From: Jonathan Robie (jonathan@texcel.no)
Date: Wed Jan 07 1998 - 08:59:02 EST
At 02:10 PM 1/7/98 -0500, Al Kidd wrote:
> ". . . if we have _AT JOHN 1:1c_ a certain kind of
> predicate--say, a title-phrase equivalent to the
> definite, personal name YHWH or a title-phrase
> equivalent to some other person (namely, the
> person of the Logos--, then should _it_ [--namely,
> that predicate at John 1:1c--] not have been
> articulated?"
A counter-example:
CRISTOS HN hO LOGOS
If my current view of the article, as of 8:40 a.m. on January 7th, 1998, is
correct, that is, the view I expressed yesterday, then the answer is: "not
necessarily, at least not on grammatical grounds". If a non-articular noun
is unmarked, then failing to use the article does not rule out the definite
interpretation. If this actually were the intended meaning ("the Word was
identical to and interchangeable with Yahweh"), though, one might expect
the author to use the article to make his point very clear.
However, I don't think that anybody is arguing that John 1:1c means "the
Word was Yahweh", or "the Word was God the Father", so the grammatical
question may be moot.
The grammar does not prove everything we may wish to assert about a
statement. Sometimes we have to go beyond what is explicitly stated.
>Yes, such a kind of predicate--a title-phrase that
>functions grammatically similar to a personal name--
>may be articulated. And it will be just as both you
>and I pointed out earlier, i.e., it will be convertible
>with the subject. Instances are:
>
>1 Cor. 10:4 hH PETRA DE HN hO XRISTOS,
>John 1:25 SU OUK EI hO XRISTOS . . . OUDE hO PROFHTHS,
>John 7:26 hOUTOS ESTIN hO XRISTOS,
>John 7:40 hOUTOS ESTIN ALHQWS hO PROFHTHS,
>John 7:41 hOUTOS ESTIN hO XRISTOS,
>John 20:31 IHSOUS ESTIN hO XRISTOS
>Rev. 6:8 ONOMA AUTWi hO QANATOS
But the article is not *always* used with titles:
Mark 1:1 ARCH TOU EUAGGELIOU IHSOU CRISTOU hUIOU QEOU
Matt 26:68 PROFHTEUSON hHMIN, CRISTE, TIS ESTIN hO PAISAS SE;
Luke 2:11 hOTI ETECQH hUMIN SHMERON SWTHR hOS ESTIN CRISTOS KURIOS EN POLEI
DAUID
Luke 23:2 KAI LEGONTA hEAUTON CRISTON BASILEA EINAI
This is nowhere near exhaustive, but I think it makes the point.
>Well, I suggest that this rules out that one
>should take QEOS at John 1:1c as a personal-name
>equivalent to the personal name YHWH.
I'm not sure that it rules it out. For instance, I think this is probably
grammatical:
CRISTOS HN hO LOGOS
How should that be interpreted?
Jonathan
jonathan@texcel.no
Texcel Research
http://www.texcel.no
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:48 EDT