[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: John 1:1c readings?
Alan Craig <CSRT29A@prodigy.com>
wrote:
> I am doing a study on the reading (translation) and meaning of the
>third clause of John 1:1. Has anyone done any studies on this and/or know
>of any which might have been done, perhaps as unpublished papers?
>
>Alan Craig
>Upper Marlboro, Maryland.
>
REB
In the beginning the Word already was. The Word was in God's presence, and
what God was, the Word was.
You might want to consult:
Phillip Harner _Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John
1:1_, Journal of Biblical Literature 92, 1 (March 1973): 75-87. Some
excerpts I got from another mailing list:
John could have worded this in five ways:
A. ho logos en ho theos
B. theos en ho logos
C. ho logos theos en
D. ho logos en theos
E. ho logos en theios
[Harner, Ibid., pg. 84]
Harner notes regarding clause A (HO LOGOS EN HO THEOS):
would mean that logos and theos are equivalent and interchangeable
[Harner, _QAPN_, pg. 85]
He noted that clause D:
would probably mean that the logos was `a god' or a divine being
of some kind, belonging to the general category of theos but as a
distinct being from ho theos.
[Harner, Ibid., pg. 85]
He later concluded:
John evidently wished to say something about the logos that was
other than A and more than D and E.
[Harner, Ibid.] ^^^^^^^^^^^
Also, Barclay, _Many Witnesses, One Lord_, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1973), pg. 23 says: The only modern translator who fairly and squarely faced
this problem is Kenneth Wuest, who said. "the Word was as to his essence
essential deity." But it is here that the NEB has brilliantly solved this
problem with the absolutely correct rendering, "What God was the Word was."
Pam MacKenzie
mackenz@tigger.jvnc.net
(JWCH80C@prodigy.com)
>
Pam MacKenzie, mackenz@tigger.jvnc.net