133 A Grammatical Analysis of John 1,1 However, the context does not allow him to be identified with the Fa- ther either. To articulate this difficult theological position John might have avoided the article even if it was not grammatically required. In any case, if the article would have been used it would have distorted the theology (in the light of the rest of the Gospel’s evidence about the relationship between the Father and the Son), entirely identifying the Father and the Son. Aware of the above problem Brown166 nevertheless regards the translation “the Word was God” as correct “for a modern Christian reader whose Trinitarian background has accustomed him to thinking of ‘God’ as a larger concept than ‘God the Father’”. Brown167 further remarks that “In vs. 1c the Johannine hymn is bordering on the usage of ‘God’ for the Son, but by omitting the article it avoids any suggestion of personal identification of the Word with the Father. And for Gentile readers the line also avoids any suggestion that the Word was a second God in any Hellenistic sense”. Wallace168 also prefers the translation: “the Word was God” even though he is convinced that God in 1,1c is qualitative, since it will limit misunderstanding in a modern Trinitarian context. This option seems to be an acceptable translation, but leaves the me- aning a bit ambiguous, especially because of the difference in reference of θεός in 1b and 1c. Further interpretation is left to the reader. ‣ A third option is ignoring the anarthrous nature of 1c making no distinction between Word and God as subject or predicate169. From the grammatical point of view, this is not acceptable. Neither is it from the theological point of view. The distinction between the Father (as θεός) and the Son is so pointed and strong in the Gospel that such an equation (especially in the light of the reference of θεός in 1b) is not plausible or possible (see the arguments for the relation between the Father and the Son in b) above). This option need not be considered any further. ‣ A fourth option is to translate θεός as “divine” (an adjective)170. This option seems to enjoy the majority vote of the grammarians as became Brown, John, (see n. 9), ad loc. 166 Brown, John, (see n. 9), ad loc. 167 Wallace, Syntax, (see n. 9), 269. 168 Bultmann, Johannes, (see n. 13), 16 rejects the possibility that θεός might be the 169 subject in this sentence. He solidly maintains that θεός is the predicate due to the absence of the article. Bultmann, Johannes, (see n. 13), 17 rejects this way of translation, asking why θεῖος 170 is not used, which would be much more appropriate for such a translation. See also Brown, John, (see n. 9), 5. Even if it is argued that due to the Semitic influence (that does not know the concept θεῖος) θεός is used, it basically brings one back to the issue of the monotheistic being of God, as it was present in the Jewish context. What we have here according to Bultmann is that the “Logos wird also mit Gott gleichgesetzt”.