[B-Greek] IWANNHN 1:1
MAKARIOIOIPRAEIS at aol.com
MAKARIOIOIPRAEIS at aol.com
Sat Mar 5 02:04:04 EST 2005
I think its interesting to consider the possible choices of word order and
anarthrous/articular nouns John could have used in introducing the Word and God
in John 1.
hO LOGOS EN hO QEOS: The hO LOGOS (the Word) and hO QEOS (God) are
equivalent and interchangeable, each posseses the article so they are each distinct and
independent but they are, by this construction identified as identically the
same.
QEOS EN hO LOGOS: (as in John 1:1). This differs from the preceding
statement in that it stresses the predicate QEOS as qualitative. The articular noun hO
LOGOS is the subject of the sentence is, the predicate is QEOS, it precedes
the verb EN and does not posses the article following the construction known as
"Colwell's rule".
hO LOGOS QEOS EN This order would put the emphasis on the Word rather than
on the nature he possessed.
hO LOGOS hEN QEOS This would stress that the word was a divine being of some
kind.
hO LOGOS hEN QEIOUS(adj) Similar in meaning to the previous but using the
adjective instead to emphasize "divine" or "god-like".
Richard Windisch
>My second question concerns Johns ussage of the definite article in the
>above-quoted verse. John uses the definite article with every instance
>of LOGOS and QEOS but the last instance of QEOS. This makes the famous
>translation 'and the word was God' quite obvious in English. However,
>he uses the definite article with the other instance of QEOS, and it is
>typically deleted in translation. I'm rambling... My question is this:
>is there a certain meaning meant when John uses the definite article
>with the first instance of QEON, and a different meaning when he uses
>QEON without it the second time, even a subtle one?
>Jason Broander
>3rd Year Undergrad, University of Chicago
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list