119 A Grammatical Analysis of John 1,1 g) Theological reasons Reference has already been made to the position taken by the Jeho- vah Witnesses, namely, that the absence of the article indicates that this phrase should be read as “a god”. Brown131 on the other hand argues that due to their Judaistic background there is a hesitancy to call Jesus “God” in the New Testament, since that term was reserved for the Father. The divinity of Jesus was normally expressed by equating activities. He132 then concludes: “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”. Dennison133 points out in his article that the syntactical, contextual, and theological arguments will play an important part in determining the translation of 1,1c. The arguments presented above underline this ob- servation. In the end John 1,1 is a compact expression with maschal-like (riddle-like) qualities. Moule134 also argues that the omission, which re- sults in some ambiguity, might reflect a conscious theological decision by the author that must consequently be dealt with in a theological manner. In the end, Dennison135 translates/paraphrases the translation as follows: “In the beginning was the Word (God the Son), and God the Son was with God the Father, and God the Son was God (as God the Father is God)”. 2.3.2 Comments on the status of research on θεός in καὶ θεός ἦν ὁ λόγος in Jn 1,1c. Chrys C. Caragounis: There has been a rich and lively scholarly dis- cussion of the third clause καὶ Θεός ἦν ὁ λόγος, as is clear from the preceding section in 2.3.1. While much of what has been advanced is valuable, the overall picture of the current research leaves much to be desired, especially in the light of diachronical research. A look at the developments that were taking place during post-classical times makes it inescapably clear that the limited data on which traditional grammars and commentators based their views cannot stand up to closer scrutiny. It is important that here, too, we should consider the evidence as a whole. The interpretation of anarthrous Θεός in the phrase καὶ Θεός ἦν ὁ Λόγος has been unnecessarily complicated by both grammarians and Brown, John, (see n. 9), 24. 131 Brown, John, (see n. 9), 24. 132 Dennison, Symmetries, (see n. 87), 29-30, 36. 133 Moule, Idiom, (see n. 49), 53, 76, 115-116. 134 Dennison, Symmetries, (see n. 87), 29-30, 36. 135