[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: john 1

On Sun, 17 Jul 1994, Gregory Jordan (ENG) wrote:
> Another thing I just thought of is that the word "theos" is not an 
> ordinary noun like "huios" or "phOs."  What are the rules governing its 
> use with or without an article?  As I remember it often, perhaps always, 
> appears without an article, and if that is so then it may make it harder 
> to see any significance in its being "anarthrous" in the phrase in 
> question.

No, in John the article is more frequent. I just counted that 63 of the 
83 occurences of theos in GJohn have the article. It may be interesting to 
look at the 20 that don't:

John 1.6	There was a man having been sent from God
John 1.12	he gave them the right to become children of God
John 1.13	not of...but of God were born
John 1.18	No man has even seen God
John 1.18	only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father...
John 3.2	we know that from God you have come
John 3.21	that in God [the works]  are wrought
John 6.45	and they shall be all taught of God
John 8.54	He is our God
John 9.16	this man is not from God
John 9.33	If this man was not from God, he could do nothing
John 10.33	because you, being a man, make yourself God
John 10.34	I said you are gods
John 10.35	If he called those gods...
John 13.03	that from God he came forth
John 16.30	we believe that from God you came
John 19.07	He made himself Son of God
John 20.17	my God and your God

For almost every anarthrous construction it is possible to find one 
similar but *with* the article. This suggests that the absence of the 
article with theos in John is highly significant.

James K. Tauber, Undergraduate Student          ``Perplexed but not
Centre for Linguistics, UWA, Australia	             despairing''
E-mail: jtauber@tartarus.uwa.edu.au                    - Paul (2 Cor 4.8)
WWW:    http://tartarus.uwa.edu.au:70/students/jtauber
References: