Boaz is taking the definite article as the object of the first phrase in
the
accusative, not "as the subject of the first phrase," but I don't think
this
as any bearing on what you're saying.
>
>Is this a valid comparison verse grammatically? John seemed to phrase
>his Greek by from the Septuagint in several places, at least in my very
>humble opinion: [EN ARCH Gen 1, EGW EIMI Ex 3:14]). Could it be that
>John 1:1 is sort of an anti-geneology, ie. the LOGOS was not born or
>never did not exist, so John explains his preexistence in a geneologic
>phrase, in an allusion perhaps to Matthew beginning with Jesus' legal
>geneology?
>
>I could be way off-base, since I am mostly self-taught, but if the
>comparison holds up, the correct translation would then be "The Word
>was with God and God was the Word." Does that violate some other rule
>of grammar?
>
Yes, the general rule (which we have gone over) is that when two nouns
are the subject and predicate nominative respectively in a sentence, and
one is articular and the other is anarthrous, then the subject is almost
always identified by the articular construction.
This means, of course, that in Jn 1:1c hO LOGOS is the subject and
QEOS is the predicate nominative.
Paul Dixon
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
--- b-greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek To post a message to the list, mailto:b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, mailto:subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu To unsubscribe, mailto:unsubscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu?subject=[grammateus@sunsite.unc.edu]