>>519284688
In Greek, absence of the article (anarthrous nouns) does not automatically make something indefinite (“a god”). It can also be qualitative or definite, the context decides. In John 1:1, “θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος” places θεὸς before the verb (ἦν) for emphasis, a known Greek rule (Colwell’s Rule): “A definite predicate nominative preceding the verb usually lacks the article.” So John’s wording shows emphasis on quality, not indefiniteness.
Grammatically, it means “the Word was God in essence”, not “a god.”
John 1:1-3 destroys your claim:
If Jesus were “a god,” He would either be a created being (contradicting v. 3) or a second uncreated deity (polytheism). John’s monotheism excludes both. John clearly affirms that the Logos is eternal and divine, yet distinct in person from ho Theos (the Father).
“The God” vs. “God”
Greek uses the article ho Theos to distinguish person, not nature. John calls the Father ho Theos because He’s the referential subject. Jesus is Theos because He shares the same divine nature, not because He’s lesser. John 20:28 “My Lord and my God (ὁ Θεός)”, Thomas addresses Jesus directly with the article.
The Coptic translation you cite is late and regional. The earliest Greek manuscripts (P66, P75, 4th cent. codices) confirm the same Greek text used in all mainstream Bibles. The early Church fathers (Greek native speakers) all read John 1:1 as “the Word was God”, never “a god.”
If the Word were merely a god, then John 1:1 introduces two gods, contradicting Deu 6:4 and John 17:3. John’s Gospel presents the eternal, divine Logos who “became flesh” (v. 14), God Himself manifest in the Son.
“the Word was a god” is grammatically false, contextually absurd, and theologically blasphemous. The true translation, affirmed by grammar, manuscripts, and early Greek readers, is simply and eternally:
>In the beginning was the Word … and the Word was God.
