Who needs an indefinite article when an indefinite pronoun can do the job?

 

Who needs an indefinite article when an indefinite pronoun can do the job? Let’s talk about New Testament Greek again.

Quite often, New Testament commentators mention that Greek does not have an indefinite article, but more often fail to mention that Greek does have an indefinite pronoun, which can serve a similar purpose to an indefinite article.

And guess what - I’m talking about John 1:1 again. And the occasion for writing again, and I should disclose it, is that some Jehovah’s Witnesses are adamant that it makes sense to translate John 1:1c as “and the Word was a god (theos),” relying on their argument that the lack of a definite article with theos dictates that it’s an indefinite noun: ‘a god’. Yes, I’ve actually been told that it ‘dictates’ this, which will make plenty of people wince.

Apologies if this is wearing some readers out. For the purposes of this post, I'm not going to pose the obvious question that may always be asked when reading "with God... was a god" - the obvious question being, how many gods in total may be counted there? And why is that a problem?

But to the subject. While New Testament Greek doesn’t have an indefinite article, it does have an indefinite pronoun. So we really ought to see how it’s used, and whether it could have been applied to John 1:1 if John had so wanted.

The thing is this: if John desperately wanted you to read John 1:1 as 'a god', he could have made recourse to using the indefinite pronoun 'tis' with 'theos' to make it clearly read 'a god'. Not very elegant Greek, but the New Testament isn’t always very elegant Greek.

 

Tis

Sometimes in English translations where you see an indefinite article, such as “a young man,” there is actually a word there in Greek that has been translated as “a.”

It’s thus for the Greek word tis.

It’s the use of tis that produces:

·         'a young man' in Mark 14:51 (NIV & NJB & NEB)

·         'a priest' in Luke 1:5 (RSV & NIV & NEB)

·         'a man' in Acts 10:1 (RSV & NIV & NEB)

And other similarly indefinite results. It’s corresponding to an indefinite pronoun in the Greek.

Tis is also expressed in English as ‘some.’ But some translators, to convey the meaning in a slightly less indefinite-sounding way, may translate it as “a certain man.” For example, because we are going to find out more about that person. But it's an indefinite pronoun. 

For more on this, click here.

But tis isn’t the only word used to convey the same sense as an indefinite article.

 

Heis

Yes, there’s more. If John wanted to use a word to convey indefiniteness, and didn’t want to use tis, he also had the Greek word heis available. The word for the number ‘one,’ heis can also be used as an indefinite pronoun.

On the one hand, this can be done with adjectival force, for example "a scribe" in Matthew 8:19. Or as a full pronoun, for example "a ruler of the synagogue" in Mark 5:22.  

For more on this, click here.

 

Conclusion

So, if it were important to John that readers specifically disconnect Jesus – the Word – from God, as separate beings with theos meaning two different things, then the tools were at hand for the eager communicator. There ways round the lack of an indefinite article. Even if it makes inelegant Greek.

So, John did not make recourse to these tools, and it all adds weight to the point that John indicates no desire to capture an indefinite sense in his use of ‘theos’ in John 1:1. It’s not ‘a god’ on any compelling grounds. John never asked for it to be.

If John were asking for that, it would not have been overly difficult to do, given the availability of different Greek words to convey indefiniteness and different Greek words for ideas of divinity. John could have made one of them ho theos and the other heis theioteôs or tis theion. Not the most elegant Greek, but the New Testament isn't always elegant Greek. Instead, John chose the same word twice, theos. So 'ho theos... theos.' Choosing this over more differentiating alternatives ought to tell us something. It indicates the absolute sameness of God and the Word in an essential way. It points towards two persons, one essence.

 

Footnote

What’s more, the Greek word for 'God' (theos) at times appears article-less but still refers to THE God anyway! There is no mechanical reason compelling the use of an indefinite article in English every time a definite article is lacking in Greek.

So, for example, in John’s prologue, we find theos without the definite article in John 1:6 ('a representative of God'), John 1:12 ('children of God'), John 1:13 ('from God'), and John 1:18 ('No man has seen God'). I could go on.

We don’t translate these as 'a representative of a god', 'children of a god', 'from a god', and 'no man has seen a god.' In other words, the article-less theos does not automatically dictate an indefinite meaning. Sometimes the lack of a definite has an indefinite sense, sometimes it doesn’t.

An indefinite sense doesn’t even necessarily follow where a verse has both ‘ho theos’ and ‘theos.’

For instance, John 3:2 has both 'theos' and 'ho theos.' But both refer to the one God.

 John 6:45-46 has both 'theos' and 'ho theos.' But both refer to the one God.

Other examples of verses that have ‘theos’ and ‘ho theos’ together: John 9:31-33 (in 9:33 you will find 'para theou' rather than the explicit 'para tou theo' of John 6:46; and 13:3 (a more easily explained example - the accusative has the explicit article but the genitive does not).

By the way, John sometimes says 'apo theou' talking about God the Father, whereas Luke will say 'apo tou theou' (Acts 26:22).

Only a clumsy translator would try to duplicate the same English rendering for every Greek construction that might have a common factor, regardless of the context etc. So the lack of a definite article in Greek can mean so many different things.

And the lack of an indefinite article can be made up for by an indefinite pronoun. 

One really hopes that this, together with a bundle of other useful points, would discourage people from over-stating the significance of the lack of a definite article here and there.