[B-Greek] BDAG on QEOS and John 1:1 - Reformatted

Dan Parker stoixein at sdf.lonestar.org
Fri Nov 26 16:58:51 EST 2004


Arie said:
<< Don, I had decided to write nothing about QEOS in Jh 1:1, because
the matter had been treated on this list before and because it is
clear that the question if we must understand "God" or "a god"
cannot been settled with the Greek text of Jh 1:1 alone.>>

Dear Arie,
I believe you mistakenly addressed this to the wrong person. I am
the one who wrote the words to which you respond.   The question
I was addressing was twofold.

1) How should the Greek of John 1:1 be rendered based upon Greek Grammar.
2) How does the context and usage of this language help with #1.

Because of the nature of this forum I will not address items which
are merely theological.

 
<< However I would like to give some comment on your message quoted
after my lines.>>
 
<< The dictionary of Bauer (I possess the German edition) is
excellent, but Bauer had his theological opinion too and it is
methodologically not safe to follow him in everything. We have to
check the texts he mentions ourselves.>>

I don't find that Bauer inserts his theology into this entry.  He
comments on how these words would be understood by giving examples
from that time period which have a similar grammar.  Also keep in
mind that this is now the work also of Danker who has changed and
added to the lexicon, not merely rendered Bauer's edition from
German.

 
<< Concerning Ad Diognetum (known as "To Diognetus" or "The Epistle
to Diognetus") you quote. The full sentence of that text reads:>>
 
	ALL' hOSTIS TO TOU PLHSION ANADECETAI BAROS, hOS EN hWi
	KREISSWN ESTIN hETERON TON ELATTOUMENON EUERGETEIN EQELEI,
	hOS hA PARA TOU QEOU LABWN EXEI, TAUTA TOIS EPIDEOMENOIS
	CORHGWN QEOS GINETAI TWN LAMBANONTWN, hOUTOS MIMHTHS ESTI
	QEOU.
 
The passage (also before this sentence) is speaking about being an
imitator of God. The conclusion of our sentence is clear: hOUTOS
MIMHTHS ESTI QEOU.
 
Before that conclusion the unknown author writes that a person who
is helping the poor QEOS GINETAI TWN LAMBANONTWN "becomes God for
those who get it".  In the context that can mean that the poor are
*seeing* him as God  or a god, but also that he *takes the role*
of God.  In my opinion the text cannot give us the possibility to
decide if *Christ* could be seen as God or a god by his followers.
>>

Bauer is not making a theological argument here and neither should we. 

This is one Christian quotation where the grammar (anarthrous QEOS)
is used to describe someone who represents God.  How can the context
indicate that a human being who does God's work is identified as
("*seeing* him as God") the one who sent him?    You logic eludes
me. Can you clarify?

 
<< Concerning Ex 7:1 we see that God himself *compares* the role
of Moses with God and that of Aaron with a prophet, because Moses
will be silent and Aaron will speak to the Pharaoh. The text does
not speak about salvation for the Jews but about speaking and being
silent.  So this text cannot be used for the purpose it is used in
the message below.>>

Once again Danker is using Exodus 7:1 to show how Elohim in the
Hebrew and QEOS in the Greek can be applied to someone who is a
representative of God without violating the Shema of Israel.

 
<< The decision whether Christ was seen as God in the full sense
of the word has to be solved with other texts. John himself gives
us two important clues:
 
<< - Well known is 8: 58 PRIN ABRAAM GENESQAI EGO EIMI, where EGO
EIMI clearly refers to the name of God "I am". The reaction of the
Jews in the next verse shows that that understood the claim of
Jesus for they tried to organize the punishment prescribed in Lv
24: 16 "when he blasphemes *the Name*".  Arie>>


This verse has been discussed on the list before.   I would recommend
that you search on it in the archives.

But I will make brief comments on the grammar of this verse. EGW
EIMI is the main clause of this sentence (subject and verb) and
not a title.   The PRIN ABRAAM GENESQAI is an adverbial phrase that
modifies the verb in the main clause.


EGW EIMI is not grammatically a title or name of anyone in John
8:58.   EGW EIMI from the Greek Septuagint is found in an entirely
different construction, EGW EIMI hO WN, or "I am the being."   EGW
EIMI is being used copulatively there and it is hO WN which is the
title.

In John 8:58 Jesus did not say EGW EIMI hO WN.

You can test this out by substituting a name for EGW EIMI in John
8:58.  

	English:  Before Abraham was born, Fred.
	Greek:	PRIN ABRAAM GENESQAI, FRED

I think I have commented on all of the Greek grammatical issues
you raised.  Feel free to contact me off-list for a theological
discussion.

Best Regards,
Dan Parker

PS Please accept my apology for the way the previous message was formatted.



More information about the B-Greek mailing list