Before and after the verb, a look at John 1:1? Luke 20:38 and Mark 12:27 Examples of predicate nouns occurring before and after the verb. Luke 20:38 Original Greek: θεὸςδὲοὐκἔστιννεκρῶνἀλλὰζώντων,πάντεςγὰραὐτῷζῶσιν. Lit: “God now not he is of dead but of living all for to him living” Here is how some translations handle the original Greek. “He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive." NIV “Now He is not the God of the dead but of the living; for all live to Him." NASB “Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to him.” ESV “For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.” KJV “He is not a God of dead, but of living men, for to Him are all living." WNT Mark 12:27 Original Greek: οὐκἐστινθεὸςνεκρῶνἀλλὰζώντων·πολὺπλανᾶσθε. Lit: “not he is God of dead but of living greatly are misled” Here is how some translations handle the original Greek. “He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!" NIV “He is not the God of the dead, but of the living; you are greatly mistaken." NASB “He is not God of the dead, but of the living. You are quite wrong.” ESV “He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err. KJV “He is not the God of dead, but of living men. You are in grave error." WNT Do the above Trinitarian translations handle the Greek correctly, therefore, impartially, so that the average bible student gets a proper idea of what Luke and Mark are trying to convey? Analysis of the original Greek In Luke 20:38 and Mark 12:27 we have, “God now not he is of dead but of living all for to him living” (Luke) “not he is God of dead but of living greatly are misled” (Mark) In the above, the verb we are looking for is “is” (estin) and we clearly see that in the two verses in Luke and Mark the term “God” (theos) occurs before and after the verb “is”, “God now not he is of…” so we have, “God” and it clearly occurs before the verb! “not he is God of…” so we have, “God” and it clearly occurs after the verb! Category and Characterization How have the above translations handled Luke ad Mark? In Luke 20:38 all but the KJV and WNT have misled the bible student into thinking that the term “God” (theos) is “definite” and carries the definite article in Greek, as they have “the God” in English. What the translators have done here, is to inject their preconceived bias right into the English text, thus they are forcing the Greek to be treated as though English and the unwary student, not familiar with koine Greek is dependent on the honesty and impartiality of the translator! Another point to note is how contradictory these translators are, in that the KJV and the WNT have adhered to proper Greek grammar, but the others have not, as is seen in the above translations! The ESV version rather than insert the any article leaves it out altogether, causing further confusion in the mind of the student! How have our translations fared in Mark 12:27? All, with the exception (again), of the ESV, which omits the definite article) have inserted the definite article “the” into the text of Mark! Again, the bible student is misled into thinking that the article is in the original Greek, because it is in the English text! The Trinitarian translators have approached the subject with preconceived ideas, which is another way of saying theological bias and it is clearly wrong! Let’s look at our two texts again in order to see why these Trinitarian translators are wrong and how they mislead bible students! (a) “God now not he is of…” so we have, “God” and it clearly occurs before the verb! (b) “not he is God of…” so we have, “God” and it clearly occurs after the verb! In example (a) the term “theos” (God) occurs before the verb “is” and does not carry any article, therefore, it is indefinite, as is brought out in the KJV and WNT. In our second example (b) the term “theos” (God) occurs after the verb “is” and does not carry any article, therefore it is indefinite! In both Luke and Mark the term “God” (theos) is in the nominative form and words that come under such a form are highly dependent on the definite article being there in order to point out the subject, so as to make it definite, but no such definite article appears in the original Greek, therefore the term “theos” is indefinite and terms which are “indefinite” characterizes the subject and put such subject into “category, class or group”! What Luke and Mark are doing here, is to tell us that “God the Father”, is acting in the role of “a God” and has the character/traits of those belonging to the category… “theos” as is seen in how the KJV and WNT translators have handled Luke 20:38 and how the other translators have blurred the true intent of the writer Luke, “For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living…” (Luke) The student might ask,’ what sort of God is God (the Father)’? And the answer would be (as the KJV and WNT translators sensed in Luke) he is “a God” (category, class…) of “…the living”; God is acting in the role (playing the part) of someone, indicating, “indefinite” (either) of ‘character, class, quality’ - Luke is not definitizing