[B-Greek] John 1:1c
kgraham0938 at comcast.net
kgraham0938 at comcast.net
Tue Jul 4 10:15:37 EDT 2006
Dear Rolf,
I am curious as to know why you think "And the Word was God" is linguistically impossible. Is it because of the count vs mass noun argument or is there something else?
--
Kelton Graham
KGRAHAM0938 at comcast.net
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli at online.no>
> 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"
> To: "'Rolf Furuli'" ;
> 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
>
>
>
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list