Why is the Greek def. article used in John 1:1b but not John 1:1c?

[Davidius]

I can finally read some biblical Greek so I thought I would ask my first real exegetical question dealing with the original language.

ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὀ λόγος.


Jehovah's Witnesses (or Mormons? or both?) say that the lack of a definite article in the third clause implies that Christ was merely one of several/many gods, not God Himself. I don't believe this because of the testimony of the rest of Scripture. But I do still wonder why the definite article is used in the third clause but not in the second if the same meaning is implied. Is it because θεός appears in a prepositional phrase in the second clause? But a preposition certainly doesn't necessitate the use of an article. That a definite article is not required to imply the English rendering "God" instead of "a God" seems like it would be a fine argument if the clause in which an article were ommitted should be found standing alone. But what should the exegete say if the author uses the same phrase in the same sentence while omitting the article in only one clause?

Also, is there any significance to the movement of ὀ λόγος to the end of the clause in C when it was at the beginning in B?

 

[Poimen]

Word order in a predicate statement with two nouns may determine the specificity of a noun rather than the presence or absence of an article. (1) Definite predicate nouns that follow the copulative verb tend to have the article expressed. (2) Definite predicate nouns that precede the copulative verb tend to omit the article, even though they may be specific in meaning.

John 1:1 "theos ēn ho logos" ([the] word was God) where God ("theos") is anarthrous (without an article) so as to be translated "a god," yet since it proceeds the copulative "ēn" (3rd singular person, imperfect active indicative of eimi [to be]), it can be translated "God." Thus the translation of this passage must be determined by context.

Also, is there any significance to the movement of ὀ λόγος to the end of the clause in C when it was at the beginning in B?

It is probably an inclusio: one thought.

 

[Davidius]

Word order in a predicate statement with two nouns may determine the specificity of a noun rather than the presence or absence of an article. (1) Definite predicate nouns that follow the copulative verb tend to have the article expressed. (2) Definite predicate nouns that precede the copulative verb tend to omit the article, even though they may be specific in meaning.

John 1:1 "theos ēn ho logos" ([the] word was God) where God ("theos") is anarthrous (without an article) so as to be translated "a god," yet since it proceeds the copulative "ēn" (3rd singular person, imperfect active indicative of eimi [to be]), it can be translated "God." Thus the translation of this passage must be determined by context.

Also, is there any significance to the movement of ὀ λόγος to the end of the clause in C when it was at the beginning in B?

It is probably an inclusio: one thought.

Thanks! Where did you find that rule? Does the source provide any other examples from other sources?

 

[Poimen]

Thanks! Where did you find that rule? Does the source provide any other examples from other sources?

Colwell's canon; learned about it in seminary.

There are many more examples in John but I don't have access to my Greek primer right now. I will post more later if no one else does.

 

[Poimen]

I don't want to do anything under false pretenses so...

The little argument about word order I gave above was a summary from Baugh's Greek Primer. I would have to check it to see if it is word for word or not. In short, I am not as smart as I appear.

 

[greenbaggins]

Daniel is correct. Another way to put it (maybe more simply) is this: when two nouns are connected by a verb of being (like 'am,' 'is,' 'are,' 'was,' etc.), the usual way to express which noun is the subject in Greek is not by word order, but by expressing the article. "The Word" is therefore the subject of that clause, not "God." So the lack of the definite article expresses the fact that "God" is the predicate noun, not the subject noun. But this is a grammatical lack of article, not a "meaning" lack of article. Thus, there is more than one reason why a noun could be anarthrous. In this case, it is simply that "God" is the predicate nominative and not the subject. A similar example (puzzlingly translated wrongly by every major English version I know) is John 20:31, where the English versions have "that Jesus is the Christ." It should rather be "that the Christ, the Son of God, is Jesus." See Carson's commentary on this passage for argumentation. The issue in John 20:31 is not that you can say many things about Jesus including the fact that He is the Messiah. The issue is that of all the people whom one could claim to be the Messiah, John (and God, inspiring him) say that it is Jesus.

