From: James S. Murray (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Mar 24 1999 - 22:20:50 EST
Bill Ross wrote:
> > A EN ARCH HN hO LOGOS
> > B KAI hO LOGOS HN PROS TON QEON
> > B' KAI QEON HN hO LOGOS
> > A' hOUTOS HN EN ARCH
> > PROS TON QEON
> In a "Sleudian Frip" (oops, I mean "Freudian Slip") your B' phrase has QEON
> (accusative) rather than QEOS (nominative). This seems like "how it ought to
> be" (I am a little Greek), though it is actually QEOS, unless QEOS is to be
> seen as an adjective.
> So my questions are:
> * is QEOS a noun in the nominative?
> * if so, couldn't it just as easily read AND GOD WAS [BEING] THE WORD?
> * is QEOS an adjective ("divine")?
> * if so, how can I tell the difference?
> B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek
> You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: email@example.com
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu
> To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
Bill, QEOS is in nominative because it is the complement of LOGOS. Since they both
nominative, the complement drops the article. At least, that's how I learned it
(Wenham). I don't want to get into theological controversy on this verse, but I
would just say I think since LOGOS has the article, it should be taken as the subject
of the clause, however we wish to understand it's meaning.
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:21 EDT