Re: John 1:1 QEOS definitely definite?

From: Williams, Wes (
Date: Tue Sep 23 1997 - 14:15:09 EDT

>>>>And given my take on John 1:1, this can also be seen as a
Christologically divine definite ;-> <<

I am puzzled by several posts alleging "definiteness" at the John 1:1c
QEOS and was hoping that the authors would clarify for me what the
grammatical basis for their understanding is. On the one hand, some
have said that hO QEOS HN hO LOGOS is unacceptable because it becomes a
convertible proposition "and God is the Word," which is theologically
objectionable to the posters. This would make all of God in a single
person, the Word. Even though a theologically driven conclusion, I
agree with the poster's assessment that this was not John's Christology.
But as for the posters who take the John 1:1c QEOS as definite, how do
you handle the inevitable conclusion that by making it definite, you
make it a convertible proposition? Making it definite has the same
effect as making it a convertible proposition, just as if the article
were in front of QEOS, which is what was objectionable.
Are there any examples to which you can point that an anarthrous
DEFINITE predicate nominative can be swapped with the subject and the
statement NOT be true? For example, at John 8:54 there is an anarthrous
PN QEOS, but definite.
Because definite, I can swap the PN and the subject and the statement is
still true:
RSV: of whom you say that he is your God.
I can say "your God is he" and the statement is still true, because QEOS
here is definite.
Since I cannot do this at John 1:1 based on the supplied reasons, on
what grammatical basis does one understand the John 1:1c QEOS to be

                                Wes Williams

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:29 EDT