[B-Greek] John 1:1c
Sean Kasabuske
alethinon61 at milwpc.com
Tue Jul 4 14:21:35 EDT 2006
> In the case of John 1:1c we have a Subject Predicate Nominative clause.
> In
> this case equating "the Word" with the word "God."
I'm not sure I know what you mean, here. Are you saying that the LOGOS is being equated with the word QEOS of clause b (a proper noun [i.e. an identity]), or are you saying that the LOGOS is being equated with the word QEOS in clause c as a general description? The former would seem to identify the LOGOS as the QEOS in clause b, which would make the QEOS of 1:1c a definite noun, wouldn't it?
The use of the article in
> this case points to the subject and discriminates between the predicate
> nominative and the subject. This is what Wallace indicates in _Greek
> Grammar Beyond the Basics_ on page 41. Based on this construction Wallace
> indicates that the best translation would be "and the Word was God."
I don't see how using a proper noun is an acceptable means of predicating quality, and in that sentence "God" is a proper noun. This would identify the LOGOS as hO QEOS rather than qualifying the LOGOS as QEOS.
> It is because the word order of Greek is variable that some means is
> needed
> to identify the subject in this sentence with the "to be" verb and two
> nominatives.
> Wallace also discusses in detail the relationship between Colwell's
> "Definite Rule" and these types of clauses on pages 5 and 6.
>
> Sean, I have looked at 4:19; 6:70 and I could be mistaken but I do not see
> this same construction. These clauses seem to use a pronoun ... And
> predicate nominative. I will look at the rest of these later. Right now
> my
> grand-daughter wants to go to the park.
At 4:19 we find: PROFHTHS EI SU, which is typically translated, "you are a prophet"
At 6:70 we find: DIABOLOS ESTIN, which is typially translated, "is a devil"
In both cases fronting does not eliminate the "count" nature of the nouns "prophet" or "devil". In fact, I've looked at all of the predicate nominatives that occur before the verb John's Gospel (that I'm aware of), and I have not found any example where a count noun's object-member connotation is eliminated by fronting. Some might say that this has to do with English idiom, but how is that established? If the English translations of these two verses, as two examples among many, sound perfectly natural, then how do we know that they do not accurately convey the sense of the underlying Greek?
I'm interested in any information that you or anyone else might have from a non-theological perspective that substantiates the idea that word order removes a count noun's normal sense. I understand that fronting is sometimes used for emphasis, but I'm looking for some discussion of how this emphasis alters the normal sense of the term (of any noun, not just QEOS). We can create emphasis in English, for example, by switching from the active to the passive voice, and the mechanics seem similar to fronting in that it is the term's position in relation to the verb that causes the shift in emphasis. But in English, restructuring a sentence from the active to the passive voice to highlight the predicate never alters the sense of the noun. How do we know that it does in Greek, especially when the nouns found in sentences offered to exemplify the phenomenon can be translated as normal definite or indefinite nouns with no evidence that such translations do not accurately reflect the underlying Greek?
Sincerely,
Sean Kasabuske
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list