[B-Greek] John 1:18b question (and John 1:8)
Iver Larsen
iver_larsen at sil.org
Fri Dec 26 10:51:48 EST 2003
> 1. Did John possibly use the construction MONOGENHS
> QEOS hO WN EIS TON KOLPON TOU PATROS because
> of the verbal link with Exodus 3:14?
>
> Iver, I'm NOT asking a textual question, because the text
> is not in doubt; I offered hOS ESTIN as an ALTERNATIVE
> that basically, I think, means the same thing, only in order
> to suggest what John COULD have written, but didn't. What
> he DID choose to write (and the hO WN is not in doubt, and
> I am NOT asking re: QEOS vs. hUIOS) is the basis for my
> question re: if hO WN is sufficiently unusual here to
> suggest that John was possibly making an allusion to
> Exodus 3:14 since he did NOT write hOS ESTIN or another
> Phrase that could mean the same thing.
My apologies, Eric. I realized after sending my post that I had not properly
understood your question.
I now understood you to be asking: Is the use of hO WN in some may marked,
so that the reader would get a clue that a reference to Exo 3:14 was
intended?
Looking at all occurrences of hOS ESTIN and hO WN in the GNT, it seems that
hOS ESTIN is used to identify a person (normally using known information),
and it corresponds to English "he, who is". But hO WN is used to further
describe a person "the one being x" where x is some new descriptive
characteristic of that person. The difference is not great, but in John 1:18
it seems to me that the expected expression is hO WN, and hOS ESTIN would be
marked as somewhat unusual, if it had been used, and it would not fit the
context nearly as well as hO WN.
For the past tense or EIMI (imperfective), the situation is different, since
there is no imperfective participle. Therefore, we find hOS HN much more
commonly than hOS ESTIN. The hO HN in Rev 1:4 etc is, of course, highly
unusual, but I suppose it is poetic licence to invent a non-existent
imperfective "participle".
Iver Larsen
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list