Meaning of the Definite Article

[Roger Thornhill]

I don't know why you quoted so much. Here is what he says about J 1:1:

"The predicate is usually anarthrous, because it does not denote a definite person or kind or class but only property or essence, which is predicated of the subject. An example here is: Κΰρος έγένετο βασιλεύς τών περσών "Kyros was made king of the Persians". This text is an exact parallel to Jn 1,1c και Θεός ήν ό Λόγος or (in its ordinary form) και ό Λόγος ήν Θεός."

The adjunctive does not change anything in a clause like this: "... the Word was with God and also the Word was divine."

 

[The Real John Milton]

I don't know why you quoted so much. Here is what he says about J 1:1:

"The predicate is usually anarthrous, because it does not denote a definite person or kind or class but only property or essence, which is predicated of the subject. An example here is: Κΰρος έγένετο βασιλεύς τών περσών "Kyros was made king of the Persians". This text is an exact parallel to Jn 1,1c και Θεός ήν ό Λόγος or (in its ordinary form) και ό Λόγος ήν Θεός."

He is right that this text is “an exact parallel” to John 1:1c. I never did consider the objection to be valid which argued that έγένετο (instead of ήν) somehow negates the parallelism.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

He is right that this text is “an exact parallel” to John 1:1c. I never did consider the objection to be valid which argued that έγένετο (instead of ήν) somehow negates the parallelism.

Well, it's more like the Lord became king. But both verbs can form predicate nominatives.

 

[Him]

I don't know why you quoted so much. Here is what he says about J 1:1:

"The predicate is usually anarthrous, because it does not denote a definite person or kind or class but only property or essence, which is predicated of the subject. An example here is: Κΰρος έγένετο βασιλεύς τών περσών "Kyros was made king of the Persians". This text is an exact parallel to Jn 1,1c και Θεός ήν ό Λόγος or (in its ordinary form) και ό Λόγος ήν Θεός."

The issue is it is the natural reading of the text. To interpret it any other way is subjective. Subject to the whims of the reader. As if theos means God in the first clause and a god or lord In the second. It is not that ambiguous especially when one considers God said and it was so

 

[Roger Thornhill]

The issue is it is the natural reading of the text. To interpret it any other way is subjective. Subject to the whims of the reader. As if theos means God in the first clause and a god or lord In the second. It is not that ambiguous especially when one considers God said and it was so

If it was meant to identify θεος at J 1:1c with θεον at 1:1b it would have have the article. It is the article that identifies, not the noun. That's the primary purpose of the article, to be inserted at the second instance of a noun to identify it with the first.

That's the grammar. It's your whim that is making the identification.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Well, it's more like the Lord became king. But both verbs can form predicate nominatives.

Grammatically it is apparently exactly parallel to John 1:1c.

Also, it’s not “the Lord became King” but “Keros became / came to be King of the Persians.” However, I have to disagree because the predicate noun here gives a qualitative sense in large part due to the genitive modifier τών περσών.

 

[The Real John Milton]

The following is, on the other hand, exactly parallel to John 1:1b, syntactically —

καὶ ἐγένετο λόγος κυρίου πρὸς Ησαιαν

Isaiah 38:4

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Grammatically they are exactly parallel. Also, it’s not “the Lord became King” but “Keros became / came to be King of the Persians.”

Yes Keros, thanks.

One difference is that the prepositional phrase serves to make the King specific. I don't see the qualitative sense.

Keros became a specific king, the king of the Persians. John 1:1c is just θεος.

He did not become kinglike.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

The following is, on the other hand, exactly parallel to John 1:1b, syntactically —



Isaiah 38:4

To be more parallel to John 1:1b semantically we would need something like καὶ ἐγένετο ο λόγος Ησαιαν πρὸς Ησαιαν or καὶ ἐγένετο ο λόγος κυρίου πρὸς τον κυρίον.

That is if you identify ο λόγος at J 1:1 as ο λόγος του θεού.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Yes Keros, thanks.

One difference is that the prepositional phrase serves to make the King specific. I don't see the qualitative sense.

