John 1:1 QEOS definitely definite?
Rev. Craig R. Harmon (charmon@ais.net)
Fri, 19 Sep 1997 15:41:41 +0100
Something has always bothered me about John 1:1. In the third clause we
read KAI QEOS HN hO LOGOS. Now I have read in the grammars how QEOS,
(a) because it is the predicate of the clause, does not require the
definite article in order to be understood as being definite (i.e. "the
Word was God" as opposed to "the Word was a god" as in the New World
Translation). Fine! But that is not the same thing as saying (b) "QEOS
here is (definitely) definite because it is the predicate." #1 says
that, even though there is no definite artical, we can still understand
QEOS to be difinite but it doesn't exactly preclude an indefinite
understanding. My question is this, I guess: Is, "the Word was a god" a
legitimate translation from a strictly grammatical point of view (all
theology aside)?
--
MONWi SOFWi THEWi, DIA IHSOU CRISTOU, hWi hH DOXA EIS TOUS AIWNAS TWN
AIWN; AMHN. Romans 16:27
But thanks to you as well.