"The Jesus of St. John" (J. Ernest Davey)-Pages 166-167 (Image)

 

John 1:1c (Subject and Predicate Nouns)

Greek: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.

While reading a paper on John 1:1 today, I came across the claim that Θεὸς is the subject in John 1:1c and ὁ Λόγος is the predicate since the former noun comes before the latter. I'm here to say the writer is wrong, and he should read some Daniel Wallace or William Mounce.

Similarly, Alexander Smarius writes:

"There is little doubt that ὁ λόγος is the subject in all of its three occurrences in 1:1a–c, so that θεός in the phrase 'and the Word was theos' (1:1c) is a predicate noun.5 From a strictly grammatical viewpoint, this predicate noun can be interpreted in three different ways."

https://brill.com/view/journals/hbth/44/2/article-p141_2.xml#ref_FN000005

Occurrences of John 2:19 in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Pre-Nicenes)

 John 2:19 Research

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.iii.xi.v.iv.html#iii.xi.v.iv-p132.1 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.ix.iii.xxxii.html#vi.ix.iii.xxxii-p5.1 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.ix.viii.xix.html#vi.ix.viii.xix-p3.1 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iii.iv.ii.i.html#iii.iv.ii.i-p36.1 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iii.iv.ii.i.html#iii.iv.ii.i-p36.1 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.vi.iii.xxii.html#vi.iii.xxii-p4.1 Nota bene: This is not the opportunity for a Trinity doctrine thread. I should add that the occurrences include allusions and not just quotations.

"Bosom position"? (Screenshot for John 1:18--Keener)

 Some have criticized the NWT translating John 1:18 with "bosom position"

HCSB: "No one has ever seen God. The One and Only Son-- the One who is at the Father's side-- He has revealed Him."

Was John 21 Later Added to the Fourth Gospel?

There is not one universally accepted answer to the question as to whether John 21 was added later or by someone other than the original writer of John. Some want to insist that John 21 was added while others resist the idea: I personally see little evidence for thinking the last chapter of John came later, but here are some resources that discuss the question. I also want to post a quote that gives reasons for not viewing John 21 as a later supplement to the Gospel.

This article examines whether P. Bodmer II supplies possible evidence for thinking John 21 was added: https://brentnongbri.com/2018/10/24/p-bodmer-ii-as-evidence/

On the other hand, Richard Bauckham thinks the last chapter of John was meant to function as an epilogue in conjunction with the Johannine Prologue (John 1:1-8): it would then bookend the overall contents of the Gospel. However, Bauckham does not think John 21 was later added to thhe Fourth Gospel.

Robert Mounce explains:

A major reason for the additional material is said to have been the desire to correct a misunderstanding about the time of Jesus’ return (“ Didn’t he say he would return before John died?” cf. 21: 20– 23). Arguments supporting the integrity of ch. 21 include: (1) the large number of Johannine idioms, (2) the absence of any break in style, and (3) the lack of any indication that the gospel ever circulated without this last section. Morris, 859, confesses “to being a little mystified by the certainty of those who regard it as self-evident that this last chapter is a late addition.”

Mounce, Robert H. John (The Expositor's Bible Commentary) (Kindle Locations 9600-9604). Zondervan. Kindle Edition. 

This link discusses both sides of the issue but decides in favor of taking John 21 to be original: https://bible.org/seriespage/24-exegetical-commentary-john-21#P3791_719621

Edward W. Klink III (John, ZECNT): 

The majority of scholarship on the Gospel of John considers the entirety of chapter 21 to be a later addition to the Gospel. The primary basis of this assumption is the manner in which the purpose statement of 20:30–31 functions as a fitting conclusion to the Gospel (see comments before 20:24).2 The argument for this can only be based on internal evidence, however, for there is not a shred of evidence from the manuscript tradition that suggests the Gospel ever existed without chapter 21. No existing copy of the Gospel ever ends at 20:31, nor are either pericopae in chapter 21 ever found elsewhere in the Gospel. This is significant evidence and makes certain that the burden of proof is placed upon those who argue that chapter 21 is not original to the Gospel.

His commentary has an extensive discussion on the issues surrounding John 21.

See also https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/new-testament-studies/article/abs/sign-in-john-xxi/7BE4C46F9DC2539DB6E0B5A9B3ED9FFC

Nice article here by Craig 
Keener: https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/world/the-gospel-of-john/37

Final John 1:1c Quote For Now (G.G. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible, P. 102)