Question for Roger concerning John 1:1c

Gryllus Maior

Active member
In John 1:1a ο λόγος is the subject.

In John 1:1b the subject is ο Λόγος.

In John 1:1c, why would the subject change?

If it did change, there are discourse markers for a change like this.

So even if θεός at 1:1c was articular the subject would be obvious.

This is particularly true because the three clauses are connected by και which signifies an addition to what was said before.


This is true for both linguists and grammarians.

@Gryllus Maior
This amounts to a non sequitur. Of course a change in subject would have been marked -- the syntax in 1:1c emphasizes that θεός is predicate, but only context determines if it can be definite (which I think it is).

Again, predicate nominatives are normally anarthrous, introducing new informaton about the subject. One effect is to clarify that the difference between the subject and the predicate. I would not with Harris say necessarily that having both as articular means that they are convertible, rather that the identification between the two is absolute.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
This amounts to a non sequitur. Of course a change in subject would have been marked -- the syntax in 1:1c emphasizes that θεός is predicate, but only context determines if it can be definite (which I think it is).

Again, predicate nominatives are normally anarthrous, introducing new informaton about the subject. One effect is to clarify that the difference between the subject and the predicate. I would not with Harris say necessarily that having both as articular means that they are convertible, rather that the identification between the two is absolute.

Not just Harris but also AT Robertson, and I think Wallace, but he is more nuanced.

I don't understand your use of non sequitor. If the only change to the text was an articular θεός, ο λόγος would obviously continue to be the subject.

Do you disagree? If so, I don't understand why.
 

Gryllus Maior

Active member
Not just Harris but also AT Robertson, and I think Wallace, but he is more nuanced.

I don't understand your use of non sequitor. If the only change to the text was an articular θεός, ο λόγος would obviously continue to be the subject.

Do you disagree? If so, I don't understand why.
You seem to think that this discounts the normal omission of the article to distinguish from the subject and therefore validates some other reason for the "missing" article. That's not how it works.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
You seem to think that this discounts the normal omission of the article to distinguish from the subject and therefore validates some other reason for the "missing" article. That's not how it works.

None of your references said that the reason for omitting the article was to identify the subject. So I am not sure who you are quoting, but I have heard this repeated plenty of times in apologetics (not scholarly) settings.

But in John 1:1c the subject of the third clause has already been defined twice.

The conjunctive και indicates that something is added to what preceded it and we expect to see a continuity with the context for the subject.

So, even if θεός was articular at 1:1c, the same subject is clearly ο λογος.

You disagree?
 

Gryllus Maior

Active member
None of your references said that the reason for omitting the article was to identify the subject. So I am not sure who you are quoting, but I have heard this repeated plenty of times in apologetics (not scholarly) settings.

But in John 1:1c the subject of the third clause has already been defined twice.

The conjunctive και indicates that something is added to what preceded it and we expect to see a continuity with the context for the subject.

So, even if θεός was articular at 1:1c, the same subject is clearly ο λογος.

You disagree?
Why do you keep beating this dead banana?

1150. A predicate noun has no article, and is thus distinguished from the subject: καλεῖται ἡ ἀκρόπολις ἔτι ὑπʼ Ἀθηναίων πόλις the acropolis is still called ‘city’ by the Athenians T. 2. 15.

Smyth, H. W. (1920). A Greek Grammar for Colleges (p. 292). New York; Cincinnati; Chicago; Boston; Atlanta: American Book Company.

Smyth, pretty scholarly, I should say. And if the syntax changed to identify something else as the subject, than that subject would have had the article.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Why do you keep beating this dead banana?

1150. A predicate noun has no article, and is thus distinguished from the subject: καλεῖται ἡ ἀκρόπολις ἔτι ὑπʼ Ἀθηναίων πόλις the acropolis is still called ‘city’ by the Athenians T. 2. 15.

Smyth, H. W. (1920). A Greek Grammar for Colleges (p. 292). New York; Cincinnati; Chicago; Boston; Atlanta: American Book Company.

Smyth, pretty scholarly, I should say. And if the syntax changed to identify something else as the subject, than that subject would have had the article.

I agree with Smyth. In Athenians T 2.15 the subject has the article.

What does this have to do with John 1:1? There the subject is defined in 1a, continues in 1b and therefore because the three clauses are conjoined with και, even in the minor reading with an articular θεός documented in our critical editions ο Λόγος is still the subject.

