[B-Greek] Word Order in John 1:1
Pastor Thomas C. Black
tcblack at wireless111.com
Sat Oct 25 13:50:27 EDT 2003
Mounce BBG toward the end of the definite article introduction of
chapter 6 (second edition.
I'll try to summarize the argument...
"...It's [QEOS] lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying
the person o 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
tells us that Jesus Christ is no the Father. John's wording here is
beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse
theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the
lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against
Arianism.
To state this another way, look at how the different Greek
constructions would be rendered:
KAI hO LOGOS HN hO QEOS "and the Word was the God" (i.e, the
Father; Sabellianism).
KAI hO LOGOS HN QEOS "and the Word was a god" (Arianism)
KAI QEOS HN hO LOGOS "and the Word was God (Orthodoxy).
Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has.
But he is not the first person of the Trinity. All this is concisely
affirmed in KAI QEOS HN hO LOGOS.
- Daniel B. Wallace"
As quoted from BBG p 27-29 (2nd Ed.)
Pastor Thomas C. Black
Moweaqua, IL.
- Truth is still truth, even if you don't believe it.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Klemetti" <sklemetti at softhome.net>
To: "B-Greek" <B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Word Order in John 1:1
> 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."
>
> ---
> 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