John 1:1-2

James S. Murray jsmurray at execpc.com
Wed Mar 24 22:20:50 EST 1999


Bill Ross wrote:

> {Jack}
> > 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?
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek
> You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: jsmurray at execpc.com
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek at franklin.oit.unc.edu

Bill,  QEOS is in nominative because it is the complement of LOGOS.  Since they both
nominative, the complement drops the article.  At least, that's how I learned it
(Wenham).  I don't want to get into theological controversy on this verse, but I
would just say I think since LOGOS has the article, it should be taken as the subject
of the clause, however we wish to understand it's meaning.

James Murray
Racine, WI






More information about the B-Greek mailing list