I can finally read some biblical Greek so I thought I would ask my first real exegetical question dealing with the original language.

ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὀ λόγος.


Jehovah's Witnesses (or Mormons? or both?) say that the lack of a definite article in the third clause implies that Christ was merely one of several/many gods, not God Himself. I don't believe this because of the testimony of the rest of Scripture. But I do still wonder why the definite article is used in the third clause but not in the second if the same meaning is implied. Is it because θεός appears in a prepositional phrase in the second clause? But a preposition certainly doesn't necessitate the use of an article. That a definite article is not required to imply the English rendering "God" instead of "a God" seems like it would be a fine argument if the clause in which an article were ommitted should be found standing alone. But what should the exegete say if the author uses the same phrase in the same sentence while omitting the article in only one clause?

Also, is there any significance to the movement of ὀ λόγος to the end of the clause in C when it was at the beginning in B?

__________________
Davidius
Husband of Emilia
Member: First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Durham (RPCNA) - Durham, NC
Currently in the process of transferring membership to an as-yet-undecided church in Chapel Hill
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German Literature and Classics