The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

The same question could be asked about <a href="javascript:{}" class="NETBibleTagged">John 1:1</a>, even though this may have originally been written in Greek. Greek did not have capital letters either.

In the Pentateuch this term primarily takes the prefixed article ה to demonstrate definiteness, though elsewhere it stands alone and is simply understood as an appellative. The best indicator is always context...especially if your question is about other "gods" or about the one true God. There really is no regularly used indicator (that I know of) to differentiate usage beyond context and every once in a while the context is ambiguous (eg, Dan. 3:25; 4:8; numbered 4:5 in the Hebrew text).

My examples from Daniel were simply intended as ambiguous terms (see the various translations for this despite your claims to the contrary) where the Aramaic is indeed representative of what can happen in Hebrew.

Interestingly enough, where my bible has "and the Word was God", the JW bible has "and the Word was a god". The use or absence of the indefinite article conveys something quite different in English and in Greek. At least, that's what Greek scholars tell me.

The NET bible shows "and the Word was fully God". That's the first time I've seen the adverb "fully" in there.

tn Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (theos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.

sn And the Word was fully God. John’s theology consistently drives toward the conclusion that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is just as much God as God the Father. This can be seen, for example, in texts like John 10:30 (“The Father and I are one”), 17:11 (“so that they may be one just as we are one”), and 8:58 (“before Abraham came into existence, I am”). The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”); rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence.

Should I start a new discussion if I want to discuss the same differentiation in Greek?