Keros became a specific king, the king of the Persians. John 1:1c is just θεος.

He did not become kinglike.

Yes, see my modified post. I don’t think they are exactly parallel structurally but only in terms of the S-PN construction. Infact the prepositional phrase serves to make the expression qualitative, and is really a slight of hand way of arguing that the anarthrous θεος is qualitative. The problem ofcourse is that at John 1:1c we do not have θεος being modified by a genitive. And the PN in the example he gives comes after the verb.

The following is parallel to John 1:1c—

λέγει αὐτῷ ἡ γυνή Κύριε, θεωρῶ ὅτι προφήτης εἶ σύ.

We have a pre-verbal PN and no modifiers.

 

[The Real John Milton]

To be more parallel to John 1:1b semantically we would need something like καὶ ἐγένετο ο λόγος Ησαιαν πρὸς Ησαιαν or καὶ ἐγένετο ο λόγος κυρίου πρὸς τον κυρίον.

That is if you identify ο λόγος at J 1:1 as ο λόγος του θεού.

Don’t see how that makes a difference. ο λόγος του θεού is not θεος, just as λόγος κυρίου is not Ησαιας.The parallelism is exact.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

Don’t see how that makes a difference. ο λόγος του θεού is not θεος, just as λόγος κυρίου is not Ησαιας.The parallelism is exact.

Semantically it makes a difference. I agree that the words spoken by a being are not that being.

But it is natural to see words from one being being addressed to another being. That's also the spatial sense of προς. In the view you propose for J 1:1 there is only one being.

In your OT text there are two beings, and God speaks to Isaiah.

 

[The Real John Milton]

In the view you propose for J 1:1 there is only one being.

In your OT text there are two beings, and God speaks to Isaiah.

That is precisely why Isaiah 38:4 is so apt, since there is only one being there also, namely Isaiah.

 

[Roger Thornhill]

That is precisely why Isaiah 38:4 is so apt, since there is only one being there also, namely Isaiah.

But the words being spoken to Isaiah are from another being, not his own words.

And it's not reasonable to see God's words in J 1:1b coming towards Him and/or being spoken to Him.

 

[The Real John Milton]

But the words being spoken to Isaiah are from another being, not his own words.

And it's not reasonable to see God's words in J 1:1b coming towards Him and/or being spoken to Him.

The Jews have a long standing tradition in their Midrashim that God “consulted” with His Torah / His Word as He created the Universe.

 

[froggy]

The conjunctive και must be considered in respect John 1:1 τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος. It makes the second use of an indefinite article not necessary.

The lack of the article doe not always mean that it is indefinite. I agree with your assessment. Remember you are dealing with a JW

 

[Roger Thornhill]

The Jews have a long standing tradition in their Midrashim that God “consulted” with His Torah / His Word as He created the Universe.

Do you have any texts you can compare to John 1:1?

 

[Roger Thornhill]

The lack of the article doe not always mean that it is indefinite. I agree with your assessment. Remember you are dealing with a JW

Froggy! Are you out of hibernation?

 

[The Real John Milton]

Do you have any texts you can compare to John 1:1?

Jeremiah 10:12 comes to mind immediately:

10:12 κύριος ὁ ποιήσας τὴν γῆν ἐν τῇ ἰσχύι αὐτοῦ ὁ ἀνορθώσας τὴν οἰκουμένην ἐν τῇ σοφίᾳ αὐτοῦ καὶ τῇ φρονήσει αὐτοῦἐξέτεινεν τὸν οὐρανὸν

Compare with the following —

αὐτοῖς δὲ τοῖς κλητοῖς, Ἰουδαίοις τε καὶ Ἕλλησιν, Χριστὸν Θεοῦ δύναμιν καὶ Θεοῦ σοφίαν.

 

[The Real John Milton]

Wisdom of Solomon, 9:1 hits the nail on the head —

θεὲ πατέρων καὶ κύριε τοῦ ἐλέους ὁ ποιήσας τὰ πάντα ἐν λόγῳ σου