[B-Greek] Word Order in John 1:1
Steve Klemetti
sklemetti at softhome.net
Sat Oct 25 12:30:04 EDT 2003
I remember reading somewhere and I just can't remember where. But some
reference work listed the 4 possibilites that John could have written
Kai theos en ho logos
Kai ho theos en ho logos
Kai ho logos en theos
Kai logos en ho theos
And there was an A B C D comparison of each one and
what the meaning of each would be. Has anyone else seen
that in a reference work?
Jason Hare wrote:
> 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."
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list