Dan McClellan’s Faulty Analysis of John 1:1c

This post is an extension of my recently published “And the Word was ‘Deity’?” in response to Dan McClellan. And my most recent “What to Believe” serves as a sort of backdrop. That is, I am willing to reassess my positions in light of further study; with regard to John 1:1c, is McClellan similarly inclined?

Below I engage with another McClellan vlog covering much the same ground as the one referenced just above. In each one, he dogmatically declares that John 1:1c does not convey “the Word was God”. And he makes the same faulty claims regarding the use and non-use of the Greek article (~the) to support his position (see bold in quotation below).¹

The end of John 1:1 does not say “the Word was God,” it says “the Word was divine.” Theos is being used qualitatively, as many scholars have recognized. If the author wanted to say “the Word was God,” they would have included the definite article, because in Greek predications, if you have a definite noun preceding the verb, that noun takes the article if its referent is either well-known or has already been mentioned, and both of those are true of Theos in John 1:1.

Having previously studied and written about the Greek article in relation to this specific syntactical ordering, I can only speculate as to where this Bible scholar gets such an erroneous notion.

Continuing where we left off from his vlog:

Now, scholars who acknowledge this still like to avoid the rendering “the Word was divine,” because after John was written that would become a heresy. And so they have to retroject conceptual frameworks into the first century that did not exist when John was written—ideas like God exhausts the category of divinity. Therefore, if anybody has divinity, they have to be God. Additionally, this notion that you can have multiple persons within one Being—that way you can say that “what God was the Word was,” or “the Word was fully God,” or anything to avoid the plain and simple rendering “the Word was divine.”

Essentially, the two separate arguments—the erroneous grammatical/syntactical assertions in the first paragraph and the claims in the second paragraph which rely on the faulty premises of the first—are both examples of the straw man fallacy.² The latter is fabricated from the former’s faulty foundations.

His DOGMA > DATA

In the video above, McClellan wears a hoodie which reads DATA > DOGMA. I like this expression. My contention here, though, is that in the contents of the above he has flipped it to DOGMA > DATA. In other words, it appears he is imposing his preferred dogma onto the related data. To illustrate, below I first shall overturn his Greek grammar assertions by using counter-examples in the Gospel of John. I shall then demonstrate how John’s Gospel and other associated Johannine literature (1 John, Revelation) contain what amounts to “conceptual frameworks” to support the dogma he criticizes.

Despite his faulty reasoning, McClellan arrives at the correct interpretation that “Theos is being used qualitatively” in the context of John 1:1c. I’m reminded of my high school Algebra II class, in which students could lose some or all credit if they failed to provide the proper methodology (‘work’) by which the answer was obtained. The correct answer mattered little or not at all if it was not properly substantiated. Scholarship requires a firm grasp of, and proper presentation of, relevant principles.

Countering His Grammatical/Syntactical Assertions

(It may be helpful to begin with this explanation. “Grammar” is the umbrella term for a set of language rules, which includes “syntax”. “Syntax” specifically refers to the ordering of words in a sentence.)

McClellan is quite dogmatic in his claim: The end of John 1:1 does not say “the Word was God,” it says “the Word was divine.” Is he right? It depends on how the two renderings are individually interpreted.

Before proceeding I must state that it is only fair to take his argument as he intends it so that I don’t straw-man his position. Yet, strictly speaking, it is anachronistic for him to use an English translation of the Greek to state that John’s Gospel does or does not say this or that, because English wasn’t even a language when this Gospel was penned.³ My hunch is he begins in this somewhat provocative manner in order to quickly grab his audience’s attention.

Now, to put his general stance in the way I think he intends it regarding John 1:1c, he is saying that Theos (“God”) cannot be understood in a definite sense, which is how he construes “the Word was God”. Rather, per McClellan, it is qualitative, describing a quality or qualities of the subject nominative (SN) ho Logos (“the Word”), which he thinks should be translated “the Word was divine”. And to advance his claim, he marshals the specific grammatical/syntactical structure of John 1:1c. It is ordered PN (predicate nominative), CV (copulative verb), art (Greek article), SN (subject nominative), PN-CV-art-SN:

Theos (PN) ēn (CV) ho (art) Logos (SN). God-was-the-Word.

