Reddit reviews Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament with Scripture, Subject, and Greek Word Indexes
We found 6 Reddit comments about Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament with Scripture, Subject, and Greek Word Indexes. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
The classic example here is John 1:1.
My translation (RSV2CE) says:
> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Theirs says,
> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
The original greek says,
> Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
This is an huge translation error on their part. Greek doesn't have the indefinite article ("a" or "an"). It only has the definite article ("the"). In order to make the JW translation correct, it would have to read in greek,
> καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεός.
>> "and the Word was a god."
Otherwise, they should provide very good linguistic reason to place the indefinite article where I can see no reason for it.
*
The following is an excerpt from a standard basic introductory New Testament Greek text book^(page 27-28):
> ...word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1c. The English versions typically have, “and the Word was God.” But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads,
> καὶ | θεὸς | ἦν | ὁ | λόγος.
---------|---------|---------|---------|---------
and | God | was | the | Word
> We know that “the Word” is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: “and the Word was God.” Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was θεὸς thrown forward? and (2) why does it lack the article?
In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John’s wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism.
> To state this another way, look at how the different Greek constructions would be rendered:
> καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεὸς.
"and the Word was the God" (i.e., the Father; Sabellianism)
> καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεός.
"and the Word was a god." (Arianism)
> καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
"and the Word was God." (Orthodoxy)
> Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has. But he is not the first person of the Trinity. All this is concisely affirmed in:
>καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
EDIT: cf. also This text book, ^(pages 266-269)
EDIT 2: fixed a copy/paste error
>Wouldn't it need to be oikos en anthropos to be translated as 'house was a man'?
Something you should keep in mind while you are still very new to the language is that word order within a clause doesn't matter- that's why Greek has cases.
Once you get more experience you can start looking at word order because it can be used to place emphasis on certain ideas. However, for the base meaning it has no bearing.
You will definitely need a Greek grammar book to get the language at any reasonable level. If you want one just for reference, I would suggest this.
Thanks!
>I have never tried in the Greek.
You should! It's quite rewarding.
As for what I'm using. I thankfully was a step ahead, as I'd studied Classical Attic when I was in college. That was awhile ago, but the alphabet and basic grammar was still floating around my memory. Vocabulary was and is my biggest shortcoming.
To refresh my grammar (and help me with changes in the language from Athens ca. 600 BC to the 1st century Roman Empire), I bought this textbook: Reading Koine Greek by Rodney Decker. It's an introductory one, so I was able to blow through the early lessons quickly enough, while focusing mainly on vocabulary. He structures his vocab lists based on word frequency in the New Testament and Septuagint, meaning you learn more common words first, which in turn helps to quickly build reading comprehension. It also focuses on the grammar of that time period and specifically early Christian writing (with reading exercises mostly from the NT, but occasionally the Septuagint or something like the Apostolic Fathers).
Once I was ready for some more advanced references, I picked up Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, which is a more general reference book (focused on the NT) recommended by Prof. Decker. I also splurged, thanks to some spare cash, and bought myself the BDAG, an incredibly thorough dictionary of Biblical Greek. The amount of scholarship in that one book is nothing short of mind-boggling. It has an incredible number of references to both the New Testament and tons of other contemporary usage, as well as citing to journal articles about certain words, the works. Oh yeah, I also got a dual-language (Greek and English) edition of the Apostolic Fathers somewhere along the line, although I haven't read it much yet.
So that's where I am. As I said, it's slow going for now since my vocabulary is still pretty bad, but it's improving. And I find that learning by seeing things in context is much better for me than just trying to do flashcards or something (although I may supplement with those).
I have two more books on the way: Metzger's Textual Commentary (where he talks about the decisions that went into which reading they chose in the UBS edition of the NT), and the most recent edition of his The Text of the New Testament (as updated by Bart Ehrman), which is an introduction to NT textual criticism and a kind of summary of various scholarly research on the subject.
So yeah, it's quite an undertaking!
And when you're ready for it ... it's time to get serious.
From Thayer's Greek Lexicon, bold emphasis is mine, and pertinent to the discussion
So God, without the article ("the") can and does refer directly to God as the divine entity, not simply his counsels and interests.
So...
>But you can see clearly that Theos means a plethora of things
Yes, I can. And in John 1:1 it refers at least to divine qualities, that which is divinity, and most probably to God himself, given the context of the verse containing the article in each other instance. To better understand why there isn't an article in the third part of the verse, I'll refer to Wallace (pages 266-267):
>► 6. Application of Colwell’s Construction to John 1:1
>
>John 1:1 states: ᾽Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. In the last part of the verse, the clause καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (John 1:1c), θεός is the PN. It is anarthrous and comes before the verb. Therefore, it fits Colwell’s construction, though it might not fit the rule (for the rule states that definiteness is determined or indicated by the context, not by the grammar). Whether it is indefinite, qualitative, or definite is the issue at hand.
>
>c. Is Θεός in John 1:1c Qualitative?
>
>The most likely candidate for θεός is qualitative. This is true both grammatically (for the largest proportion of pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives fall into this category) and theologically (both the theology of the Fourth Gospel and of the NT as a whole). There is a balance between the Word’s deity, which was already present in the beginning (ἐν ἀρχῇ . . . θεὸς ἦν [1:1], and his humanity, which was added later (σὰρξ ἐγένετο [1:14]). The grammatical structure of these two statements mirrors each other; both emphasize the nature of the Word, rather than his identity. But θεός was his nature from eternity (hence, εἰμί is used), while σάρξ was added at the incarnation (hence, γίνομαι is used).
>
>Such an option does not at all impugn the deity of Christ. Rather, it stresses that, although the person of Christ is not the person of the Father, their essence is identical. Possible translations are as follows: “What God was, the Word was” (NEB), or “the Word was divine” (a modified Moffatt). In this second translation, “divine” is acceptable only if it is a term that can be applied only to true deity. However, in modern English, we use it with reference to angels, theologians, even a meal! Thus “divine” could be misleading in an English translation. The idea of a qualitative θεός here is that the Word had all the attributes and qualities that “the God” (of 1:1b) had. In other words, he shared the essence of the Father, though they differed in person. The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father.
Hope that's helpful.
It's syntax and grammar. I'm not going to give you a third year Greek course on Reddit. Grab Dan Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics and make it your best friend.
After that, grab Moises Silva's Biblical Words and their Meaning. And remember the central rule - just because it's the first definition listed doesn't mean it's the definition of the word you're looking at.
Finally, grab a copy of D.A. Carson's Exegetical Fallacies. That'll help you out quite a bit.
That's assuming that you would actually read non-Watchtower approved materials. I know how touchy they get when people branch out from the approved list.