[B-Greek] John 1:1c

Rolf Furuli furuli at online.no
Tue Jul 4 06:15:01 EDT 2006


Dear David,

I have read your posts for many years, and my impression is that you have a 
very good grasp of the Greek language and Greek grammar. Moreover, you also 
have the ability to ask fine and important questions. To your question 
regarding theology I will answer that John 1:1 is one of those places where 
theology must play a role in the translation process, since the renderings 
"and the word was divine" and "and the word was a god" both are 
linguistically possible (But the rendering "and the Word was God" is 
linguistically impossible, but theologically possible.) I sent my post in 
order to discuss the semantics of the anarthrous QEOS in its context, in 
order to hint that there are other options for the understanding of this 
word than a qualitative understanding.

Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David McKay" <david.mckay at ozemail.com.au>
To: "'Rolf Furuli'" <furuli at online.no>; <B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 9:15 AM
Subject: RE: [B-Greek] John 1:1c


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"?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Rolf. I am greatly inferior to you in knowledge and experience of the
finer points of Greek grammar. But bearing in mind my limitations I have
always felt that John 1:1c cannot legitimately be translated "and the word
was a god."

But if it were true that the clause could be translated in one or more ways,
"on the basis of lexicon, grammar, and syntax, discourse analysis" shouldn't
theology be a factor in our deciding how it might best be translated?
Shouldn't the theology of the rest of John, the rest of the NT and the rest
of the biblical writings be a factor to bear in mind in our solution to this
ambiguity?

I would have thought that "context" is not neutral theologically.

However, I acknowledge that this forum is not the place for such
determination.

David McKay
david.mckay at ozemail.com.au







More information about the B-Greek mailing list