For English, we reorder it art-SN-CV-PN: “the Word was God”.

His specific grammatical/syntactical argument—the bolded portion in his first paragraph in the above vlog quote—can be paraphrased: Because the noun Theos (“God”) in John 1:1c lacks the Greek article (~the) in the predicate nominative (PN) which precedes the copular verb (CV, “to be”), this noun Theos cannot be understood in a definite sense. To be definite, McClellan asserts, the article (ho, “the”) must be present before Theos. Therefore, he declares, because the article is absent (-art) in the PN, it must be understood as functioning in a qualitative sense (~“the Word had God qualities”) instead of a definite sense (~“the Word was ‘the’ God”).

He is basically right about Theos functioning qualitatively in John 1:1—but for the wrong reasons.

Comparing John 8:12 (cf. John 1:4) with John 9:5 easily overturns McClellan’s dogmatic stance regarding the absence of the Greek article in the PN of John 1:1c.

8:12 is ordered just like we would in English: subject nominative (SN), copulative verb (CV), article (art), predicate nominative (PN), SN-CV-art-PN:

Egō (SN) eimi (CV) to (art) phōs (PN) tou kosmou. I (SN) am (CV) the (art) light (PN) of-the world.

“I am the light of the world.”

(Before going further, some explanation is in order for the non-Greek reader. Every finite verb in Greek encodes person and number. In other words, finite verbs automatically include a built-in subject. So, in John 8:12 above, eimi is itself a complete sentence: I-am. This particular finite verb form is a first person singular in the present. With that clarified, we can proceed where we left off.)

In 9:5, John records Jesus saying essentially the same thing as 8:12. But it is ordered differently and similar to John 1:1c—without the Greek article before the noun in the PN: PN-[SN]-CV. The subject nominative (SN) “I” is not explicitly expressed but provided in the verb:

Phōs (PN) eimi ([SN]-CV) tou kosmou. Light (PN) I-am ([SN-]CV) of-the world.

For English we would, of course, reorder it and add the English definite article (the) before “light”: “I am the light of the world.”

So, in 8:12 we have the PN “light” with the Greek article and placed after the verb. But in 9:5 we have the PN “light” without the Greek article and placed before the verb. And the noun “light” is clearly functioning in a definite sense in both cases.

Now, going back to McClellan’s assertions and comparing to our findings here: We have in 9:5 an example of a ‘Greek predication’ (PN) in which there is “a definite noun preceding the verb” (PN-CV) and “its referent…has already been mentioned” (in 8:12; cf. John 1:4), yet the definite noun in the PN in 9:5 lacks the Greek article.

McClellan is demonstrably wrong here. A predicate nominative lacking the article (-art) and placed before the copular (“to be”) verb (PN-CV) can certainly be definite.

To provide relevant background, we need to look at what is known as “Colwell’s rule”.⁴ This is variously stated in Greek grammars, so I shall quote directly from E. C. Colwell himself as he phrased his general, tentative findings (bold added): A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb, it does not have the article when it precedes the verb.⁵ This concurs with our example above. And the bolded portion is the polar opposite of McClellan’s claim.

One of Colwell’s first examples was John 1:49.⁶ Here Nathaniel identifies Jesus in two different ways. His first statement is ordered SN-CV-art-PN, just as we would in English:

Su (SN) ei (CV) ho (art) huios (PN) tou Theou. You-are-the-Son-of-God.

Nathaniel’s second statement is SN-(-art)-PN-CV:

Su (SN) Basileus (PN) ei (CV) tou Israēl. You-King-are-of-Israel.

Proper English would be “You are the King of Israel.”

Both “Son” and “King” are definite nouns in this context, yet “Son” has the Greek article, while “King” does not. Furthermore, “Son” follows the CV, while “King” precedes the CV. Therefore, one might conclude that “Son” has the article specifically because it follows the CV, while “King” lacks the article specifically because it precedes the CV. This concurs with Colwell’s general ‘rule’ as stated above.

