117 A Grammatical Analysis of John 1,1 was divine”119 (in which case a qualification is needed, namely, that “divine” can be applied only to true deity)120. Even though Wallace is convinced that God in 1,1c is qualitative, he still prefers the transla- tion: “the Word was God”, since it creates the fewest possibilities for misunderstanding. This preceding argument just goes to illustrate the difficulty of translating this phrase. Greenlee121 expands the argument. According to him proper names of persons and places, and divine names and titles (e.g. θεός, ἅγιον πνεῦμα) are definite in themselves; they may or may not take the article. However, when θεός or ἅγιον πνεῦμα has the article the person (i.e. who he is) is being thought of; and when there is no article his nature (i.e. what he is) or his activity is usually being thought of. Jn.1,1 can therefore be translated as, “the Word was with God (the Father), and the Word was deity (i.e. of the nature of God)”. Moule122 advocated the same position: “It is necessarily without the article inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person. It would be pure Sabellianism to say ‘the Word was ὁ θεός´. No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expres- sion, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word”. It is interesting to note that although the grammarians mainly opt for interpreting θεός as “divine”, this is not favoured by theologians in their commentaries. e) Philo and the absence of the article ‣ In Somn. I 229-230 Philo makes the following remark: (1.229) What then ought we to say? There is one true God only: but they who are called Gods, by an abuse of language, are numerous; on which account the holy scripture on the present occasion indicates that it is the true God that is meant by the use of the article, the ex- pression being, “I am the God (ὁ θεός)”; but when the word is used incorrectly, it is put without the article, the expression being, “He who was seen by thee in the place”, not of the God (τοῦ θεοῦ), but simply “of God” (θεοῦ); (1,230) and what he here calls God is his most ancient word, not having any superstitious regard to the position of the names, but only proposing one end to himself, namely, to give a true account of the matter; for in other passages the sacred historian, Brown, John, (see n. 9), 5 rejects this possibility as too weak, since Greek has an 119 adjective for divine and it is not used here. D.A. Fennema, John 1,18: “God the Only Son”, NTS 31 (1985), 121-135 analyses the 120 whole prologue and concludes that the Logos (the Son) shares the deity that has tradition- ally been ascribed to the only God/Father. This is also the meaning in John 1,1c. Greenlee, Grammar, (see n. 14), 21-24, 39. 121 Moule, Idiom, (see n. 49), 1968:53, 76, 115-116. 122