| Chapter 1: Why is it important? | | Chapter 2: John 1:1 |
|
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
John 1:1
In Greek, John 1:1 says:
1) en (in) 2) arche (beginning) 3) ein (was) 4) o [pronounced "haw"] (the--nominative singular masculine)
5) logos (word--nominative singular masculine), 6) kai (and)
7) o (the) 8) logos (word--nominative singular masculine) 9) ein (was)
10) pros (with) ton (the--accusitive singular) theon (God--nominative singular masculine),
11) kai (and) 12___ZIPO! No articel in Greek______ 13) theos (God--nominative singular masculine)
14) ein (was) 15) o (the--nominative singular masculine) 16) logos (word-nominative singular masculine)
So What's the problem?
As you notice, word number 12 does not exist. The definite article "the" (o in Greek, pronounced "haw" does not occur before the word "God" (word 13.) Jehovah's Witnesses insist that the absence of the definite article is ground for translating word 13 as "a god" rather than "God." Are they right? Is this a sound analysis of Greek grammar, or the infantile ravings of a cult that pretends to derive its theology from the Bible while actually imposing its theology on the Bible?
The Basic Sentence: Subject, Verb, Direct Object
|
REVIEW OF
ENGLISH GRAMMAR:
In English, the part of speech is determined by the location of the word in the sentence. For Example:
The boy (subject, nominative case) threw (verb) the ball (direct object, accusative case) to (prepositoin) the catcher (indirect object).
|
INTRODUCTION TO GREEK GRAMMAR
In Greek, whether a noun is the subject or object is determined by the word ending, not the place in the sentence. The nominative singular mascline endig is "os." The accusitive singular masculine ending is "on." Using "os" for the nominative ending, and "on" for the accusative ending, "The boy hit the ball" would be:
"The-os boy-os hit the ball-on." But since these words are identified by their ending, Greek allows them to occur in any order! For example, Greek grammar would equally allow the sentence to read:
"hit ball-on the-os boy-os" or
"hit the-os boy-os ball-on" or
"ball-on the-os boy-os hit."
All these constructions would mean "the boy (subject) hit (verb) the ball (direct object.)
. |
The Predicate Nominative
|
REVIEW OF
ENGLISH GRAMMAR II
In English, when two words are connected by a form of the verb "to be," the word before the verb is the subject, and the word after the subject is the predicative nominative.
For example, "Roger is an engineer."
Roger is the subject, and engineer is the predicate nominative.
A predicate nominative is the came case as the subject. Think of the verb "is" as being an "equal sign."
For example, in English, it would be correct to say, "It is I," not "it is me." The "predicate nominative" is equal to the subject. It therefore has the same "case."
In English, the grammatical term "subject" or "subjective case" is roughly equivalent to the use of the word "nominative case" when discussing Greek grammar, just as the direct object in English (or the "objective case") is known as the "accusative case" in Greek.
The word order, in English, is "subject, verb, predicate nominative." For example, "Roger is an engineer." Roger is the subject, and engineer the predicate nominative.
|
INTRODUCTION TO GREEK GRAMMAR II
In John 1:1, words 13 and 16 are connected by a form of the word "to be." As a consequence, they are both in the nominative case (they both have the nominative masculine singular "os" endings).
Since both words have the same ending in Greek, it cannot be the ending which indicates, in Greek, which is the subject, and which is the predicate nominative.
13) Theos is nominative singular masculine, and
16) Logos is nominative singular masculine
So the question naturally arises: Which is the subject, and which is the predicate nominative?
The first rule: If two nominative words are connected by a form of the very "to be," and one word has an article, and the other doesn't, the one with the article is the subject, and the one without the article is the predicate nominative. "o logos" ("the word") is therefore the subject due to the presence of the definite article "the" ("o" pronounced haw).
"Theos" (God) is thefore the predicate nominative
As noted, English requires the word order "subject, verb, predicate nominative." Therefore, when translating this to English, the word order would be:
"the word was God."
As you may note, this is the opposite of the word order actually appearing in Greek! |
Now the question becomes: Since there is no article on God, should "God" be translated "a God" or "God" or "the God?" The two different translations would be as follows:
"The word was God."