the subject “God”, he is putting him into “class or category” etc and this is borne out by Mark, as the term “God” occurs after the verb! Luke and Mark characterize “God” (the Father) by putting him into “category or class”! The title of this paper is called, “Before and after the verb, a look at John 1:1?” So the student may well ask, ‘but what has all of this got to do with John 1:1’? And the answer is, ‘a lot’! John 1:1 is grammatically constructed in the same way as Luke 20:38 i.e. the predicate noun “theos” occurring before the verb and without the article! As can be seen in the KJV and the WNT translations, the translators had no problem in rendering the original Greek into English as “a God” (theos), but for some strange reason, the rules of Greek grammar are suddenly changed by Trinitarians, when it comes to John 1:1c. When it is investigated by the bible student, it is easily seen that predicate nouns occurring before the verb do not carry the article and are relating to ‘quality, character or class etc! Some examples of a predicate nouns occurring before the verb exactly as in Luke 20:3 and John 1:1c. Mark 11:32 KJV “But if we shall say, Of men; they feared the people: for all [men] counted John, that he was a prophet indeed.” “Following is a list of instances in the gospels of Mark and John where various translators have rendered singular anarthrous predicate nouns occurring before the verb with an indefinite article to denote the indefinite and qualitative status of the subject nouns: Scripture Text New WorldTranslation King James Version An American Translation New International Version Revised Standard Version Today’s English Version Mark 6:49 an apparition a spirit a ghost a ghost a ghost a ghost 11:32 a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a real prophet a prophet John 4:19 a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet 6:70 a slanderer a devil an informer a devil a devil a devil 8:44 a manslayer a murderer a murderer a murderer a murderer a murderer 8:44 a liar a liar a liar a liar a liar a liar 9:17 a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet 10:1 a thief a thief a thief a thief a thief a thief 10:13 a hired man an hireling a hired man a hired hand a hireling a hired man 10:33 a man a man a mere man a mere man a man a man 12:6 a thief a thief a thief a thief a thief a thief” (Source: NWT Ref Ed Pg, 1579) In the above examples, it is clear that both Mark and John are not making the subject definite, but is clearly placing the subject in the indefinite of “quality or character” and hence in the “category or class” of such, they are characterizing the subject through categorization! Both Mark and John are highlighting the “quality or character” that belongs to the *class* - “prophet, spirit, devil, murderer, man, thief etc”! Any who show or display such “qualities or character”, such as a “thief, murderer or man” and so on are placed in the category of such i.e. the category “thief, murderer or man” and likewise, with the term “theos” in John 1:1c; the Word has the quality or character “theos” and is therefore, put in the category “theos” and any who show or display the “qualities or character” peculiar to “theos” are in the “class” theos”, such will be characterized through categorization! A man is in the class or category “man”, and so are others who have the nature of “man” they will have the “qualities” and “character” peculiar to the class or category “man” the “quality” will be termed “indefinite of quality”, because of the class or category to which the subject belongs and is peculiar to those in such a “class” who have such, “nature, character or quality” in peculiarity! “In his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” published in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, Philadelphia, 1973, p. 85, Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in Joh 1:1, “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite.” On p. 87 of his article, Harner concluded: “In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.”” (NWT Ref Ed) The “Word” in John 1:1 is *not to be identified* with “the God” (ton theon) he is with, as if sharing the exact same “substance, nature or essence”, as this would mean that the “Word” would then be “the God” with whom he was “with”, one and the same “God”, but this would lead to the heresies of Modalism and Patripassianism and contradict Jesus’ statement at John 17:3 “You, the only true God” (KJV) with reference to the the Father alone…! The apostle John characterizes the “Word” through “categorization” i.e. John places the being/entity called the “Word” into the class or category “theos”, because, the “Word” shows or displays the “quality, nature or character” of one who is of “class theos”, just as a “man” would be placed in the class or category of “man”, because he exhibits, displays or shows such “quality. nature or character” that belongs to the category or class “man”!
Posted on: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 09:07:56 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015