But this ‘rule’ is not universally true.⁷ In other words, Colwell found this to be only a guide, not an absolute ‘rule’ that was followed by the Greek writer. And there is some amount of subjectivity involved in making any judgment regarding definiteness when the article is lacking (-art) in a PN-CV ordering.⁸

One more example: Pilate’s sign over the crucified Jesus reading “The King of the Jews” (John 19:19) includes the article before “King” (ho Basileus tōn Ioudaiōn). The High Priests were displeased with the wording, which could be understood as a title proclaiming Jesus really was the King of the Jews (cf. John 18:33)—which, of course He was/is—so they asked Pilate to change it (19:21). They first restated Pilate’s verbiage verbatim (do not write “ho Basileus tōn Ioudaiōn”), and then offered their preferred reading: That man said, “Basileus (PN) eimi ([SN]-CV) tōn Ioudaiōn”, “King-I-am-of-the-Jews.” “King” is surely definite, yet it lacks the Greek article. For English we would reorder it and add the English definite article before “King” to render it “I am the King of the Jews.” So, once again, the definite PN lacks the article and comes before the verb, and the referent is both well-known and had recently been mentioned. And, once again, this is contrary to McClellan’s assertion regarding this syntax.

Qualifying Qualitativeness

This section will further explain how to interpret this particular syntactical ordering and then offer another possible rendering of John 1:1c.

Colwell himself stressed that context would be the primary factor in determining whether or not an anarthrous (-art) preverbal PN (PN-CV) would be definite.⁹ Yet Colwell apparently favored definiteness in such syntactical constructions to the point of bias.¹⁰ This appears to be what led him to conclude that John 1:1c is definite and rendering it “the Word was God”.¹¹ Some others have followed Colwell’s conclusion of definiteness here.¹² Is it possible this contributed to McClellan’s faulty analysis?  Might this be why He necessarily interprets “the Word was God” as strictly definite?

Helpfully, Wallace called an anarthrous (-art) PN-CV ordering a “Colwell’s construction” in order to differentiate between “Colwell’s rule” and the syntactical construction he tested.¹³ And this syntactical construction is what Philip Harner had investigated 40 years after Colwell.¹⁴ Harner, and later Dixon, found that a “Colwell’s construction” ([-art]-PN-CV) most often functions qualitatively.¹⁵ And while this syntactical construction can function in a definite sense (depending on context), this is a far second to a qualitative understanding.¹⁶

Moreover, Harner convincingly argued that qualitativeness does not necessarily preclude a further underlying nuance of either definiteness or indefiniteness.¹⁷ Context must decide, yet he admits to a certain amount of subjectivity.¹⁸ Harner concludes 1:1c to be qualitative, with no shade of definiteness: the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.¹⁹ He suggests a rendering such as “the Word had the same nature as God.”²⁰ His rationale: ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.²¹

With this background, Wallace specifically analyzed John 1:1c as to whether it could be indefinite (“a god”), definite, or qualitative.²² The grammarian ultimately concluded it to be qualitative, adding (bold in original): The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father.²³

Without stating so explicitly, Bernard, in his ICC commentary, appears to affirm qualitativeness with an underlying nuance of definiteness: [John 1:1c] asserts uncompromisingly the Divinity of the Logos, His Pre-existence and Personality having been first stated [ED: in 1:1a, 1:1b]; cf. 10:30; 20:28; and Philippians 2:6.²⁴

Because of the context, Theos in John 1:1c cannot be construed as strictly definite. John 1:1b already describes the Word in relationship with ho Theos, “’the’ God”. Ho Theos In this context refers to the Father. Thus, if one were to construe Theos in 1:1c as strictly definite (as if the Greek article were present), this would make nonsense of 1:1 generally.²⁵ That is, 1:1c would then imply that the Word is the same entity as ho Theos in 1:1b—that the Word is the Father. This obviously cannot be true.

