In 1 Corinthians 12:3, why is κύριος Ἰησοῦς usually rendered "Jesus is Lord"?

[Eeli Kaikkonen]

That appears to have some overlap but is, I think, distinct

1Cor 12:3:

• Ἰησοῦς is discourse old, we already know who Jesus is, so it's the topic. We say (or an imaginary person says) something about Jesus.
• ἀνάθεμα and κύριος tell what Jesus is (in someone's opinion), they are both statements about Jesus, so they are comments or focii in the information structure.
• There is ellipsis of the verb "be"; ἐστί can be implied.

John 1:1:

• ὁ λόγος is what we are talking about in the discourse, it's the topic. The discourse says something about this λόγος.
• θεὸς tells what the word is, it's a statement about ὁ λόγος, so it's the focus in the information structure.
• The verb "be", in imperfect ἦν, is explicit.

• In both passages the focus is fronted before the topic.
• In both passages we have two nouns.
• In both passages the first noun tells what the second noun is.
• In both passages the second noun refers to a person (as we can see in John, too).

Therefore it's fair to say there's quite much overlap.

[Bill Ross]

That appears to have some overlap but is, I think, distinct

1Cor 12:3:

• Ἰησοῦς is discourse old, we already know who Jesus is, so it's the topic. We say (or an imaginary person says) something about Jesus.
• ἀνάθεμα and κύριος tell what Jesus is (in someone's opinion), they are both statements about Jesus, so they are comments or focii in the information structure.
• There is ellipsis of the verb "be"; ἐστί can be implied.

John 1:1:

• ὁ λόγος is what we are talking about in the discourse, it's the topic. The discourse says something about this λόγος.
• θεὸς tells what the word is, it's a statement about ὁ λόγος, so it's the focus in the information structure.
• The verb "be", in imperfect ἦν, is explicit.

• In both passages the focus is fronted before the topic.
• In both passages we have two nouns.
• In both passages the first noun tells what the second noun is.
• In both passages the second noun refers to a person (as we can see in John, too).

Therefore it's fair to say there's quite much overlap.

From what I understand, this construction is employed when you want to avoid the definiteness of the article. This implies, I have read, "quality". It can, from what I understand also have the sense "and the Expression was a god". If John wanted to say that the Expression was "the [one true] God" then the inclusion of the article would have accomplished that very simply and we wouldn't be having this conversation! )

Related: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-arch ... 20681.html

[Barry Hofstetter]

From what I understand, this construction is employed when you want to avoid the definiteness of the article. This implies, I have read, "quality". It can, from what I understand also have the sense "and the Expression was a god". If John wanted to say that the Expression was "the [one true] God" then the inclusion of the article would have accomplished that very simply and we wouldn't be having this conversation! )

Related: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-arch ... 20681.html

No, not the same syntax. θεός in John 1:1c is anarthrous because it is the predicate, not because it's indefinite.

[Bill Ross]

From what I understand, this construction is employed when you want to avoid the definiteness of the article. This implies, I have read, "quality". It can, from what I understand also have the sense "and the Expression was a god". If John wanted to say that the Expression was "the [one true] God" then the inclusion of the article would have accomplished that very simply and we wouldn't be having this conversation! )

Related: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-arch ... 20681.html

No, not the same syntax. θεός in John 1:1c is anarthrous because it is the predicate, not because it's indefinite.

Would another way to say that be "It indicates a quality/characteristic of the subject not the identity"?

[Eeli Kaikkonen]

"It indicates a quality/characteristic of the subject not the identity"?

These are difficult words. How would you define "quality", "characteristc" and "identity" so that it's unambiguous to everyone what they mean in this context?

Moreover, what does it have to do with the article? And if we say "Jesus is God", is it characteristic or identity and why? If we say "Jesus is a god", is it characteristic or identity and why?

[Bill Ross]

"It indicates a quality/characteristic of the subject not the identity"?

These are difficult words. How would you define "quality", "characteristc" and "identity" so that it's unambiguous to everyone what they mean in this context?

Moreover, what does it have to do with the article? And if we say "Jesus is God", is it characteristic or identity and why? If we say "Jesus is a god", is it characteristic or identity and why?

I can't discuss this any further without leaving Greek for theology.

[Eeli Kaikkonen]

I can't discuss this any further without leaving Greek for theology.

The passage is infamously passion rising, but why would it be impossible to discuss about it as a linguistic expression?

[Bill Ross]

I can't discuss this any further without leaving Greek for theology.

The passage is infamously passion rising, but why would it be impossible to discuss about it as a linguistic expression?

Because I'm in the midst of Big Greeks and I'm a teenie, weenie Greek!

[Peng Huiguo]

Because I'm in the midst of Big Greeks and I'm a teenie, weenie Greek!

εἶπας ὡς αἰδοῖον Ἕλλην.

[Bill Ross]

Because I'm in the midst of Big Greeks and I'm a teenie, weenie Greek!

εἶπας ὡς αἰδοῖον Ἕλλην.

Awesome. So is the infamous John 1:1 about identity, quality, emphasis, definiteness, or what? Thanks.