The Greek of John1:1

[GrinningDwarf]

James R. White's book The Forgotten Trinity and articles at his website have been very helpful for understanding the Greek of the prologue of John's Gospel. I was left with only one question that I can't find in any of White's writings...

If John had intended to say "and the word was a god...", how would he have said that in Greek?

 

[Hackett]

I have been searching and can not come up with a way to look at that...I do not know Greek but was hoping I could find an answer in a lexicon, or Dr Zodiates references. Hummmmm....

 

[mlqurgw]

James R. White's book The Forgotten Trinity and articles at his website have been very helpful for understanding the Greek of the prologue of John's Gospel. I was left with only one question that I can't find in any of White's writings...

If John had intended to say "and the word was a god...", how would he have said that in Greek?

Since there is no Greek word which is equivalent to the English "a" or "an", called the indefinate article, the absense of the definite article " the" is most often understood as the indefinate article "a". Though that isn't always the case as it can only be understood by the context. The use of the definate article "the" is to identify and the absense is used to quanitify normally. Since the definate article is used in the passage "a" cannot be understood in the meaning.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

Since there is no Greek word which is equivalent to the English "a" or "an", called the indefinate article, the absense of the definite article " the" is most often understood as the indefinate article "a". Though that isn't always the case as it can only be understood by the context. The use of the definate article "the" is to identify and the absense is used to quanitify normally. Since the definate article is used in the passage "a" cannot be understood in the meaning.

Well...I believe a tansliteration of the passage (since I don't know how to get Greek script on here) says "kai theos en ho logos"

This is the way I understand it...

The only definite article in there is 'ho' (the), and this makes 'logos' (word) the subject of the phrase. Greek doesn't require the subject to come first in a sentence, but it usually is in English, which is why this phrase begins with "the word" in English.

The other noun, 'theos' (God), has no definite article. Apparently the only definite article the Greeks had was 'the', and if John had written 'ho theos' (the God), he would have been saying that 'the word' is identical to God because then 'ho logos' and 'ho theos' would be interchangable in the phrase...which he had just established is not the case because the word was also with God, so could not be identical to God.

So.....

What I am undertanding, then is that 'a god' is, indeed, a potential understanding of John's phrase...until this phrase is taken in context with the rest of Scripture which plainly declares there is only one God. Therefore, John here is saying that 'the word' has 'the nature of God', and since there is only one God, the Word must somehow be God, but not the Father.

Is this accurate?

 

[mlqurgw]

Well...I believe a tansliteration of the passage (since I don't know how to get Greek script on here) says "kai theos en ho logos"

This is the way I understand it...

The only definite article in there is 'ho' (the), and this makes 'logos' (word) the subject of the phrase. Greek doesn't require the subject to come first in a sentence, but it usually is in English, which is why this phrase begins with "the word" in English.

The other noun, 'theos' (God), has no definite article. Apparently the only definite article the Greeks had was 'the', and if John had written 'ho theos' (the God), he would have been saying that 'the word' is identical to God because then 'ho logos' and 'ho theos' would be interchangable in the phrase...which he had just established is not the case because the word was also with God, so could not be identical to God.

So.....

What I am undertanding, then is that 'a god' is, indeed, a potential understanding of John's phrase...until this phrase is taken in context with the rest of Scripture which plainly declares there is only one God. Therefore, John here is saying that 'the word' has 'the nature of God', and since there is only one God, the Word must somehow be God, but not the Father.

Is this accurate?

In " A Manual Grammer of the Greek New Testament" Dana and Mantey deal at length with the use and interpretation of the article and its absence. On Page 148,149 they deal with John 1:1. "The article sometimes distinguises the subject from the predicate in a copulative sentence." In John 1:1 the article points out the subject. If the article was used with both Theos and Logos it would mean the Word was all of God as though there were no other persons of the Trinity. " As it stands, the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in Theos."

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

James R. White's book The Forgotten Trinity and articles at his website have been very helpful for understanding the Greek of the prologue of John's Gospel. I was left with only one question that I can't find in any of White's writings...

If John had intended to say "and the word was a god...", how would he have said that in Greek?

Very simply, in respect to John 1:1, you can't. Contextually, the second clause (you can get the Greek font that i use in the link here http://bible.crosswalk.com/OtherResources/BSTFonts/) kai; oJ lovgo" h\n pro;" to;n qeovn, specifies God almighty, notice that it has the definite article tovn

About the only way to declare that Jesus is another god, or a lesser god is to use the word a[llo" (another, other) in the last clause.

The context of the passage, makes it absolutely clear that Jesus is spoken of as being God Almighty.

Another poster has noted that IF the word in the last clause, translated as "God" had the definite article, THEN it would teach that Jesus is God Almighty the Father. In other words, it would teach Sabaelianism, or Modalism, much like the United Pentacostal (Apostolic) churches do today. It would not support Orthodox Trinitarian theology.

No Greek reader of the First Century would have rendered the passage as written as meaning anything except "The word was God".

It is best to always check with reputable Greek Scholars when dealing with the absence or presence of the definite article in the predicate nominative. Usually, anybody making theological arguments based on the presence or absence of the article does not know of what he or she speaks. The rules are rather complex, and should be studied carefully.

 

[JMC309]

Since there is no Greek word which is equivalent to the English "a" or "an", called the indefinate article, the absense of the definite article " the" is most often understood as the indefinate article "a".

