[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