[B-Greek] John 1:1c
Rolf Furuli
furuli at online.no
Tue Jul 4 11:55:20 EDT 2006
Dear Kelton,
Collins Cobuild English Grammar says regarding nouns:
"A noun is used to identify a person or thing. In this chapter we describe
six main types of nouns. They are classified according to whether they have
a plural form, whether they need a determiner in front of them, and whether
they occur with a singular verb or plural verb when they are the subject of
the verb.
count nouns - a bird, birds - have plural, need determiner
uncount nouns - happiness, equipment - no plural, usually no determiner
singular nouns - the moon, a day - no plural, need determiner
plural nouns -clothes, scissors - no singular
collective nouns - the public, the staff - either singular or plural verb
proper nouns - Mary, London, The United Nations -start with capital letter"
Best regards,
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
----- Original Message -----
From: <kgraham0938 at comcast.net>
To: <B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] John 1:1c
>
> 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> 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