Re: The article for abstract nouns

From: Dale M. Wheeler (dalemw@teleport.com)
Date: Wed Dec 31 1997 - 16:38:13 EST


Jonathan Robie wrote:

I must admit at the outset that this is one of my pet-peeves... If you look
carefully at the various grammars you will find that some say that abstract
nouns TAKE an article and some say that abstract nouns LACK the article; some
even say BOTH ??!!?? What I've discovered is that MANY of the examples
offered on both sides are simply invalid because of: (1) Apollonius' Canon,
(2) Predicate Constructions, (3) preceding Prepositions, (4) figurative
usage, etc., etc., etc. The list you gave for definite/indefinite suffers
from these same problems:

>Matt 6:24 OU DUNASQE QEWi DOULEUEIN KAI MAMWNAi
--Probably anarthrous because of parallel with MAMWNAi (?)

>Matt 12:28 EN PNEUMATI QEOU EGW EKBALLW TA DAIMONIA
--Apollonius' Canon cause by Prep with PNEUMATI

>Matt 14:13 ALHQWS QEOU hUIOS EI
--Apollonius' Canon cause by Predicate Cstr

>Matt 19:26 PARA DE QEWi PANTA DUNATA
--Preposition

>Matt 27:54 ALHQWS QEOU hUIOS HN hOUTOS
--Apollonius' Canon cause by Predicate Cstr

>Mark 11:22 ECETE PISTIN QEOU
--Apollonius' Canon

>Luke 2:14 DOXA EN hUYISTOIS QEWi
--Preposition

>Luke 20:38 QEOS DE OUK ESTIN NEKRWN ALLA ZWNTWN
--Apollonius' Canon cause by Predicate Cstr

So you've got *ONE* possible example of an anarthrous QEOS,
which seems to be definite ! But there may be something
going on with DOULEUW in the inf with dative object, cf.,
Matt 6:24; Luke 16:13; 1Thes 1:9 (BTW, note the only one
that's abstract has an article...Rom 6:6 THi hAMATIAi)

>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.

I agree with Dan that this one is qualitative; SARC is *not* an abstract
noun, its a concrete noun, "flesh" is a concrete object, not an abstraction,
thought, feeling, etc. John is not saying that Jesus became a hunk of
flesh, but he took on the qualities of flesh, namely physicality. I think
that will work with your (and my) theology.

>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.:

That's not accurate; BAGD, "QEOS," 1, Acts 7:43; 28:6; 2Thes 2:4; etc.

>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.

Acts 28:6

>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.

If I understand what you are driving at...you are looking for places
where abstract nouns, which by definition are inherently qualitative
(love, joy, peace), are in fact used definitely (the [specific] love [of
God], etc.) or indefinitely (a [type of] joy [previously unknown]). I
think its really important to remember that there are many other factors
which guide Greek in its use/non-use of the article (I listed some
above) than just the need to make a noun definite or indefinite or
qualitative. You may not find such examples easily, since you must
eliminate all the invalid examples (which most grammars don't bother
to do !).

To return to your original post...

>Several grammars make the point that Greek often, but not necessarily,
>omits the article for abstract nouns, e.g.
>
>Gal 5:22 hO DE KARPOS TOU PNEUMATOS ESTIN AGAPH XARA EIRHNH...
>
>It seems to me that English does the same thing here, translating "love,
>joy, peace...", and not "a love, a joy, a peace...". Is it accurate to say
>that *both* English and Greek often omit the definite article for abstract
>nouns, even though a definite meaning is intended?
>
>I assume that the qualitative interpretation of this would be "lovingness,
>joyfulness, peacefulness", and is not really an accurate translation.

AGAPH in Gal 5:22 is *both* abstract (inherently, which means that it refers
to an abstraction, not a concrete act, and is thus a quality) and qualitative
(but NOT because its anarthrous, which is caused by the predicate cstr, but
because its inherently qualitative). The verse is not referring to specific
acts of love, joy, peace (which would be definite) but character qualities.
Its not necessary to add the "-ness" ending for something to be abstract and
qualitative.

BTW, I agree wholeheartedly with Carl's observation that the article is very
difficult to get a good grasp on; if I remember correctly, Turner (in vol 4
of Moulton-Howard-Turner) points out differences in the way the article is
used by different NT writers. In general, I'd say that Wallace's treatment
is the best I've seen, but there are so many factors involved in its use and
the problem of trying to understand it through the lens of English usage,
that its oversimplication/categorization can be very misleading at times.

Good Luck...

***********************************************************************
Dale M. Wheeler, Ph.D.
Research Professor in Biblical Languages Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220
Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com
***********************************************************************



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