[B-Greek] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?

Edward Andrews edandrews at adelphia.net
Thu Oct 5 15:26:40 EDT 2006


George:


You keep saying Granville Sharp's rule stands, but in what way does it 
stand?


Are you saying the rule is: "An anarthrous predicate that precedes the verb 
is
usually definite."

Or, are you saying: "A definite PN that precedes the verb is usually 
anarthrous."



There are two very important questions which resolve the debate on how this 
clause should be rendered. (1) Why is the qualitative predicate nominative 
“god” fronted before the copulative verb? (2) Why is the qualitative 
predicted nominative without the definite article, unlike the previous 
clause?



In short, (1) its emphatic position of being fronted stresses its 
qualitativeness, not to identify. (2) Its lack of an article keeps us from 
identifying the person of “the Word” (Jesus Christ) with the person of God 
(Jehovah) mentioned in the previous clause. In other words, the word order 
tells us that Jesus “was existing in God’s form” (Philip. 2:6), he “is the 
image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15), in fact, he (Jesus) “is the 
reflection of [Jehovah’s] glory and the exact representation of His very 
being” (Heb 1:3). However, the lack of the article for the second “god” 
tells us, that Jesus Christ, while being “godlike” or “a god” is a 
reflection to the highest degree of his Father, but not to be identified as 
one and the same---Jehovah God himself.

Edward Andrews

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "George F Somsel" <gfsomsel at yahoo.com>
To: <Awohili at aol.com>; <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?


I have previously indicated that I do not always agree with Dan Wallace.  I 
would say that you are barking up the wrong tree in any attempt to assert 
that Jn 1.1c intends to present the LOGOS as anything less than very God of 
very God.  Unless you can provide evidence to overturn Grnaville Sharp's 
rule, it stands.  One of the weaker points of Wallace's discussion of this 
matter is when he trots out the bogey-man of Sabellianism.  This is a 
totally non-grammatical argument and will not succeed to prove his point. 
Furthermore, should someone on this list attempt to tar me with the brush of 
Sabellianism (which, I trust, will not occur), he would find himself 
unsuccessful.  Perhaps you would be better served were you to attempt to ask 
whether the use of QEOS throughout the whole verse is entirely univocal.

Yes, I am aware that Granville Sharp was untrained theologically.  That is, 
he was formally untrained though his father was trained.  I would presume 
that a man of GS's tendencies would acquire some knowledge from his father. 
More than that, I am not a degree-snob.  That someone does not have a degree 
does not indicate that he is unknowledgeable in a field.  I have seen many 
fools with degrees.

george
gfsomsel
_________



----- Original Message ----
From: "Awohili at aol.com" <Awohili at aol.com>
To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2006 2:44:04 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Jn 1:1 - Alternate Reading?


Yet, that same Daniel B. Wallace, in that same GGBB, page 269, says:

"The most likely candidate for QEOS is qualitative.  This is true both
grammatically (for the largest proportion of pre-verbal anarthrous predicate
nominatives fall into this category) and theologically (both the theology of 
the
Fourth Gospel and of the NT as a whole)."

So, which Dan Wallace do we listen to?

And by the way, since you questioned Dr. Felix Just's bona fides on this
matter, surely you must know that Granville Sharp was "untrained 
theologically"?
(GGBE, page 270)

Solomon Landers

In a message dated 10/05/2006 11:29:04 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
gfsomsel at yahoo.com writes:

Granville Sharp's rule has not been overturned.  LOGOS is  definite and QEOS
is likewise.

When the  copulative êáé connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns
(either  substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description,
respecting  office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, 
properties, or
qualities, good or ill], if the article hO, or  any of its cases, precedes
the first of the said nouns or participles, and is  not repeated before the
second noun or participle, the latter always relates  to the same person 
that is
expressed or described by the first noun or  participle: i.e. it denotes a
farther description  of the first-named person … .
(http://us.f385.mail.yahoo.com/dc/launch?action=welcome&YY=581576632&.rand=05o65shqnseob#_ftn1)



(http://us.f385.mail.yahoo.com/dc/launch?action=welcome&YY=581576632&.rand=05o65shqnseob#_ftnref1)
Daniel B. Wallace. (1999; 2002). Greek  Grammar Beyond the Basics -
Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (271).  Zondervan Publishing House 
and Galaxie
Software.








---
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