[B-Greek] Word Order in John 1:1

Jason Hare jason at hareplay.com
Sat Oct 25 10:26:16 EDT 2003


Iver,

You really don't think that the juxtaposition of the predicate compliment
with the verb is what makes it qualitative? This is what I had learned also.
Take Mounce (first edition) as an example (please ignore the theological
overtones):

"We know that "the Word" is the subject because it has the definite article,
and we translate it accordingly: "and the Word was God." Two questions, both
of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was QEOS thrown forward?
and (2) why does it lack the article? In brief, its *emphatic position
stresses its essence or quality*: "What God was, the Word was" is how one
translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us
from identifying the /person/ of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the /person/
of "God" (the Father). That is to say, *the word order* tells us that Jesus
Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the
article  tell sus that Jesus Christ  is not the Father...." (pp.28-29, **
added, // original)

See Wallace's comments from pages 266 through 269 of /Greek Grammar Beyond
the Basics/, especially this line on page 269:

"The /idea/ of a qualitative QEOS here is that the Word had all the
attributes and qualities that "the God" (of 1:1b) had. In other words, he
shared the /essence/ of the Father, though they differed in person. /The
construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most
*concise* way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was
distinct from the Father./" (** // original)

This is not to say that only by having a PN placed emphatically may we
stress its quality/essence, but this position is ideal for it.

Regarding definiteness, Colwell's rule does not say anything about a PN in
such a construction *having* to be definite. (Which agrees with what you
have said, Iver.) However, it says that a definite noun will lose its
article in this position. That much fits his rule (if QEOS is supposed to be
definite). I go along with Wallace, though: it fits best with this
construction to take QEOS "qualitatively."

All the best,
Jason Hare

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Iver Larsen" <iver_larsen at sil.org>
> >
> > John 1:1 EN ARCHi HN hO LOGOS, KAI hO LOGOS HN PROS TON QEON, KAI
> > QEOS HN hO LOGOS.
> > I read somewhere that the word order of the last phrase here (KAI
> > QEOS HN hO LOGOS) is what makes QEOS definite.
> > I quess this is due to emphasis. Context would have a bearing on
> > whether QEOS is definite or indefinite, would it not?
> > It also said that if the subject and the predicate had been
> > reversed, (KAI hO LOGOS HN QEOS) this phrase would mean; 'and the
> > word was a god'. Is this true?
>
> No, it is not true. Word order and definiteness are two different animals.
> It is the lack of the article that makes QEOS qualitative and predicate
> here, as pointed out by Steve Klemetti.
>
> Iver Larsen
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>




More information about the B-Greek mailing list