[B-Greek] John 1:1c
Iver Larsen
iver at larsen.dk
Tue Jul 4 04:51:47 EDT 2006
From: "SEAN KASABUSKE" <alethinon61 at milwpc.com>
>
> This is a theologically loaded verse, but I have a couple of generic
> questions about Colwell constructions in general. Since we know that nouns
> that occur before the verb are often simply indefinite nouns (for examples,
> see John 4:19, 6:70, 8:34, 8:44, 8:48, 9:17, 9:24, 9:25, 10:1, 10:13, 12:6,
> 18:35, 18:37), on what grammatical basis, then, do we establish that
> fronting is used in a given case for emphasis? Is it guess work based solely
> on our view of the context?
It seems to me that you are stating a questionable assumption.
Whether a noun is definite or indefinite is a different and independent parameter from whether it occurs before the verb
or not.
Word order indicates emphasis in some way or another (it can be topical, contrast etc.) It is not just whether a word
comes before the verb, but in what order all the words come.
The definite form is basically used to refer to what is already known, but indefinite forms can be used to introduce an
entity for the first time or to describe another entity. (This is somewhat oversimplified for the sake of capturing the
basic idea.)
Let me give a couple of other examples from John to supplement yours:
Jhn 1:4 EN AUTWi ZWH HN, KAI hH ZWH HN TW FWS TWN ANQRWPWN
(in him was (qualitative) life, and that life was the light of human beings (what gives light to people)
Jhn 1:21 hO PROFHTHS EI SU; (Are you THE Prophet?)
Compare yours: Jhn 4:19 PROFHTHS EI SU (You are a prophet)
Jhn 4:37 hO LOGOS ESTIN ALHQINOS (The/this word is true)
Jhn 15:1 hO PATHR MOU hO GEWRGOS ESTIN (my father is the vine dresser - not a vine dresser).
The definite noun indicates that the intention of ESTIN is not to describe, but to identy.
> Also, on what grammatical basis do we establish that the emphasis achieved
> by fronting is so powerful that it negates the normal sense of the term
> used? What I mean is that "God" is normally a proper noun in the Bible when
> used in a positive way, and as such it normally identifies a specific
> individual (or representatives of said individual). But at 1:1c it is
> suggested that it is merely the qualities of the one who is identified as
> God that are predicated upon the LOGOS. On what grammatical basis do we
> remove the qualities from the entity who owns them, and how do we know that
> it is the qualities of the specific God that are predicated if the noun is
> not a proper noun referring to the specific God? In other words, if QOES is
> qualitative, then how is it that it identifies, and if it identifies, then
> how is it qualitative?
Again, word order (emphasis) is a different parameter from "the normal sense".
In Greek QEOS is not normally a proper noun in itself. It means a "divine being" that people ought to respect and
worship. Several times in John we see this general word for a divine being qualified by other words:
Jhn 5:44 THN DOXAN THN PARA TOU MONOU QEOS
Jhn 17:3 TON MONON ALHQINON QEON
In the context of Greek thought, there were many gods, but for a Jew there was only one, true God. When a non-proper
noun refers to a unique entity, it can take on the flavour of a proper noun, but there is still a difference in focus
whether QEOS is used with or without the article. The indefinite form focuses on the divinity aspect, whereas the
definite form is used to identify the known participant. Of the 61 occurrences of hO QEOS in John, 60 of them refer to
God, the Father. Number 61 is a special construction because of the possessive which causes the definite form to be used
in a descriptive sense:
Jhn 20:28: hO KURIOS MOU KAI hO QEOS MOU (My lord and my god - the one I want to obey and worship).
Iver Larsen
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list