QEOS and the Article

GregStffrd at aol.com GregStffrd at aol.com
Fri Mar 2 10:19:01 EST 2001


It appears that there are two grammatical interests to the question at hand: 
1) the use or nonuse of the article, and 2) the fronting of the PN. As long 
as we maintain our focus on either of these two grammatical issues, the 
discussion should prove fruitful for all. I am here separating the two 
grammatical approaches, and will give some thoughts on the use and nonuse of 
the article with QEOS. 2) will apparently be explored further in other posts. 

In a message dated 03/01/2001 8:19:55 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
bsullivan at dingoblue.net.au writes:

<< As Dave points out, the author uses anarthrous phrases where the noun is
 understood as definite (1:6, 12). However, Melinda notes Jn 6:70 and  9:17
 using the indefinite 'a prophet', 'a devil.' Perhaps the use of the article
 in 1:4 could be used to argue why such a theologically provocative statement
 as Jn 1:1 is indefinite when v4 (seemingly less important) has it. >>


If Dave's point was specific to an argument that deals only with the use or 
nonuse of the article (and I think maybe it was), then it is fine to point to 
other uses of the same term in different grammatical cases and discuss why in 
these instances the nonuse of the article does not similarly convey an 
indefinite semantic. 

However, I do not know of anyone who only points to the nonuse of the article 
in John 1:1c as a basis for his/her conclusion. I believe I am correct in 
saying that most arguments also rely on the USE of the article in 1:1b. Thus, 
we are not simply dealing with an isolated instance of a term, or a term used 
multiple times FOR ONE INDIVIDUAL in one particular context. 

In John 1:1 we have two individuals who are grammatically shown to be in 
association with each other, each called QEOS (one with the article and the 
other without it). In such a context where two beings are "with" each other, 
where they are each called QEOS but distinguished by means of the article, 
then I think it is entirely appropriate to suggest some distinction in 
English such as "God" and "a god." 

If there is disagreement of a _grammatical_ nature, then one must present a 
context where two individuals have the same term applied to them but with a 
difference in the use of the article. THAT would be a comparable situation to 
what we have in John 1:1, not simply citing texts where a term is used 
without the article and where such a term is not in association with the same 
term used with the article for another individual. Such a context, as I 
mentioned in a previous post, seems to me to demand a distinction between the 
two who are in association with each, a distinction in the very same terms 
used to describe each of them.

What is more, we have evidence from very early times to show that some 
influential theologians also perceived a similar distinction in this use and 
nonuse of the Greek article. Origen in his Commentary on John appears to be 
speaking with direct reference to John 1:1 when he writes, "all beyond the 
Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be 
called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without the article). . 
. . The true God, then, is 'The God,' and those who are formed after him are 
gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype" (ANF vol. 10, page 323). 

Origen made regular use of the anarthrous QEOS when referring to God 
elsewhere in his Commentary, so there is clearly some thought about the 
distinction between the Logos and other "gods" and "The" God when they are 
called QEOS in a context where each is mentioned but where a difference in 
the use or nonuse of the article exists. This is clear from Origen's quote 
which I encourage all to consider in its entirety. 

Philo also makes a distinction between "The" God and others who are called 
QEOS without the article. I don't have the exact reference with me right now, 
but I will post it later. It is in his On Dreams, though, I remember that 
much. 

So we have two highly influential theologians, one who preceded John and 
whose writings show a good deal of similarity (in language and in thought) 
with those of John (particularly his Gospel), and one who followed him, who 
wrote a Commentary on his Gospel. Both write that a significant distinction 
is to be noted when the Most High God is called QEOS with the article in 
contrast to others who are not. 

Looking at it purely from a grammatical level, and noting these early 
influential thoughts about the same, is it not at least reasonable to suggest 
that there is a distinction in this particular context between the LOGOS and 
the QEOS he is "with," in terms of QEOS, and that use of the article is to 
some degree responsible for this distinction? In my opinion, it is. 

Best regards,

Greg Stafford




More information about the B-Greek mailing list