Dear B Greekers
Putting aside all doctrinal considerations, for or against, is it possible according to the grammar/syntax of the Greek to render the qualitative anarthrous predicate noun “theos” of John 1:1, “a god”?
Ethos
Ken M. Penner wrote:I'm surprised, Mike. I would have said the exact opposite. It's hard to prove something is impossible unless it's a logical impossibility.
MAubrey wrote:Ken M. Penner wrote:I'm surprised, Mike. I would have said the exact opposite. It's hard to prove something is impossible unless it's a logical impossibility.
Billions of people throughout history successfully say, "yes" and "no" to similar questions everyday. And it's good, language would quickly become highly ineffective if the words yes and no were only available for things that could be empirically proven. Maybe we can't prove it definitively, but I would hope that you and I would both recognize that as an approximation of knowledge, "No." works quite well indeed.
David Robinson wrote:Putting aside all doctrinal considerations, for or against, is it possible according to the grammar/syntax of the Greek to render the qualitative anarthrous predicate noun “theos” of John 1:1, “a god”?
Ken M. Penner wrote:Take it easy! I didn't say empirically. And I didn't say "no" was not an available answer. I said I was surprised; it was an unexpected answer, especially coming from someone whose opinion I greatly respect.
Ken M. Penner wrote:I'm just pointing out that all that is needed to show something is possible is one example. But no number of examples is sufficient to show something is impossible.
Ken M. Penner wrote:Aristotle, On Prophesying by Dreams: εἰ θεὸς ἦν ὁ πέμπων (the sender should be God/a god). I'd sat this one is probably definite.
Philo, De fuga et inventione 167: οὐ γὰρ ἄνθρωπος ἦν ὁ γεννώμενος (For the one being brought forth was not a man ...). I'd say this one is probably indefinite.
ἔγραψεν ὁ Δαυιδ:
Putting aside all doctrinal considerations, for or against, is it possible according to the grammar/syntax of the Greek to render the qualitative anarthrous predicate noun “theos” of John 1:1, “a god”?
πάλαι μὲν οὖν ὑπάρχων σὺν τῷ θεῷ, ὁ λόγος θεῖος ἦν.
MAubrey wrote:No.
Mark Lightman wrote:ἔγραψεν ὁ Δαυιδ:
Putting aside all doctrinal considerations, for or against, is it possible according to the grammar/syntax of the Greek to render the qualitative anarthrous predicate noun “theos” of John 1:1, “a god”?
Yes, David, it's not only possible but to me, all doctrinal considerations put aside, it seems the most natural way to read the text. I would paraphrase John 1:1 thus:πάλαι μὲν οὖν ὑπάρχων σὺν τῷ θεῷ, ὁ λόγος θεῖος ἦν.
Return to Pragmatics and Discourse
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest