[B-Greek] John 1:1c

kgraham0938 at comcast.net kgraham0938 at comcast.net
Tue Jul 4 11:30:08 EDT 2006


Hello Rolf, I enjoyed reading your post, they are very insightful.  My question is how are you defining "count nouns."  Is it simply based upon a word being able to be plural or is there some other definition.  The reason I ask is because there are some who believe that some nouns are neither mass nor count, how do know that QEOS is not one of those?

And I understand what you are saying with regards to the English rendering of Jn 1:1c, I've often said that the english translation needs explaining with it.
--
Kelton Graham 
KGRAHAM0938 at comcast.net

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli at online.no> 

> 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" 
> To: 
> 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 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> --- 
> 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