From: Wes Williams (WesWilliams@usa.net)
Date: Thu Jan 01 1998 - 22:41:07 EST
Jonathan Robie wrote:
> Uses of the Anarthrous Pre-Copulative Predicate Nominative Construction:
>
> B1) Predicate Nominative is DEFINITE: Matt 27:42; John 1:49; Rom 1:16; 1Cor
> 1:18; Heb 1:10
>
> B2) Predicate Nominative is QUALITATIVE: Normally: John 1:14; John 5:10;
> 1John 4:8
>
> B3) Predicate Nominative is INDEFINITE: No undisputed examples in the NT
>
> Can anybody think of an example to dispute that?
>
Jonathan,
What is at issue is the very presupposition/ statement shown in the breakdown
above. It suggests that if a count noun shows qualitativeness, then it is no
longer definite or indefinite. Where is the evidence that a qualitative count
noun cancels definiteness or indefiniteness? When a writer says "This man is a
Roman" hOUTOS RWMAIOS ESTIN (Acts 22:26), how can someone positively assert
that this is all qualitative and absolutely the person was not perceived to be
part of the group ALSO? This is why I say the evidence appears to be that a
count noun is either definite or indefinite with qualitativeness added or
subtracted in varying degrees.
Phillip B. Harner wrote in "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39
and John 1:1, JBL," the following on p. 78 paragraph 1:
"The third example occurs in the account of Jesus' walking on the water (Mark
6:45-52). When the disciples see Jesus, they think hOTI FANTASMA ESTIN (6:49).
Mark's meaning here probably is that they think Jesus is "a ghost" or an
apparition of some kind. There is no basis in the context, at any rate, for
regarding the noun as definite. The qualitative significance appears to be
secondary in this clause, since it is concerned with the identification of a
figure who is dimly perceived by the disciples rather than some attribute or
quality of Jesus himself."
When Harner suggests indefiniteness for the precopulative APN at Mark 6:49,
does this mean that there is not one single iota of qualitativeness in the
word? I do not sense that he is trying to push or force a "rule." He suggests
that a noun can be both. Why not leave it at that? Why try to force it one way
or the other to concoct a new "rule?"
When someone suggests that a count noun with some qualitative emphasis is
neither definite nor indefinite any longer, should we not properly question
them to show an undisputed example rather than unquestioningly accepting a new
proposal as a new "rule"? I know you well enough to know that you already
abide by that principle, but it nevertheless needs to be underscored due to the
propensity to accept new "rules" without questioning the evidence.
Sincerely,
Wes Williams
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:45 EDT