115 A Grammatical Analysis of John 1,1 in John 1,1b θεός refers to the Father, which will then mean that it would imply that if the Word is God, he should also be the Father (contextually speaking)107. d) Qualitative use108. ‣ The implication of Colwell’s rule for John 1,1c according to Wallace109 is as follows110: Since only one nominative substantive in John 1,1 has an article (grammatical “tag”) a subset proposition is envisaged here, which means that the “λόγος” belongs to the larger category known as “θεός”. Wallace111 continues to explain that the force of the construc- tion most likely emphasizes the nature and not identity of the Word112, It obviously also raises the issue of Sabellianism (the Word is identical to God) or 107 modalism. A.T. Robertson, Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Histori- cal Research, 4 ed. (New York: Hodder &Stoughton 1923), 767-768. P.B. Harner, “Qualitative anarthrous predicate nouns: Mark 15,39 and John 1,1”, 108 JBL 92 (1973), 75-87 drew attention to the fact that 80% of Colwell’s constructions involved qualitative nouns with only 20% involving definite nouns. The question should therefore rather be: with the absence of an article in the construction under consideration, is it qualitative or not, instead of asking about the definiteness or not? He points out that in the 53 examples of an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb in John’s Gospel, 40 of these cases the qualitative force of the predicate is more prominent than its definiteness or indefiniteness. He supports the idea that John 1,1c focuses on quality rather than on definiteness. M.L. Coloe, God Dwells with us. Temple Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel (Collegeville MN: Liturgical Press 2001), 26 supports Harner’s view. Wallace, Syntax, (see n. 9), 45-46. 109 The following extract shows the argumentation in the 19th century which may be 110 compared to the more subtle argumentation at the end of the 20th century: W.H. Simcox, The Language of the New Testament, Hodder and Stoughton, London 1889, 75 is of opinion that it is a mistake to build theological inferences on the use or non-use of the article with divine names or titles, or other theological terms. No doubt we ought to notice whether it is used or not. Where two words are balanced against each other, one with the article and one without, we may fairly presume that there is a reason for the difference. But neither must we be hypercritical in insisting that it shall be significant… In Jewish and Christian writers… θεός is a name belonging to One only, and so is used like a pronoun, with or without the article according to its place in the sentence: and beyond one or two broad rules, it seems that there is hardly any principle involved in the retention or omission. In Jn.1,1 ὁ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος would have been much more a solecism than a heresy: θεός is without the article, not because John means to teach Arianism (the Word was a divine being), nor because he pointedly does not mean to teach Sabellianism (‘God’ and ‘the Word’ were one and the same) but simply because ὁ λόγος is subject and θεός predicate, though the latter, as more emphatic, stands first. Wallace, Syntax, (see n. 9), 46. 111 B.M. Metzger, “On the translation of John i.1”, ExpTim 62 (1951-52), 125-126 ar- 112 gues on the basis of Colwell’s rule that there is serious doubt about a translation of John 1,1 like “the logos was divine”, but Wallace, Syntax, (see n. 9), 258 points out that Metzger misunderstood Colwell’s rule. However, commentators like Carson, John, (see n. 105), 117 are skeptical about the idea the θεός here refer to “mere qualities of ‘God-ness’”, because then θεῖος would have been used. E. Haenchen, Das Johannesevangelium: Ein Kommentar (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1980), 118 mentions that already Bultmann suggested this, but