The main issue for translators here is attempting to best capture the meaning for the average English reader. Rendering the PN of John 1:1c as “was divine” or “was Divine” can be interpreted or misinterpreted in myriad ways. In common English “divine” can refer to a well-made dinner or dessert. It can refer to a beautiful artwork, a beautiful woman, etc. Thus, it is too ambiguous, too weak.

The translation “the Word was God” is an attempt at more closely capturing what is perceived as John the Gospel writer’s intent. It is not perfect. And it is not meant to be understood as definite but, rather, qualitative.²⁶

Alternatively, we might translate John 1:1c And the Word was qualitatively God. And since ho Theos (the Father) is in relationship with the Word (“the Word was with God”), it would seem reasonable to understand the qualitative aspect of Theos for ho Logos (“the Word”) as being equal to that of ho Theos in 1:1b. In other words, given the immediate (and larger) context, there appears to be no reason to deem this qualitative aspect of ‘God-ness’ in the Word as in any way diminished from that of ho Theos (the Father). This concurs with Harner’s rationale above.

Summarizing

In summary, Dan McClellan’s grammatical/syntactical assertions have been shown to be erroneous.

In John 1:1c, the lack of the Greek article in front of Theos in and of itself does not preclude a possible interpretation of definiteness. The same syntactical structure is present in other verses in John’s Gospel, and some of those are definite rather than qualitative. It’s the context that determines the sense. And it’s the context of John 1:1c that eliminates definiteness, not the lack of the Greek article.

Similarly, McClellan’s claim that John 1:1c would be definite only if the article were placed before Theos has also been refuted. Had the Greek article been placed in front of Theos, it would make nonsense of the clause in its larger context. That is, in 1:1b the Word is described as in relationship (“with”) ho Theos, which, in context, is the Father; so, adding the article (ho) to Theos in 1:1c would make the Word and the Father (ho Theos in 1:1b) the same entity (ho Theos was ho Logos).

Generally, the absence of the article in this syntactical structure leaves open three possible interpretive senses: indefinite, definite, and qualitative. The context is the decisive factor.

The John 1:1c translation “the Word was God”, as found in many modern translations, is not to be interpreted in a strictly definite sense. It is qualitative (and perhaps with an underlying nuance of definiteness). While “the Word was Divine” might be considered a suitable substitute, it is too ambiguous and too weak for the immediate context and the larger context of John’s Gospel. This is elaborated upon in the next segment (Interpreting Conceptual Frameworks), which also addresses the content of the second paragraph in the vlog quotation.

________________________

¹ Admittedly, McClellan is more measured in his statement in the vlog referenced in my previous article “And the Word was Deity?”. While he basically makes the same claim about the presence/absence of the Greek article for definite nouns, his complete statement is different there. There he says that to be definite “then it should carry the definite article, and without it, it is most likely being used qualitatively.” The first part of this excerpt (“then it should carry the definite article”) basically mirrors the current blog post in this specific regard. And it is incorrect. The second statement (“without it [the Greek article], it is most likely being used qualitatively”) is not incorrect—in isolation (by itself). In other words, Theos is most likely being used qualitatively in John 1:1c due to: (a) the lack of the article; (b) the context. This will be explained as we progress.

² To be completely fair, I cannot definitively know his intent. Is he erecting a straw man (i.e., knowingly misrepresenting the position in order to more easily tear it down, and thus be able to charge Christian scholars with theological motives for the rendering “the Word was God”), as opposed to simply being mistaken regarding the Greek article’s use and non-use in this specific syntactical construction? From my perspective the latter would be difficult to believe, for he consistently self-identifies as a Bible scholar, claims to have addressed issues in Mormon New Testament translation, and has made a very specific grammatical claim here—all of which lead me to think he has specifically studied this issue before making his assertions. (And see footnote 1 above.) Should he be mistaken instead, I would expect him to make a correction or retraction; and, if he makes such a correction or retraction, I will note it here on the blog.

