john 1

Another thing I just thought of is that the word "theos" is not an 
ordinary noun like "huios" or "phOs."  What are the rules governing its 
use with or without an article?  As I remember it often, perhaps always, 
appears without an article, and if that is so then it may make it harder 
to see any significance in its being "anarthrous" in the phrase in 
question.  Of course this relates to the question of how to determine 
whether this is a proper noun or a "descriptive/expressive"-functioning 
noun.  The idea of the latter seems utterly bizarre to me: Greek had 
plenty of adjectives not to have to cross over into using nouns as 
adjectival.  But then Hebrew often did, and perhaps Aramaic did (I'm not 
swift on my Aramaic enough to know).  So maybe this could be a vestige of 
a Semitic substrate in John's Greek idiolect.  Anyway I will check out 
that "Jesus as Theos" book, although I wish its main relevant insight had 
been explained online.

PS: As a humorous aside, in case anyone's still thinking about John 1:18, 
I noticed that the variant "monogenEs theos" which would seem to support 
an Athanasian/Nicene reading, is supported by, of all people: Arius!  And 
it looks like some of the Athanasian/Nicene camp support the seemingly 
more Arian variants like "monogenEs huios" etc.  Endless ironies of history!
There must be a story behind that.

-Greg Jordan