Re: The article for abstract nouns

From: Al Kidd (akidd@infoave.net)
Date: Wed Jan 07 1998 - 14:10:00 EST


Hello, Jonathan.

   Thank you for your reply. I see that I hastened
too quickly in my statement "if we have a definite
predicate--say a title phrase equivalent to the
definite, personal name YHWH--, then should it not
have been articulated?" The information you give
in your reply to me is correct, however, I
(wrongfully) thought I had written what I intended.
I should have stated it as follows:

   ". . . if we have _AT JOHN 1:1c_ a certain kind of
   predicate--say, a title-phrase equivalent to the
   definite, personal name YHWH or a title-phrase
   equivalent to some other person (namely, the
   person of the Logos--, then should _it_ [--namely,
   that predicate at John 1:1c--] not have been
   articulated?"

 (I regret that I let the unintended error slip by me.)

   Yes, such a kind of predicate--a title-phrase that
functions grammatically similar to a personal name--
may be articulated. And it will be just as both you
and I pointed out earlier, i.e., it will be convertible
with the subject. Instances are:

1 Cor. 10:4 hH PETRA DE HN hO XRISTOS,
John 1:25 SU OUK EI hO XRISTOS . . . OUDE hO PROFHTHS,
John 7:26 hOUTOS ESTIN hO XRISTOS,
John 7:40 hOUTOS ESTIN ALHQWS hO PROFHTHS,
John 7:41 hOUTOS ESTIN hO XRISTOS,
John 20:31 IHSOUS ESTIN hO XRISTOS
Rev. 6:8 ONOMA AUTWi hO QANATOS

Well, I suggest that this rules out that one
should take QEOS at John 1:1c as a personal-name
equivalent to the personal name YHWH. Were it
so, then it would bear anaphora vis-a-vis
undisputed use in 1:1b of the title-phrase hO QEOS
as an equivalent to the personal name YHWH, and
such anaphora for QEOS in 1:1c would of itself almost
certainly demand that use of QEOS in 1:1b should have
to be articulated. Or do you, Jonathan, wish to assert
with me the following: "QEOS at 1:1c is not a
personal-name equivalent for YHWH as is true for hO
QEOS at 1:1b"?

You assume that at John 1:1c we have exemplified a
type of "construction that usually involves the absence
of the article regardless of whether the noun involved
is definite." My premise, however, is that we have a
cosmology that is well demonstrated in John's targeted
readership. It is a cosmology which has it that a
predicative use of an anarthrous QEOS may rightfully be
made in reference to more than one real being besides
the Almighty God. It is the context for such predicative
uses of QEOS in the writing either of an early Christian
or of an ancient Jew that will indicate whether that
nonpejorative use of QEOS functions in the aforementioned
writing either as reference to the God of the Bible or as
reference to some other being, one in service to Jehovah.
This is because he held that QEOS was a common noun
appellative. Now, I will quote something from Thomas
Fanshaw Middleton, D.D., _The Doctrine of the Greek
Article_ (London: Rivington, 1841) 86:

     If in prose we should meet with [anarthrous]
     HIPPOS, meaning the same horse who had just been
     mentioned, mistake would be almost inevitable;
     and the reason is plain: an Apellative is a name
     common to every individual of a whole species;
     and consequently, if there be nothing which
     identifies _this_ horse with that before spoken
     of, it may reasonably be concluded that a
     different one is meant.

Middleton's salient was HIPPOS, not QEOS. Because we may
demonstrate, however, that the worldview informing John's
targeted readership took QEOS as a common noun appellative,
then we may substitute QEOS for every instance of HIPPOS and
horse in Middleton's quote given above, and we should still
have a matter truthfully written.

Al Kidd

*****************************

Jonathan Robie wrote:

> At 12:07 PM 1/6/98 -0500, Al Kidd wrote:
>
> > I include something more that may help you
> >to see where I am coming from, for if we have
> >a definite predicate--say, a title-phrase equivalent
> >to the definite, personal name YHWH--, then
> >should it not have been articulated?
>
> No. Predicate nouns rarely have the article; this is often the thing that
> distinguishes them from the subject nouns. The only time that they do have
> the article is when the subject and predicate are interchangeable.
>
> By the way, I'm intentionally avoiding a discussion of the basis for
> trinitarian beliefs, and trying to stay focussed on grammatical arguments.
>
> >So again I ask If QEOS in John 1:1c were a title-phrase
> >equivalent to the personal name YHWH (Jehovah/Yahweh),
> >which is true enough for QEOS in John 1:1b, then should not
> >John have perhaps made it to appear in 1:1c with the article
> >(thus >>HO QEOS<<) as well, this if for no other reason than
> >that the "name" (HO QEOS) might then have appeared so that it
> >should signal anaphoric reference to its earlier use in 1:1b?
>
> Earlier, I suggested that QEOS is definite even without the article,
> referring to God; I recently posted a message that shows that Greek names
> are not non-cancellably definite without the article. This caught me by
> surprise. I suspect that the same holds for QEOS - but I still see it as
> unmarked for definiteness, not as [-definite].
>
> I think that the tests I tried yesterday do say something about "definite".
> I don't have a good enough definition of "qualitative" to do any tests.
>
> >If, however, John is targeting a readership that accepts
> >that there are divine beings (spirit persons, gods) other
> >than Jehovah--but who are in service to their Creator
> >(Jehovah)--, then the absence of the article must
> >_naturally_ suggest that the Logos really does own the
> >nature of divinity.
>
> My biggest problem with this is the "If" at the beginning, and the argument
> that follows is based more on a presumed cosmology than on a grammatical
> argument. If John wanted to say this, he could have spelled it out for us
> rather than leaving us to conclude it from the absence of the article in a
> construction that usually involves the absence of the article regardless of
> whether the noun involved is definite.
>
> >And we should see John's choice of
> >syntax as that which lays emphasis on that nature (divinity)
> >for the Logos-Son, the one who, according to 1:18, is an
> >only-begotten god (a certain spirit person, namely, the one
> >who is uniquely derived from God the Father, and accordingly
> >is much more glorious than all the other spirit sons of God).
>
> Although there is nothing in the grammar that rules this out, there is also
> nothing in the grammar that suggests an indefinite interpretation ("an
> only-begotten god"), and I would suggest that only-begotten is in itself a
> definite concept. It is not meaningful to think of this as "one of many
> only-begotten gods".
>
> Jonathan
> ___________________________________________________________________________
>
> Jonathan Robie jwrobie@mindspring.com
>
> Little Greek Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koine
> Little Greek 101: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koine/greek/lessons
> B-Greek Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek
> B-Greek Archives: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek/archives



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:49 EDT