³ Ironically, McClellan uses this charge of anachronism (retrojection) against those interpreting Trinitarianism in John’s Gospel (or the entire NT—he’s not specific here), while he can be accused with the same in this regard.

⁴ See E. C. Colwell, “A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament,” Journal of Biblical Literature 52 (1933): 12-21.

⁵ Colwell, “Definite Rule”, p 13.

⁶ Colwell, “Definite Rule”, p 13.

⁷ Colwell, “Definite Rule”, p 17. According to his analysis, anarthrous definite PNs precede the CV 97 times, they follow the CV 26 times. And arthrous definite PNs precede the CV just 15 times, follow it 229 times.

⁸ Colwell adds: Loosely speaking, this study may be said to have increased the definiteness of a predicate noun before the verb without the article, and to have decreased the definiteness of a predicate noun after the verb without the article (“Definite Rule”, p 21).

⁹ Colwell, “Definite Rule”, pp 20–21.

¹⁰ See Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), pp 259–260. Cf. Paul Stephen Dixon, “The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John” (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1975), pp 11–12. Colwell even claimed the converse of his own ‘rule’ (‘a preverbal PN lacking the article is definite’), which is a non sequitur. The converse states what first needs to be determined!

¹¹ Colwell, “Definite Rule”: [John 1:1c] looks much more like “And the Word was God” than “And the Word was divine” when viewed with reference to this rule. The absence of the article does not make the predicate indefinite or ‘qualitative’ when it precedes the verb, it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it. The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John, for this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the Gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas (John 20:28) (p 21).

¹² See Wallace, Greek Grammar, pp 257–258.

¹³ Wallace, Greek Grammar, pp 262–270.

¹⁴ Philip B. Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1” Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (1973), pp 75–87.

¹⁵ Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns”, pp 75–87; Dixon, “Significance”.

¹⁶ Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns”, pp 75–87; Dixon, “Significance”; cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar, p 262. Contra David L. Mathewson & Elodie Ballantine Emig, Intermediate Greek Grammar: Syntax for Students of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016), pp 85–86. The authors here are critical of Wallace’s (and, by extension, Harner’s and Dixon’s) approach, finding it too subjective. They agree with Wallace’s expressed Trinitarian theology, yet: …[W]e are not at all convinced that John’s grammar was intended to reflect such fine trinitarian nuances (p 85). The authors believe the structure merely presents “the Word” as the subject with the presence of the article, while they do not proffer a specific verdict on the nuance of the PN, though definiteness may be implied (p 85).

¹⁷ Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns”, pp 80–87; Wallace, Greek Grammar, p 263.

¹⁸ Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns”, p 83.

¹⁹ Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns”, p 87.

²⁰ Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns”, p 87.

²¹ Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns”, p 87.

²² Wallace, Greek Grammar, pp 266–269; cf. 243–247. Wallace also references Dixon “Significance” here.

²³ Wallace, Greek Grammar, p 269.

²⁴ J.H. Bernard, The Gospel According to John, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary; ed. Samuel Rolles Driver, Alfred Plummer, and Charles A. Briggs; Accordance electronic ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928), para 11469. He seems to assert a qualitativeness with an underlying definiteness by his added cross-references that: (a) more unambiguously assert that the Incarnational Jesus (Logos-become-flesh) is (ho) Theos (John 10:30 and 20:28) in an undiminished sense, and (b) forthrightly claim His preexistence as Theos (Philippians 2:6: en morphē Theou hyparchōn, “in (the) form of God existing”) in conjunction with his verbiage “asserts uncompromisingly the Divinity of the Logos”. In other words, the local context seems to indicate a qualitative-definite understanding of Theos in John 1:1c, and when considering the larger context of John’s Gospel (10:30, 20:28) and the even larger corpus of the New Testament (Philippians 2:6), this stance is bolstered.

²⁵ And it would amount to what became known as Sabellianism; cf. A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 4^th ed. (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1934 {1914}), pp 767-768.

²⁶ I would judge qualitative with an additional nuance of definiteness. Cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar: “…anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives usually fall within the qualitative-definite range” (p 263; emphasis in original).