(Traditional Christian)
or
The word was a God."
(Jehovah's Witness translation)
|
MORE GREEK GRAMMAR:
1) In Greek, there is no equivalent word for the indefinite article in English (the English word "a").
2) If a word has an article in Greek (the word "the," which, for example, for masculine words, would variously be: "o," "tou," "to" (long o), "ton," "oi," "ton" (long o), "tois", "tous", it is automatically definite. (e.g., "o theos" is God, not "a God."
3) However, just because a word has the definite article in Greek definite, doesn't mean that in English we will put on the word "the." We don't necessarily translate it with a definite article in English. (We don't say, "The Jesus said to the Peter.") That would be acceptable, even typical in Greek, but it would sound idiotic in English. In the above sentence, "Jesus" and "Peter" are clearly definite. But in many places in the English language, such as for names, we do not use an article ever.
|
4) In view of the above example, it can be readily appreciated that just because a word is "anarthrous" (lacking the definite article), it is not necessarily indefinite.
Sometimes "Jesus" has an article (o iasus), sometimes he doesn't (iasus) in Greek. Only an idiot would translate it "a Jesus" when the article is lacking.
Therefore, when a noun is anarthrous (lacking an article), that word may be indefinite (e.g. a river, a god) or definite (the river, the beginning, God, Jesus, etc). Greek is very specific, and has many grammatical rules that govern the exact meaning of the writer.
For example, in John 1:1 quoted above, Greek word number 2, "arche" ("beginning") does not have a definite article "the" ("te" -- pronounced "tay") the dative feminine singular article used wtih the word "arche" when following the preposition "en." But it would be silly to translate it "a beginning," as if there were multiple beginnings. We don't translate this "in a beginning." We translate it "in the beginning." Why?
Rule: Usually, when following a preposition, an anarthrous word (a word lacking the article) is typically definite.
|
So, is Jesus "God," or "a god" in John 1:1?
As noted in John 1:1 quoted in English and Greek at the top of the page, there is no word numbre 12 . . . no definite article before word no. 13, "God." Here, in John 1:1, the predicate nominative occurs before the verb. Just as an anarthrous noun following a preposition is still definite (arche = "the beginning," not "a beginning"), there are rules for anarthrous nouns which are a predicate nominative, but which occur before the verb. Such a construction is called by its constitutant parts . . . a
"pre copulative" (coming before the copula, that is, before the connecting verb "to be")
"anarthrous" (not having an article)
"predicate nominative" (a word being equated to the subject of the sentence by means of the verb "to be.")
Caldwell's Rule of Greek Grammar: In about 1952, Earnest Camden Caldwell of the University of Chicago did his doctoral thesis on the occasions within the New Testament where a predicate nominative noun was pre copulative (before the verb "to be") and anarthrous (without a definite article). Caldwell determined that the pre copulative anarthrous predicate nominative almost always definite. Anyone who seeks to confirm his rule of grammar can simply obtain a listing of verses in the New Testament having a pre-copulative anarthrous predicate nominative construction of a non-contraversial word, and confirm the rule to satisfy their own curiosity and quest for truth. Accordingly, to translate "God" John 1:1 as indefinite "a god" just because "God" it doesn't fit one's theology is just wishful thinking.
John 1:1 says:
"And the Word was GOD."
not
"And the word was a god" (as if Jesus were a very high ranking archangel, or the equivalent, as taught in Jehovah's Witnesses.)
To translate John 1:1 as "The word was a god" is playing fast and loose with Greek grammar to shore up a pre-conceived theology that cannot otherwise be found in the pages of Scripture.
A good rule of logic ("Shea's hermeneutic"):
If something is taught clearly and often in Scripture, there will be no need to pervert Greek grammar or warp the laws of logic to find it in Scripture. And if one needs to pervert Greek grammar or the warp basic rules of logic to shore up a doctrine or beliefe, that doctrine or belief probably doesn't have much support from Scripture.
|
Chapter 2: John 1:1 |
|
|
