[B-Greek] John 1:1c

Rolf Furuli furuli at online.no
Wed Jul 5 01:26:52 EDT 2006


Dear Harold,

There are many examples where the creator is referred to by QEOS without the 
article (I mentioned that in my original post).
This has no bearing on John 1:1,  because the use or non-use of the article 
is context-dependent. The inclusion or exclusion of the article may signal a 
particular meaning or stress, and this can only be seen in a small "closed" 
context. John 1:1 is such a small "closed" unit, and the significance of the 
lack of article before QEOS in 1:1c can only be construed on the basis of 
the words and syntax of this verse alone; other passages are irrelevant.

I try to argue strictly linguistically, and in this connection mysteries 
have no place. Moreover, possible mysteries should be learned on the basis 
the text and should not be read into the text. My main point is this:

The English rendering "And the Word was God" is linguistically impossible 
because:

1) In English, "God" (with capital "G") is equivalent to a proper noun, and 
this makes "the Word" and "God" in the clause convertible terms, that is, 
"the Word" and "God" are identical in all respects.

2) That the words are convertible terms and reciprocate is forbidden by the 
use of preposition in 1:1b (and suggested by the lack of article before QEOS 
in 1:1c). It is linguistical nonsense to make a text saying that someone "is 
with" someone else and at the same time is identical with that one.

I do not even think that the English translators who used  "and the Word was 
God" intended to signal that "the Word" and "God" are convertible terms, 
since that would be Sabellianism. So I argue against an English rendering 
that is supposed to mean something different from what it actually says.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harold Holmyard" <hholmyard at ont.com>
To: <B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 11:23 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] John 1:1c


> Dear Rolf,
>
>>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.)
>>
>
> HH: Why do you say that it is linguistically impossible? All you have to
> do is to be able to identify the Word with the known entity "God." There
> was such a known being, who is sometimes identified without a definite
> article. Matthew 6:24 is an example, it seems: OU DUNASQE QEWi DOULEUEIN
> KAI MAMWNAi. The absence of the article in John 1:1c seems to show which
> of the two nouns is the predicate nominative. So John 1:1c may identify
> the Word with this known being, God. But John has just said that the
> Word was with God, so how can he be identified as God? This is the
> mystery that John and the NT seem to present.
>
> Yours,
> Harold Holmyard
>
>





More information about the B-Greek mailing list