 

[Presbyterian Deacon]

The Greek article is used to point out particular identity. This is called the "articular" use of a noun or other substantive.

When no definite article is used with the noun (or other substantive), it is called the "anarthrous" use.

The anarthrous construction for God (θεὸς) in John 1:1 is used to indicate the quality or characteristics of the articular noun The Word (ὀ λόγος).

Hence the context of the passage, not the presence or absense of the article determines that the proper translation is "the Word was God."

 

[MW]

A similar example (puzzlingly translated wrongly by every major English version I know) is John 20:31, where the English versions have "that Jesus is the Christ." It should rather be "that the Christ, the Son of God, is Jesus." See Carson's commentary on this passage for argumentation. The issue in John 20:31 is not that you can say many things about Jesus including the fact that He is the Messiah. The issue is that of all the people whom one could claim to be the Messiah, John (and God, inspiring him) say that it is Jesus.

It would be strange for the Evangelist to now turn around and say something declaratively about "Christ" when in verse 30 he has made "Jesus" the subject who has done many other signs. Further, "hoti" indicates the content of belief, and so the subject naturally assumes prior place in the following construction. These reasons would suffice to justify the usual rendering.

 

[greenbaggins]

Hmm. I don't think that the previous context militates against my position on that verse. After saying such and such about Jesus, John can now say, "See, this proves that the Christ is Jesus." Carson argues that the purpose of the book is evangelistic, and primarily to Jews. Thus, the overall context of the book favors my reading, since Jews would not be expecially interested in hearing more about Jesus, but they would be very interested in who the Messiah is.

 

[MW]

Hmm. I don't think that the previous context militates against my position on that verse. After saying such and such about Jesus, John can now say, "See, this proves that the Christ is Jesus." Carson argues that the purpose of the book is evangelistic, and primarily to Jews. Thus, the overall context of the book favors my reading, since Jews would not be expecially interested in hearing more about Jesus, but they would be very interested in who the Messiah is.

I say it in humility, Carson should know better. It's an exegetical fallacy to make a perceived purpose of a book determinative for interpretative questions. That's how we end up with meta-narratives. The text itself must be permitted to answer its own purpose. Especially in John, where the narrative is concerned to correct false notions concerning the Jews' expected Messiah.

Besides, the question, Who is the Messiah, is answered throughout the Gospel by "Jesus is the Messiah." The Samaritan woman's confession was, "Is not this the Christ?" Incidentally, the Greek construction is the same -- (nominative) estin ho Xristos. Yet nobody suggests it should be translated, "Is not the Christ this?" Clearly in both instances we are being given information about Iesous, and the information suffices to show that He is the one whom the Jews were expecting, called Christos.

But it's not a matter I think worth spilling much proverbial ink over. It brings me to realise yet again that individuals should be careful to guard against the strong temptation to say something new in order to make a contribution to the scholarly world. It's usually the case that those who systematise and clarify what is old make the best contribution to their fields.

 

[DTK]

I say it in humility, Carson should know better. It's an exegetical fallacy to make a perceived purpose of a book determinative for interpretative questions.

May I ask, where is it said that Carson said in this instance that the purpose of John is determinative for interpretative questions? The conclusion of the interpreter of Carson is not determinative for Carson.

Blessings,
DTK

 

[MW]

I say it in humility, Carson should know better. It's an exegetical fallacy to make a perceived purpose of a book determinative for interpretative questions.

May I ask, where is it said that Carson said in this instance that the purpose of John is determinative for interpretative questions? The conclusion of the interpreter of Carson is not determinative for Carson.

Thankyou for the keen observation. That was Lane's conclusion based on Carson's "purpose" for the book. I retract my statement and acknowledge my mistake. My comment about meta-narrative applies only to Lane's conclusion based on Carson's "purpose." Blessings!

