[B-Greek] John 1:1c
Iver Larsen
iver at larsen.dk
Tue Jul 4 12:05:32 EDT 2006
From: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli at online.no>
> 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.
Yes, I accept that Semitic thought patterns and poetic usages like chiasm can influence word order and emphasis. For
instance, John in particular uses a fronted EGW many times where it does NOT have the emphasis that it would have if
used by another non-Semitic influenced author. As far as I see it, the general rule is like a basic idea that can be
adjusted by other factors, or like a big wave that can be adjusted by other smaller waves running against it.
> 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?
I made my statement after an empirical study of the usage of QEOS versus hO QEOS in John's Gospel instead of searching
grammars. It was a rather quick study, but it seems to me that the general "rule" of the definite form being used to
identify a known participant and the indefinite form being used to describe the nature of something is valid. I should
add, though, that in the case of QEOS, the indefinite form can occasionally be used in a way that is hard to distinguish
from the definite form, and there are textual variants between the presence or absence of the article. This is because
of the uniqueness of the referent (the only, true God) of this word in a Biblical context.
>
> 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"?
What is the difference between the "nature of hO LOGOS" and the quality of divinity? I am trying to understand what you
are saying. It seems to me that the quality of divinity is a description of the nature of hO LOGOS. But it is not
"divinity" in terms of Greek gods, but in terms of the God of the Bible.
As Carl has said we have discussed this passage before, and my own preferred translation is neither "the Word was
divine", "the Word was a god" or "the Word was God". I would suggest "the Word was like God", because I believe the
statement is intended to describe the nature of the personified LOGOS as being like the nature of God, the Father. You
may believe something different, but we probably agree that it does not identify hO LOGOS with hO PATHR, hO QEOS - as
"the Word was God" might suggest. IMO, "The Word was God" is neither linguistically nor theologically accurate. But I
would say the same about "the word was a god".
Iver Larsen
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list