan van der Watt & Chrys Caragounis the influence of the context on the interpretative decision. Contextually, Wallace100 points out that the use of θεός in 1,1b is articular and since the same person is implied here, it most likely seems to be definite. However, Wallace101 argues against a definite use here on the following basis: “The vast majority of definite anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives are monadic, in genitive constructions, or are proper names, none of which is true here, diminishing the likelihood of a definite θεός in Jn 1,1c”102. c) Interchangeability ‣ It is Turner’s103 opinion that although predicate nouns are usually anarthrous, the article thus distinguishing the subject from the com- plement, the article may be inserted if the predicate noun is supposed to be a unique or notable instance104. Therefore in John.1,1c there need be no doctrinal significance in the dropping of the article for it is simply a matter of word-order, which means that it could just as well have read: ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεός105. This type of translation seems to be based on an incorrect assumption that equation verbs should be translated as convertible propositions. The explanation of the general rule formulated in the above section, makes this translation highly un- likely106. Contextually and theologically it also poses problems, since Wallace, Syntax, (see n. 9), 268. 100 Wallace, Syntax, (see n. 9), 268. 101 Although L. Schenke, Johannes: Kommentar (Düsseldorf: Patmos 1998), 24-25 wants 102 to maintain the distinction between the Logos and God (the Father), he nevertheless opts for translating 1c as follows: “Und Gott war Er, das Wort”. He rejects the idea that we have an adjective (“göttlich”) here and emphasizes that the substantive “Gott” determines the Logos and opts for a unity that comes, to my mind, close to identity. Moulton, Grammar, (see n. 56), 17, 183. 103 Keener, John, (see n. 54), 372 also notes the tendency among some commentators 104 that the anarthrous construction signifies anything theologically significant. He argues that the context has a strong influence on the interpretation. For instance, to weaken the idea to mere second hand divinity like Philo’s Moses is contextually not acceptable. See also Zerwick, Biblical Greek, (see n. 45), 1963:56. Wallace, Syntax, (see n. 9), 105 257 argues that this interpretation is based on a misunderstanding of Colwell’s rule. A.T. Robertson, A Short Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 4 ed. (New York: Hodder & Stoughton 1908), 75, who wrote before Colwell, also rejects this way of understanding 1,1c, since the subject and predicate is not co-extensive. If they were, another article should have been added. Schanckenburg (1968:234-235), Schnelle, Johannes, (see n. 40), 31 and Barrett, John, (see n. 16), 156, inter alia, reject this idea and underline that θεός is the predicate. If an article was added to θεός it would have bound the Word exclusively to God, implying that God cannot exist outside of the Word, as D.A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, Eerdmans: Grand Rapids 1991, 117 points out. No, what belongs to the rest of the Godhead belongs to the Word, but the Word does not make up the entire Godhead. Windham, New Testament Greek, (see n. 83), 180-181 argues that such a view would 106 contextually militate against John 1,1b, since there we find a “personal” differentiation between the Word and God.