From: Al Kidd (akidd@infoave.net)
Date: Tue Jan 06 1998 - 09:14:35 EST
   Well, you certainly do not present the same argument that I
have seen from one or two other participants on b-greek as
respects possible alternatives to "God" for QEOS in John 1:1c,
for I distinctly recall that someone has objected to the idea of
translating QEOS in 1:1c as "divine."  "Divine" is fair translation.
As an isolated clause or sentence, however,  ". . . and the Logos
was divine" leaves open a question as to the degree of divinity
owned by the Logos; however, I hasten to add that 1:1b rules
out one's taking the Logos' divinity to be the _selfsame_ divinity
as that which is owned by HO QEOS in 1:1b, for that would rule
out the existence of two beings (two individuals) in view in John
1:1.  So, another translation--one  I prefer--is ". . . and the
Logos was a divine one," for I believe argument can be made
for a qualitative-indefinite sense for QEOS.
  My earlier post did not give any detailed argument for
the qualitative-indefinite sense; I was content to argue that
since we do not have a definite noun in 1:1c,  which is what
a personal-name equivalent to YHWH in 1:1c should have
to be, then "God" in the sense of a  title phrase--a
personal-name equivalent--in place of YHWH cannot be
justified.  The onus is on trinitarians in their attempting to
produce an alternative to "God."  So, if you opt for "divine,"
I do not find that you can stretch it into something that can
even suggest a selfsameness of beingness for both the
Father (HO QEOS, 1:1b) and the divine Logos (1:1c).
   I am aware of a certain position trinitarians take, which
is that the Trinity doctrine is not built on a proof text--not
even on John 1:1--, but that it is built one brick at a time.
I argue that we should see that John 1:1 is support for a
theology and christology contrary to trinitarianism.
   Thank you for your kindness you manifest in your reply.
I truly appreciate it.  I hope my reply seems to you to be
one that is as equally free of sarcasm as was yours.
Paul S. Dixon wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Jan 1998 12:52:00 -0500 Al Kidd <akidd@infoave.net> writes:
>
> <snip>
>
> >          It [(i.e., YHWH)] is everywhere a proper
> >          name, denoting the personal God and him
> >          only; whereas Elohim partakes more of the
> >          character of a common noun, denoting
> >          usually, indeed, but not necessarily nor
> >          uniformly, the Supreme. . . . The Hebrew
> >          may say the Elohim, the true God, in
> >          opposition to all false gods; but he
> >          never says the Jehovah, for Jehovah is
> >          the name of the true God only.  He says
> >          again and again my God . . . ; but never
> >          my Jehovah, for when he says my God, he
> >          means Jehovah.  He speaks of the God of
> >          Israel, but never of the Jehovah of
> >          Israel, for there is no other Jehovah.
> >          He speaks of the living God, but never
> >          of the living Jehovah, for he cannot
> >          conceive of Jehovah as other than
> >          living.
> >
> >  So, in view of the material above, is the following
> >statement not a logical summation--a real rule? namely:
> >
> >          If a Greek writer wanted to make use of
> >          the common noun appellative QEOS as a
> >          definite descriptive reference to the God
> >          of the Bible, _and_ if he wanted it to
> >          function as a _title phrase_ having
> >          semantical equivalence to the divine name
> >          (YHWH), then he had first of all to
> >          articulate QEOS, and then to use it in a
> >          context that truly allows place for it as
> >          a grammatical (semologically justified)
> >          equivalent of the divine name
> >          (Jehovah/Yahweh).
> >
> >  Now, it seems to me that the apostle John's use of QEOS in
> >John 1:1b meets the rule, so that the apostle might just as
> >well have written ". . . and the Logos was with Jehovah" for
> >1:1b.  His next use of QEOS, however, does not meet the rule,
> >and cannot function as a personal-name reference either to
> >the Logos or, as trinitarians would have it, to a Logos-
> >incorporating, (triune) Godhead/Divinity.  Consequently,
> >is there not error in those English translations of John
> >1:1c that give us "God" for John's predicative use of QEOS?
> >Does not the logic in such translation (wrongfully) suggest
> >to us readers of English that John 1:1c gives us a personal,
> >proper name _equivalent_ for the Logos?
>
> Well, you certainly get no argument here.  But, hardly anybody
> I know of these days is arguing that QEOS in Jn 1:1c is definite.
> Colwell and others subsequently did argue that, but their
> argumentation was logically fallacious.  Most NT scholars today
> seem to be taking QEOS in 1:1c qualitatively, and rightly so.  The
> anarthrous precopulative predicate nominative in John is almost
> always qualitative.
>
> This in no way, however, militates against the trinitarian position.
> Even if hO QEOS refers only to YHWH by usage, and if YHWH
> refers only to God the Father, this does not imply that hO LOGOS
> cannot be QEOS, as John so affirms to the contrary.  If the translation
> "and the Word was God" is offensive or suggests otherwise, then let's
> go with "and the Word was deity," or if that is still offensive, "the
> Word
> was divine."  The point is that all that hO QEOS was in essence and
> being (1:1b) that also the Logos was.  God the Father was QEOS and
> the LOGOS was QEOS.
>
> <snip>
>
> Paul Dixon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Feb 21 2002 - 18:24:14 EST