John 1:18

George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Thu Feb 4 14:17:21 EST 1999





>From: "Ray Clendenen" 

>Does anyone out there have any information about Ehrman's  >contention. 
His argument seems rather strong to me and        >inclines me to agree 
that huois is probably the original       >reading against the majority 
of text critics. What do
>you think? 

Hall Harris likes QEOS because it is the more difficult reading!

I like QEOS because I see John 1-18 as a unit of discourse, and the end 
of it should tie up with the beginning, [chiastically].     Because TON 
QEON [KAI] QEOS forms the pivot of the opening      chiasm, I would look 
to the end to find this term [QEOS] as       well.  [The pivot is in the 
'betweeness' of the two nouns           TON QEON and QEOS, arthrous and 
anarthrous.]  

However, I also see the 'left over' PROS TON QEON of the        opening 
chiasm as being appendable to the end of 1:18      [implicitly, thereby 
making EXERGHSONTAI more understandable         to me], which could 
argue either way.  The whole of this gospel   seems to predicate around 
the  hO QEOS-QEOS relationship     introduced in the opening chiasm, 
which would seem to be         another argument in favor of QEOS in 
1:18.

IS the QEOS the HUIOS in 1:18?  I do not know how it could   reasonably 
be   denied.  So I don't think there is any real     problem with using  
either one.

George




George Blaisdell
Roslyn, WA


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com



More information about the B-Greek mailing list