From: Dave Washburn (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Mar 03 2001 - 21:46:45 EST
> On Sun, 4 Mar 2001 12:39:41 +1100 "One of the McKays"
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Greg said:
> > If in John 1:1c QEOS is a proper noun, then we have the
> > _grammatical_difficulty of explaining how the Word can
> > be God and be "with" God.
> > This is one reason why most scholars have and are
> > continuing to move away from viewing QEOS in 1:1c as
> > definite.
> > Who are these "most scholars?" Sounds hard to prove,
> > to me.
> > The idea of the Word being "with God" and being "God"
> > is a problem for some theological systems, but not a
> > problem at all for others.
> If QEOS in 1:1c is definite, then it must refer to TON QEON of 1:1b,
> identifying the LOGOS as God the Father. This, of course, militates
> against hO LOGOS HN PROS TON QEON in 1:1b which suggests the LOGOS is
> separate from God the Father. This poses a problem for any reasonable
> theological system.
Exactly. Contrary to what Greg said, the problem is theological,
not grammatical. The grammar is neutral on the matter of PROS
TON QEON and QEOS and their interrelationship. If, as some
scholars have suggested, the prologue to John is an early hymn,
then we have poetic license to deal with as well. But there is
nothing inherent in the grammar that causes problems between the
"No study of probabilities inside a given frame can ever
tell us how probable it is that the frame itself can be
violated." C. S. Lewis
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@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 - 15:36:52 EDT