I'm currently studying Greek at school. There is in fact an indefinite article: tis. I think I've come across phrases in Classical texts such as 'qeos tis,' meaning 'a god,' or 'tis qewn,' meaning 'one of the gods.' While it is indeed sometimes left out, it is most of the time left in when introducing things for the first time indefinitely.

Add this to the fact that, had the original intent of John been not to portray Jesus as God, he would have been very careful to avoid 'giving the devil a foothold,' by leaving ambiguity in the text. After all, were Jesus not God, then interpreting the passage as saying such would have been terrible blasphemy and error. John would hardly have risked that, and so would have phrased it differently: 'kai o logos esti tis qeos,' meaning 'and the word was a god.'

I am of course fallible in these things but this is how I've always been taught it.

FYI I get a Greek font in my selection of fonts at the top of the reply box.

 

[mlqurgw]

I'm currently studying Greek at school. There is in fact an indefinite article: tis. I think I've come across phrases in Classical texts such as 'qeos tis,' meaning 'a god,' or 'tis qewn,' meaning 'one of the gods.' While it is indeed sometimes left out, it is most of the time left in when introducing things for the first time indefinitely.

Add this to the fact that, had the original intent of John been not to portray Jesus as God, he would have been very careful to avoid 'giving the devil a foothold,' by leaving ambiguity in the text. After all, were Jesus not God, then interpreting the passage as saying such would have been terrible blasphemy and error. John would hardly have risked that, and so would have phrased it differently: 'kai o logos esti tis qeos,' meaning 'and the word was a god.'

I am of course fallible in these things but this is how I've always been taught it.

FYI I get a Greek font in my selection of fonts at the top of the reply box.

I believe the word tis in the Greek is the interogative pronoun and is normally translated who or which. In certain uses it does come close to the indefinate article it isn't the indefinate article. Again I would point you to Dana and Mantey on the indefinate pronoun.

 

[MrGoodbar]

I believe the word tis in the Greek is the interogative pronoun and is normally translated who or which. In certain uses it does come close to the indefinate article it isn't the indefinate article. Again I would point you to Dana and Mantey on the indefinate pronoun.

Agreed. I think its a huge stretch to associate tis with the indefinite article. As an interrogative pronoun, and conversely then can be translated as "a certain one" or "someone" or "anyone" but not really as "a."

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

I took Greek many (20+) years ago (and haven't looked at it much since then). I can't remember the particulars, but I do remember asking the professor about the "a god" question. He looked at the text and thought and said "Oh no! That would be pagan wouldn't it?"

Here is what F.F. Bruce says about this question, "The structure of the third clause in in verse 1, theos en ho logos, demands the translation 'The Word was God.' Since logos has the article preceding it, it is marked out as the subject. The fact that theos is the first word after the conjunction kai ('and') shows that the main emphasis of the claus lies on it. Had theos as well as logos been preceded by the article the meaning would have been that the Word was completely identicle with God, which is impossible if the Word is also 'with God.' What is meant is that the Word shared the nature and being of God, or (to use a piece of modern jargon) was an extension of the personality of God. The NEB paraphrase 'what God was, the Word was', brings out the meaning as succesfully as a paraphrase can."

Kenith

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

I'm currently studying Greek at school. There is in fact an indefinite article: tis. I think I've come across phrases in Classical texts such as 'qeos tis,' meaning 'a god,' or 'tis qewn,' meaning 'one of the gods.' While it is indeed sometimes left out, it is most of the time left in when introducing things for the first time indefinitely.

Add this to the fact that, had the original intent of John been not to portray Jesus as God, he would have been very careful to avoid 'giving the devil a foothold,' by leaving ambiguity in the text. After all, were Jesus not God, then interpreting the passage as saying such would have been terrible blasphemy and error. John would hardly have risked that, and so would have phrased it differently: 'kai o logos esti tis qeos,' meaning 'and the word was a god.'

I am of course fallible in these things but this is how I've always been taught it.

FYI I get a Greek font in my selection of fonts at the top of the reply box.

i believe that you will find that tiv" is a pronoun and not an article. It naturally begs the question of what the antecedent of the pronoun would be. Your choices would be either lovgo" or Qeo;".

Each would have their own set of difficulties.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

In " A Manual Grammer of the Greek New Testament" Dana and Mantey deal at length with the use and interpretation of the article and its absence. On Page 148,149 they deal with John 1:1. "The article sometimes distinguises the subject from the predicate in a copulative sentence." In John 1:1 the article points out the subject. If the article was used with both Theos and Logos it would mean the Word was all of God as though there were no other persons of the Trinity. " As it stands, the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in Theos."

Thanks!

I've only had one semester of Greek, and our text was Essentials of New Testament Greek by Ray Summers. I still have the book and use it, but the lesson on 'the article' simply has a rough sketch on usage and then says

An extensive discussion of this usage is found in Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament.

Maybe I should just pick up a copy of that one, huh?

 

[mlqurgw]

Thanks!

I've only had one semester of Greek, and our text was Essentials of New Testament Greek by Ray Summers. I still have the book and use it, but the lesson on 'the article' simply has a rough sketch on usage and then says



Maybe I should just pick up a copy of that one, huh?

I have actually had no formal instruction in Greek. What little I do know, as is evident from my posts, has been self taught with the tremendous help of some men who have taught Greek. I have Summers, Machen and Dana and Mantey and use them all along with other helps. By far Dana and Mantey are the most in depth and I would reccomend them.