re: A Bayesian Analysis of Jn1:1 (long)

From: Wes C. Williams (71414.3647@compuserve.com)
Date: Wed Jan 24 1996 - 16:53:34 EST


>> Thanks to Wes Williams, for his answers about how often John uses
QEOS qualitatively rather than definitely. <<

I was happy to contribute the occurrences of the qualitative theos
in John. Since my name was used in connection with the "Bayesian
Analysis of Jn 1:1" as a research contributor, I would like to
clarify that I do not believe it possible that the John 1:1c
'theos' is definite. This although statistically John uses the
word as definite most of the time (actually, statistically speaking,
the bible uses theos mostly as a definite, but uses it at times
indefinitely and/or qualitatively). Here is why I do not think it
can be definite.

Eimi in John 1:1c is not equative. It is linking theos with ho logos.
The subject is clearly ho logos. We cannot reverse the word order as
would be true in an equative sentence. Because of this, we cannot
assume that the definite article is to be understood (as is true in
other Colwell texts, where we could reverse the word order if the
definite article were to be understood).
Regarding John 1:1c, Robertson says in "Grammar..." (p. 767, 768):
"...ho theos agape estin. God and love *are not convertible terms*
any more than 'God' and 'logos' or 'logos' and 'flesh' (in 1:14). ...
The absence of the article is essential to the true idea."

Also, Green's Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek Testament, p. 178
says regarding John 1:14, 1:1c, and 17:17:
"Had the article been employed with the Predicate in the above case,
the sentences would have read thus: ... Thy word is the entire Truth,
and nothing else can be so described. The Word was the entire Godhead,
and God and Love are identical, so that in fact Love is God."

Such an explanation is, in itself, an inference that 'ho logos' is not
one and the same as the 'ho theos' with whom 'ho logos' is said to be.
This points to a qualitative and/or indefinite emphasis. I can in no
way reasonably see how the definite article can be assumed since there
are two persons mentioned.

>> 1. The syntax of Jn1:1c is evidence in favor of QEOS being qualitative,
   but its strength is very weak because the noun is overwhelmingly
   definite. <<

It is often thought that a predicate nominative noun has to be
1) definite, 2) indefinite, or 3) qualitative. In his book "Qualitative
Nouns in the Pauline Epistles in the Revised Version", Slatten showed that
a predicate nominative does not have to be qualitative OR definite/
indefinite. A predicate nominative could be qualitative and indefinite,
or just qualitative, or just indefinite, or definite and qualitative, or
simply definite. He uses the example "Henry is a soldier."
Henry may be:
1) one of a group of soldiers without any reference to Henry's qualities.
(indefinite)
2) one of the group and also has many of the qualities of a soldier.
(indefinite and qualitative, with indefinite emphasis)
3) has all the qualities of a soldier with little reference to the group.
(indefinite and qualitative, with qualitative emphasis).
4) has all the qualities of a soldier but is not in the military.
(qualitative)

What about "the Word was God", or "the Word was god", or "the Word was a
god", or "the Word was divine?"

Professor B. F. Westcott stated that the phrase rendered "the Word was
God" describes "the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person."

Therefore, the first could be true only in the sense: "The Word is god in
the same sense that I am man". This qualitative emphasis agrees with the
qualitative emphasis in 1:14. I have no problem with this. This even
though 'theos' as definite is statistically common in John's writings.
The same purely qualitative emphasis could be accomplished with "the Word
was a god", as in the sense of "Henry is a soldier" #3, #4.

Hence, some translations bring out the qualitative aspect in their
translations. For example, some render the expression "the Word was
divine." (An American Translation, Schonfield) Moffatt renders it "the
Logos was divine." However, indicating that "divine" would not be the
most appropriate rendering here, John Robinson and the British textual
critic Sir Frederick Kenyon both pointed out that if that was what John
wanted to emphasize, he could have used the Greek word for "divine,"
thei'os.

Joseph Henry Thayer, a theologian and scholar who worked on the American
Standard Version, stated simply: "The Logos was divine, not the divine
Being himself."

There should also be no problem with "a god" with qualitative emphasis.
Harner mentioned that the indefinite article can be inserted for English
translation even though the noun has qualitative emphasis. "This man is
a sinner." i.e. "of a sinful nature." (John 9:24)

Professor C. H. Dodd, director of the New English Bible project, comments
on this approach: "A possible translation . . . would be, 'The Word was a
god'. As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted."

Jesuit John L. McKenzie wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1
should rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'"

Even with indefinite and qualitative emphasis, "a god" would not
necessarily imply polytheism, since Jesus himself referred to others as
part of the theos class, in the sense of 'mighty ones' (John 10:34).

Regarding this fact, Ernst Haenchen, in a commentary on the Gospel of
John (chapters 1-6), stated: "[the.os'] and [ho the.os'] ('god, divine'
and 'the God') were not the same thing in this period. . . . In fact,
for the . . . Evangelist, only the Father was 'God' ([ho the.os'];
cf. Joh 17:3); 'the Son' was subordinate to him (cf. Joh 14:28). But
that is only hinted at in this passage because here the emphasis is on
the proximity of the one to the other . . . . It was quite possible in
Jewish and Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed
alongside and under God but were not identical with him. Phil 2:6-10
proves that. In that passage Paul depicts just such a divine being, who
later became man in Jesus Christ . . . Thus, in both Philippians and
John 1:1 it is not a matter of a dialectical relationship between
two-in-one, but of a personal union of two entities."John 1, translated
by R. W. Funk, 1984, pp. 109, 110.

>> This article
   assumed that it can be determined simply by counting the occurrences.
   This may not be the best approach. The context itself may suggest
   different populations (rather than the singular QEOS in John) for the
   prior probability. <<

Agreed outstandingly. One in particular, and one that is often
overlooked, is the fact that there are two persons mentioned in
John 1:1. How could ho logos be the same person as the ho logos
with whom he is said to be? This is quite a challenge grammatically
and contextually speaking.

>>. We still have to examine the context
   very carefully to determine its meaning. There is contextual evidence
   for either position. Jn1:1c may be in contrast with v14 which calls for
   the qualitative meaning, but the climactic structure of v1 and its
   juxtaposition of QEON with KAI QEOS argues the other way. <<

Having said all the above, I enjoyed reading your research. It is
interesting.

Very respectfully,
Wes Williams



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:36 EDT