 

[k.seymore]

A similar example (puzzlingly translated wrongly by every major English version I know) is John 20:31, where the English versions have "that Jesus is the Christ." It should rather be "that the Christ, the Son of God, is Jesus."

I gotta admit, I don't know Greek, and I'm not even that good at English, but there might be a reason every major translation translates it the other way. Saying "the Christ is Jesus" and "See, this proves that the Christ is Jesus" and "they would be very interested in who the Messiah is" sound as awkward to me as if someone said, "I wonder who the coming president is."

Reading it the way you translated makes it sound like all these Jews know that the Messiah has finally come... but who is he? Who is this Messiah? This makes far more sense to me: "Jesus is the promised Messiah!" The true Messiah has come at last!

But then again I don't know Greek.

 

[DTK]

I gotta admit, I don't know Greek, and I'm not even that good at English, but there might be a reason every major translation translates it the other way. Saying "the Christ is Jesus" and "See, this proves that the Christ is Jesus" and "they would be very interested in who the Messiah is" sound as awkward to me as if someone said, "I wonder who the coming president is."

I am inclined to agree. I'm looking at Carson and he does argue (as Lane mentioned) that "the hina-clause must on syntactical grounds be rendered 'that you may believe that the Christ, the Son of God, is Jesus'." Based upon this exegetical point, Carson then proceeds to argue "[t]hat the fundamental question being addressed by the Evangelist is not 'Who is Jesus?', which might be asked by either Christians or non-Christians, if with slightly different emphases; but 'Who is the Messiah?' If that is understood as an identity question, as it must be, Christians would not ask it because they already knew the answer. Those who would ask it would be unconverted Jews, along with proselytes and God-fearers, for the category 'Messiah' was important to them, and the concern to identify him would be of great interest." (See Carson, The Gospel according to John, p. 662.

I'm not convinced by Carson that "the hina-clause must on syntactical grounds be rendered" that way. If he's right, then virtually every translator but him has missed it.

Blessings,
DTK

 

[DTK]

Daniel is correct. Another way to put it (maybe more simply) is this: when two nouns are connected by a verb of being (like 'am,' 'is,' 'are,' 'was,' etc.), the usual way to express which noun is the subject in Greek is not by word order, but by expressing the article. "The Word" is therefore the subject of that clause, not "God." So the lack of the definite article expresses the fact that "God" is the predicate noun, not the subject noun. But this is a grammatical lack of article, not a "meaning" lack of article. Thus, there is more than one reason why a noun could be anarthrous. In this case, it is simply that "God" is the predicate nominative and not the subject. A similar example (puzzlingly translated wrongly by every major English version I know) is John 20:31, where the English versions have "that Jesus is the Christ." It should rather be "that the Christ, the Son of God, is Jesus." See Carson's commentary on this passage for argumentation. The issue in John 20:31 is not that you can say many things about Jesus including the fact that He is the Messiah. The issue is that of all the people whom one could claim to be the Messiah, John (and God, inspiring him) say that it is Jesus.

Carson's translation of the hina-clause in John 20:31 is addressed specifically in Daniel B. Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics on pp. 46ff. Wallace notes that Carson's main argument is grammatical, and he states that the...

"One fundamental argument Carson uses is grammatical, viz., that an articular noun takes priority over a proper name. He considers the NT to contain 'firm syntactical evidence' to this effect. But, as we have seen, the evidence is ambiguous and, if anything, moves in the opposite direction: Either the first noun is S or the proper name is S. Thus the grammatical leg of this argument is invalid."

Wallace goes on to note that this same construction occurs some four times in 1 John (1 John 4:15; 5:5; 2:22; 5:1).

In short, I don't think Carson's argument is so "cut and dry" grammatically, and I think that Wallace exposes the weakness of his approach in translation here.

For what it's worth, that's my here.

Blessings,
DTK