The lack of an article makes it an indefinite reference in Greek. And I agree that there is no God of the dead - which is all the more reason why theos should be understood as indefinite. If it is definite then you have introduced the God of the dead into scripture

@RyanPierceWilliams - the grammatical rules surrounding the definite article are quite different in Greek vs English and one cannot use one for the other.

@Dottard I didn’t say the article is equivalent in Greek and English. I said the presence or absence of the article (in the nominative and accusative cases especially) marks a noun as definite in Greek. There are a limited number of ways in which a noun maybe marked as definite in Greek. The absence of such a marker in the nominative and accusative means it is an indefinite noun. Also, if it is definite then you need to explain the definite reference to the God of the dead

@RyanPierceWilliams - things are a bit more complicated than that - such as being anaphoric or monadic, etc.

@Dottard if you can identify specific relevant grammar that would make this case definite then please submit an answer with the details. And also address who the definite God of the dead is.

@RyanPierceWilliams - Daniel Wallace in his "Greek Grammar beyond the Basics) spends a whole (large) chapter on the subject of the Greek definite article. I do not intend to reproduce that. Suffice to say here that Jesus' statement in Luke 20:38 is definitive - Jesus is talking about the One True God alone - God the Father who is NOT the God of the dead but the God of the living. This is confirmed by the necessity for including "the" before 'living' and "dead" despite its absence in the Greek, even in your translation. That is the point - God is not of the dead!

@Dottard in other words you don’t have any real evidence or an argument; you are just gonna declare what you want to be the case as if it were the truth - to heck with facts

@OldeEnglish I will never reconsider demanding evidence; but you should reconsider group think. Seriously, I’m not asking for anything egregious here - just that you support your claims and address the stated issues. If you have a problem being objective then maybe don’t answer?

@RyanPierceWilliams - I will try to ignore your previous rude and derogatory comments and simply observe that there is a HUGE amount of evidence that is already publicly available - perhaps you should acquaint yourself with it. Again, I refer you to Daniel's Wallace's "Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics" especially the large chapter on the definite article.

@Dottard if it’s so accessible then you shouldn’t have trouble finding something to substantiate your claims. You are the one who decided to participate and to put your support behind an answer - it’s your responsibility to support your position, not my responsibility to find evidence for what you claim to be the case despite the evidence

@Dottard In Wallace’s Greek Grammar I did find a foot note on p223 which reads: “ho theos also may be regarded as par excellence rather than monastic in many contexts. This is not to say that to the NT writers there were many gods, but that there were many entities and beings called theos. Only one truly deserved the name.” Still don’t see anything to support your position, but it’s a good chapter to review.

@RyanPierceWilliams - I think you mean "Monadic" and not "monastic."

@Dottard yea, small typo; probably auto-corrected by my phone and didn’t notice

@Dottard went through that chapter, with a particular eye to the last section on the Absence of the Article. None of the 10 exceptions apply that I can see. The one you alluded to (6. Monadic Nouns) is not applicable to this verse. As indicated in the previously quoted footnote, ho theos can be classified as par excellence rather than monadic generally, and in this verse specifically it is speaking of two distinct kinds of god (or two specific gods of taken to be determinate; either way, not monadic).

@RyanPierceWilliams - you have missed the point of Jesus' statement - there is only one God and that is God the Father who is not the God of the dead but of the living. Jesus is making a statement about God the Father. The noun "God" only occurs once and is the subject of both parts of the same sentence.

I haven’t missed that point at all - you have simply confused its relevance in the translation process. “He” = God. God is being described