Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Switch to Forum Live View Oeste Explains Whether John 1:1c's Anarthrous PN Is Definite Or Not
5 years ago  ::  Jul 28, 2013 - 9:13AM #1
4rationality
Posts: 74

 


This topic on this thread came from Oeste's desperation to change the subject.


  


At, What Part did Gary Abrahamson Play in the Candace Conti Court Case?


Oeste wrote: 


... we are through conversing on this thread.


I invite you to converse with me on other threads, but not this one. 


Anytime you'd like to engage in another discussion on another topic, feel free to do so. 


And it doesn't have to be about the Trinity or the state of the dead. Choose war or another topic if you want. We're pretty flexible around here.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 09, 2013 - 9:55AM #2
4rationality
Posts: 74

OESTE wrote:


" ... your chosen subject matter has a lot more to do with Watchtower doctrine  than it does the bible.  As far as I know, they're the only religion claiming "...a god" at John 1:1. 


(See at, What Part did Gary Abrahamson Play in the Candace Conti Court Case?, post #311)


___________


 


Clearly Oeste does not comprehend that all NT translators have had to weigh the evidence of “Whether John 1:1c’s Anarthrous PN Is Definite Or Not”.  Based on his comment he should have no trouble whatsoever demonstrating, beyond a reasonable doubt, that John 1:1c’s anarthrous PN is, in fact, definite.  



Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 09, 2013 - 6:07PM #3
teilhard
Posts: 53,304

Who cares ... ??? ... and why ... ???  ... IOW, so what ... ???

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 04, 2014 - 9:04PM #4
4rationality
Posts: 74

.


Is John 1:1c’s anarthrous PN definite or not?



Grammatical analysis is strictly empirical and objective.


John 1:1c is not a difficult clause to translate. It follows familiar, ordinary structures of Greek expression.



THEOS EN HO LOGOS


   HO LOGOS is the subject noun in the nominative case made definite by the article HO.


   THEOS is the anarthrous (without the article) predicate (P) in the nominative (N) case.


    EN is the linking verb (i.e. be-verb or copula).


 


The Greek article:


The presence or absence of the article is the crucial element to unlocking the meaning of scores of passages in the NT. There are some ten ways in which a noun in Greek can be definite without the article. None of these definitizing elements are present in John 1:1c.



The Greek nominative case:


The nominative case is much more dependent than other Greek cases on the article to mark definiteness. There is a very limited range of definitizing elements that may make an anarthrous nominative THEOS definite. None of these definitizing elements are present in John 1:1c.



In Sum:


John 1:1c's predicate noun (THEOS) is in the same form (case) as the subject noun (HO LOGOS) and linked by the be-verb (EN). In this subject (nominative) form, the article is really indispensable for making the predicate noun definite. Its absence makes THEOS quite different than the definite HO THEOS, as different as “a god” is from “God” in English.


If John had wanted to say “the Word was God,” as so many English translations have it, he would have simply added the definite article HO — HO THEOS EN HO LOGOS. Translations should covey that John 1:1c’s anarthrous PN is NOT definite.




.


Quick Reply
Cancel
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook