From: Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church (pauld@iclnet93.iclnet.org)
Date: Sat Aug 19 1995 - 00:27:47 EDT
If we recognize a contrast between Jn 1:1c and Jn 1:14 (the two
natures of the Logos), then the translation at 1:1c should probably
parallel that of 1:14. That is, if 1:14 is translated, "and the Word
became flesh," then 1:1c might be, "and the Word was deity." This
translation brings out the qualitative force of the anarthrous nouns. In
both cases it is not 'the God', or 'a god', nor 'the flesh' or 'a flesh',
but "deity ... flesh."
On Thu, 17 Aug 1995, David Coomler wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 1995, Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church wrote:
>
> KevLAnder@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > Anyway, Colwell argued that THEOS in J 1:1 has a greater probability of being
> > translated "God" (definite), not "a god" (indefinite), since 87% of definite
> > predicates preceding the verb in the GNT are anarthrous.
>
> My understanding is that neither is really accurate, and that when
> translating it into English it becomes descriptive--in other words, "god"
> with a small g. The word was neither completely identical with God (big
> G), nor simply an individual god ("a god"), but rather god in an
> adjectival sense--or as some translate it, "divine." I think "the word
> was god" or "the word was divine" are both more accurate than either of
> the two extremes of making the word absolutely identical with God or a
> separate god.
>
> David
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:25 EDT