[B-Greek] John 1:1c

Harold Holmyard hholmyard at ont.com
Wed Jul 5 08:01:09 EDT 2006


Dear Rolf,

>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:
>  
>

HH: But mysteries do have a place, because we are speaking about 
supernatural realities that are often called mysteries. And the 
particular one I mentioned would not just be seen in this text but is 
apparent in many, many texts of the NT. So the deduction of the Church 
has been that there is a mystery here, and John was pointing precising 
to that mystery.

>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.
>  
>

HH: Well, an attempt on linguistic grounds to ignore possibilities about 
God that the Church has recognized for thousands of years seems like a 
dubious proposition to me.

HH: I would say that the issue is complex because the NT uses the word 
"God" in complex ways. It is often a term reserved particularly for the 
Father, yet at other times it is applied to Christ. Since there is only 
one God according according to the teaching of the Bible, this 
introduces the possibility for complexity in the nature of God. Since 
God is a topic of revelation from another realm of being, we must remain 
open to the possibility of mystery in our definition and understanding 
of God and God's nature. The fact is that it is not linguistically 
impossible to say "the Word was God" simply because who and what God is 
remains a matter of revelation.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard






More information about the B-Greek mailing list