[B-Greek] John 1:1c
Rolf Furuli
furuli at online.no
Tue Jul 4 11:05:11 EDT 2006
Dear Barry,
I understand Carl´s warning, since I have seen and participated in similar
threads for many years. So I will only try to deal only with linguistic
matters.
LEXICON
When I use the term "linguistically," I include lexicon, grammar, and
syntax and the principles of applied lingusitics. As for lexicon, the Greek
word QEOS is in Greek a common noun or
appellative, as Iver said, and we can add that it is a count noun. The noun
QEOS can in the NT and the LXX refer to the creator, to idols, and to the
spirit sons of the creator (angels). Certain things in the world are unique,
there is just one of its kind. When a noun refers to such a person or thing
it is said to be " a singular noun" (Collins Cobuild English Grammar 1993 p.
11). One example is "the sun". There are many suns, but when we use the term
"the sun," it can only refer to one thing. I suppose that Greek grammarians
and commentators will agree that QEOS of John 1:1b is a singular noun; it
refers to the only creator of the universe. (NB:QEOS as a singular noun
occurs both with and without the article.) The important question now is the
nature of QEOS in 1:1c (by "nature" I mean whether it is qualitative or
gentilic, whether it is a singular noun or an appellative).
GRAMMAR AND SYNTAX
There is no grammatical rule that can be used to pinpoint the nature of QEOS
in 1:1c. Colewell´s rule cannot be used, as was adequately pointed out some
years ago on this list by Dixon, who also has written a thesis about this
question. I would define communication as making a part of a meaning
potential visible and hiding everything else. The lexical meaning of words
exist in the minds of those speaking the same language and not in lexicons,
which contain just glosses. The context does not generate any new lexical
meaning at all, but it helps to make visible a part of the meaning potential
of each word and find the references. So, we can hope that the syntax and
the relationship between the words og John 1:1 can make visible whether QEOS
in 1:1c is a singular noun or a common count noun.
(Please note that I do not here include quality (divine), because there are
just two options, singular noun or common noun. This does not mean that I at
this stage exclude the rendering "and the word was divine," because, even if
one opts for this rendering, the word QEOS of 1:1c cannot be stripped of its
substantive nature and be transformed into an adjective. It is a
substantive,
but some will argue that the stress is on its divine quality and not on its
existence as an entity.)
In order to make use of the syntax (and context) to identify the nature of
QEOS in 1:1c, we need to analyze the relationship the subject, verb,
predicate and other parts of the clauses, and to see how the lexical meaning
of the words, tenses, and the use of prepositions and particles exclude some
possibilities but open for others. In 1:1b we find two entities, hO LOGOS
and hO QEOS. hO QEOS is a singular noun, and John, chapter 1 shows that the
same is true with hO LOGOS, both are unique and the only one of its kind.
(Please remember that I try to argue strictly linguistically and not
metaphysically.) So, we have two singular nouns in one clause (1:1b), one is
subject and the other is a nominative predicate. And their relationship is
expressed by the preposition PROS (often rendered by "with") and with the
imperfect form of EIMI. Even though both substantives have the article they
are not convertible terms, and the proposition is not reciprocating.
But one was with the other in the past. This is in my
view a necessary syntactical conclusion.
In 1:1c we again meet the singular noun hO LOGOS, and its article indicates
that
it is the subject. The verb is again the imperfect form of EIMI, and
the anarthrous QEOS is the nominative predicate. What does the lexicon,
grammar, and
syntax of 1:1b,c indicate? That the anarthrous QEOS of 1:1c is a common
count noun and not a singular noun. This is suggested by the lack of article
in 1:1c as contrasted with the singular noun QEOS in 1:1b, which has the
article. The syntax of
1:1b, c simply does not allow that the anarthrous QEOS and the articular
LOGOS in 1:1c are convertible terms or reciprocate. Particularly the
preposition
PROS excludes the possibility that hO LOGOS is identical (in every respect)
with hO QEOS.
However, my claim of an impossible rendering was regarding the English
rendering "And the Words was God". Since "God" with capital "G" in English
is a singular noun, which is in the same slot as proper names, the use of
"God" with capital letters both in John 1:1b and c indicates that the
meaning and references of these two words are exactly the same. So, when
"the Word" is said to be "God," what is made visible is that "the Word" is
identical with "God" in every respect. It is therefore linguistically
impossible to make a translation which says that an entity or individual is
"with" another entity or individual, and at the same time *is* this
individual. Such a translation can only be defended by an introduction of
metaphysics. The conclusion that the anarthrous QEOS of 1:1c is a common
noun, opens for two possibilities, 1) that the stress is on the nature of
the Word, or 2) that the stress is on gentilics, i.e., the word is a member
of the family of gods. Point 1) cannot blot out the substantive
characteristics of LOGOS, and 2) does not necessarily represent henotheism
or polytheism. But these are questions for another forum.
Best regards,
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry" <nebarry at verizon.net>
To: <B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] John 1:1c
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org
> [mailto:b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org]
>> On Behalf Of Rolf Furuli
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 6:15 AM
>> To: B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] John 1:1c
>>
>> 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.)
>
> Linguistically impossible? My goodness, I think our theological
> presuppositions are peeking through, well disguised with rhetoric, but
> observable nonetheless. Of course it's linguistically possible. Do you
> care to prove your claim using simply the categories of linguistics?
>
> N.E. Barry Hofstetter
> Adjunct Faculty & IT Support
> The Center for Urban Theological Studies
> http://www.cuts.edu
> Classics Instructor, The American Academy
> http://www.theamericanacademy.net
>
> And my site:
>
> http://mysite.verizon.net/nebarry
>
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list