Smyth's example lacks those elements. Also, the predicate noun in this example is not the same as a predicate nominative.
 

Gryllus Maior

Active member
I agree with Smyth. In Athenians T 2.15 the subject has the article.

What does this have to do with John 1:1? There the subject is defined in 1a, continues in 1b and therefore because the three clauses are conjoined with και, even in the minor reading with an articular θεός documented in our critical editions ο Λόγος is still the subject.

Smyth's example lacks those elements. Also, the predicate noun in this example is not the same as a predicate nominative.
Distinctions without a difference. But if you don't get it, you don't get it.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
None of your references said that the reason for omitting the article was to identify the subject. So I am not sure who you are quoting, but I have heard this repeated plenty of times in apologetics (not scholarly) settings.

But in John 1:1c the subject of the third clause has already been defined twice.

The conjunctive και indicates that something is added to what preceded it and we expect to see a continuity with the context for the subject.

So, even if θεός was articular at 1:1c, the same subject is clearly ο λογος.

You disagree?
Correct. I've been trying to explain this to him for a while now but his pride and entitled attitude profoundly clouds his judgment.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Your reply amounts to "I really don't know what I'm talking about, so I'll disguise with a bunch of words and hope people don't notice.

If you learnt nothing from my post, at least learn something from the quote I furnished from Daniel Wallace, a fellow Trinitarian. He makes two points which you should really pay attention to --

(1) calling θεος in 1:1c definite is the same as saying that if it had followed the verb, it would have had the article. Thus it would be a convertible proposition with λόγος v (i.e., “the Word” = “God” and “God” = “the Word”) and therefore Sabellianism.

(2) θεος in 1:1b is the Father (something which you deny).
 

Gryllus Maior

Active member
If you learnt nothing from my post, at least learn something from the quote I furnished from Daniel Wallace, a fellow Trinitarian. He makes two points which you should really pay attention to --

(1) calling θεος in 1:1c definite is the same as saying that if it had followed the verb, it would have had the article. Thus it would be a convertible proposition with λόγος v (i.e., “the Word” = “God” and “God” = “the Word”) and therefore Sabellianism.

(2) θεος in 1:1b is the Father (something which you deny).
Wallace is simply wrong -- looking at it from the wrong perspective.
Correct. I've been trying to explain this to him for a while now but his pride and entitled attitude profoundly clouds his judgment.
How amusing to be instructed so by someone with such little knowledge of the language.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Here is another question Roger. BDAG asserts the following concerning 1 John 1:2 --

g. by, at, near πρός τινα εἶναι be (in company) with someone Mt 13:56; Mk 6:3; 9:19a; 14:49; Lk 9:41; J 1:1f; 1 Th 3:4; 2 Th 2:5; 3:10; 1J 1:2.

Does BDAG assume the first substantive in the above type of construction (πρός τινα εἶναι) to always be "a person" since it unconditionally declares said construction means "in company with someone." This can only happen if the first substantive (τις εἶναι πρός τινα) is also a person, since things cannot be "in the company" of someone. Or can they ?

It seems to me that BDAG needs to do a better job of articulating itself here.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Here is another question Roger. BDAG asserts the following concerning 1 John 1:2 --



Does BDAG assume the first substantive in the above type of construction (πρός τινα εἶναι) to always be "a person" since it unconditionally declares said construction means "in company with someone." This can only happen if the first substantive (τις εἶναι πρός τινα) is also a person, since things cannot be "in the company" of someone. Or can they ?

It seems to me that BDAG needs to do a better job of articulating itself here.

I interpret this as only the second term is know to be someone. That is why I said awhile back it was not τινα προς τινα, but προς τινα.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Yes. What I meant to say is that the entity that is the object of προς is assumed to be someone.

I'm not asking you about the object of the preposition but about the subject of such a clause, about τις in (τις πρός τινα). Is BDAG assuming the subject in such a construction to always be a person ? In other words is it assuming that ἥτις in 1 John 1: 2 in the expression, for instance, ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα , a person ?
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
I'm not asking you about the object of the preposition but about the subject of such a clause, about τις in (τις πρός τινα). Is BDAG assuming the subject in such a construction to always be a person ? In other words is it assuming that ἥτις in 1 John 1: 2 in the expression, for instance, ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα , is a person ?

I presume so. But remember that the subject can also be plural.

I do consider "life" to be a description of the Son. He said he was the way and the truth and the life. Word, Life and Light are all equated in the prologue.
 
Top