[B-Greek] John 1:1c
Rolf Furuli
furuli at online.no
Tue Jul 4 03:49:55 EDT 2006
Dear Iver,
Most of your words below are well taken, but I think your correlation
between word order and emphasis is a little too strong.
The Semitic presupposition pool of the authors and the word order of Semitic
prose and poetry can in many instances be factors behind the order of Greek
words rather than empasis.
I have a question regarding the following statement of yours: "The
indefinite form focuses on the divinity aspect, whereas the
definite form is used to identify the known participant." If this is meant
to be a rule, I wonder what is its basis. Greek grammar is based on
inductory studies of the Greek text, and because of the "problem of of
induction" rules are hardly decisive alone. Moreover, the immediate context
is in my view more important than "rules" that may have exceptions. I will
also add that "the divinity aspect" is an abstract notion. And how can we
know that an author had an abstract notion in mind when he does not tell us
that or uses words that explains just that?
Then to John 1:1c: If we put theology aside, can we on the basis of lexicon,
grammar, and syntax, discourse analysis, and context know that the stress of
the anarthrous QEOS is on the quality of divinity rather than on the the
nature of the participant? In other words, is the rendering "and the word
was divine" linguistically better than "and the word was a god"?
Best regards,
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Iver Larsen" <iver at larsen.dk>
To: "Biblical Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 9:51 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] John 1:1c
> 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