[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