Re: The article for abstract nouns

From: Jonathan Robie (jonathan@texcel.no)
Date: Wed Dec 31 1997 - 08:47:02 EST


I am trying to give a simple, fairly-adequate explanation of the use of the
noun in my next lesson, which is why these questions are popping up...

Before I start, let me mention that the grammars I am using do not give
clear definitions for terms like "definite" and "indefinite", nor
linguistic tests to determine whether something is definite, and I could
use something more concrete than my intuitive grasp of the concept. I
notice, when reading Wallace's grammar, that he treats both of the
following predicates as qualitative:

John 1:14 hO LOGOS SARC EGENETO
John 1:1c KAI QEOS HN hO LOGOS

The older grammars like Robertson and Smyth don't seem to discuss
qualitative force; if SARC and QEOS are both qualitative, and QEOS is best
translated "divine", as Wallace suggests, then I would think that SARC in
John 1:14 should be translated "fleshly", which would certainly upset my
theology! I find the explanation of the older grammars simpler: SARC is an
abstract noun, which can be definite whether or not it appears with the
article. QEOS, when used in the singular, is definite, and always refers to
God, the one God of the Christians. This is consistent with other
non-articular uses of QEOS, which are clearly definite, e.g.:

Luke 20:38 QEOS DE OUK ESTIN NEKRWN ALLA ZWNTWN

Here are some other examples of non-articular QEOS that seem to be definite:

Matt 6:24 OU DUNASQE QEWi DOULEUEIN KAI MAMWNAi
Matt 12:28 EN PNEUMATI QEOU EGW EKBALLW TA DAIMONIA
Matt 14:13 ALHQWS QEOU hUIOS EI
Matt 19:26 PARA DE QEWi PANTA DUNATA
Matt 27:54 ALHQWS QEOU hUIOS HN hOUTOS
Mark 11:22 ECETE PISTIN QEOU
Luke 2:14 DOXA EN hUYISTOIS QEWi

Are there any examples of QEOS in the singular that are clearly qualitative
or indefinite in the NT? It seems to me that QEOS is used pretty much like
a name, e.g. PAULOS, and is definite with or without the article in the NT.

At 03:41 AM 12/31/97 EST, Paul S. Dixon wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Dec 1997 20:35:25 -0500 Jonathan Robie <jonathan@texcel.no>
>writes:
>>Several grammars make the point that Greek often, but not necessarily,
>>omits the article for abstract nouns, e.g.
>
>I'm not sure we should interpret "omits the article" by such grammars as
>saying that the nouns are definite though anarthrous. It could be they
>are simply saying that abstract nouns, especially in predicate
>constructions such as cited by you below, are often anarthrous. This, of
>course, says nothing about whether they are definite, indefinite, or
>qualitative.

I agree with this. Perhaps I was not very clear in my original question:
when I looked at some examples of abstract Greek nouns without the article,
held to be definite by the grammars I was using, I noticed that I tended to
translate them into English nouns without an article, e.g. "love, joy,
peace", and not "a love, a joy, a peace", nor "lovingness, joyfulness,
peacefulness". Is this generally true? The reason I am asking is that I
would like to point this out in the next lesson of my tutorial, which
discusses the use of the article.

This was my original question.

>Be careful. This was the error of Colwell who affirmed that definite
>predicate nouns tend to be anarthrous (which may or may not be correct),
>but then erroneously concluded, along with many others subsequently, that
>anarthrous predicate nouns tend to be definite (recall that subsequent
>scholars used his rule to argue that QEOS in Jn 1:1c was definite).

I've been looking at this for a few days now, and I definitely agree with
Colwell that definite predicate nouns tend to be anarthrous, and I also
agree with Robertson that anarthrous nouns are essentially unmarked, and
must be interpreted according to the context. I suspect one of the
difficulties with this is simply that we, as English speakers, are
extremely used to very clear markers for definiteness or indefiniteness,
and an anarthrous noun seems to be essentially unmarked. As Robertson
points out, Greek does not "omit" the article, even though I find it hard
to avoid that word at times...

But back to my original question:

>No, remember, the rule is that the subject is usually given away by the
>articular construction and the predicate by the anarthrous construction.
>If both the subject and predicate were articular, then we would have
>equivalency, and each could be exchanged for the other. This is the
>essence of biconditionality, the essence of definitions. The only place
>I know of where an articular subject and articular predicate, joined by a
>copula, is found in scripture is in 1 Jn 3:4, hH hAMAPTIA ESTIN hH
>ANOMIA. Carl, as I recall, cited one extra-biblical example of an
>anarthrous subject + copula + anarthrous predicate.

Yes, this I am aware of. Another example of this construction might be
Matthew 6:22, incidentally: hO LUCNOS TOU SWMATOS ESTIN hO OFQALMOS, or 1
Cor 11:3 PANTOS ANDROS hH KEFALH hO CRISTOS ESTIN.

>The rule seems to hold well, however, that an articular subject + copula
>yields an anarthrous predicate, such as in Gal 5:22 (or Jn 1:1c). Now,
>are these abstract nouns definite? If so, then there would still be the
>problem of equivalency.

Why? I don't understand this step in your thinking. Articular nouns joined
by EIMI are equivalent, and articular nouns are definite, but that does not
mean that definite nouns are articular - and they certainly aren't unless
they have the article!

>If AGAPH in Gal 5:22 is definite, then so
>probably is AGAPH in 1 Jn 4:8, hO QEOS AGAPH ESTIN. While we may not
>have trouble with saying love, patience, longsuffering , etc are the
>fruit of the Spirit, we would probably have a lot of problems
>interchanging the terms in 1 Jn 4:8, and Jn 1:1c respectively.

Again, I don't understand this argument. Whether or not the predicate noun
is definite has no bearing on whether it is equivalent to the subject; only
articular nouns are considered interchangeable in the grammars I am using.

I guess the reason the article did not appear before the 6th century BC was
that they sat around for centuries trying to figure out just exactly what
it should mean ;->

 
jonathan@texcel.no
Texcel Research
http://www.texcel.no



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:44 EDT