John 1:1-2

George Blaisdell maqhth at hotmail.com
Wed Mar 24 15:35:10 EST 1999





>From: "Bill Ross" 

>{Jack} [George, actually]
>> A  EN ARCH HN hO LOGOS
>>   B  KAI hO LOGOS HN PROS TON QEON
>>   B' KAI QEON HN hO LOGOS
>> A' hOUTOS HN EN ARCH
>> PROS TON QEON
>
>{Bill}
>In a "Sleudian Frip" (oops, I mean "Freudian Slip") your B' phrase has 
QEON
>(accusative) rather than QEOS (nominative). This seems like "how it 
ought to
>be" (I am a little Greek), though it is actually QEOS, unless QEOS is 
to be
>seen as an adjective.
>
>So my questions are:
>
>* is QEOS a noun in the nominative?
>* if so, couldn't it just as easily read AND GOD WAS [BEING] THE WORD?
>* is QEOS an adjective ("divine")?
>* if so, how can I tell the difference?

Bill ~

I am embarassed ~ OF COURSE it is QEOS!!!

I don't know if it is one or the other [adj. or nom.], and I suspect 
that it is in fact a pred. nom. because that seems to make much more 
chiastic sense.  

An attribute [pros] has already been ascribed, as has been the 
'where/when' [en arch], so the identity at the center would make more 
sense than another adjective, and would have the added benefit of 
EXPLAINING the other two, you see.  It is in virtue of the hO LOGOS-QEOS 
identity that the relationship and locus of the Logos are true.  

This is the magic of chiastic structures ~ Everything 'turns' on the 
center, and the absolute center here is TON QEON KAI QEOS, which is the 
quintessential resonance of hO QEOS-QEOS.  In a word, God is right smack 
dab in the center of this structure. [C::C], and is emphasized again at 
the end ~ the 'left over' C.  The center causally explains the rest.

I agree with you that in English, 'And God was the Word' is much better, 
not because it better translates the sentence structure of the Greek 
couplet, but because it honors the chiastic word order that is so 
crucial to this passage.

George


George Blaisdell
Roslyn, WA

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



More information about the B-Greek mailing list