Please note I changed the Subject heading from Eph 5:18 EN PNEUMATI to Definiteness of Anarthrous Nouns in Prepositional Phrases, since this seems to reflect the progress being made. On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 08:49:25 -0700 "Dale M. Wheeler" writes: > At 09:56 AM 7/24/00 -0700, dixonps@juno.com wrote: > >Dale: > > > >Thanks. I will enjoy the journey indeed. > > > >Any idea how often the definite article occurs in a prepositional > >phrase versus its absence? I could probably run it on my > >Logos software, but you could probably do it easier on your > >Gramcord (that is what you have, isn't it?). > > > >I'm not sure what that would tell us, but it might be interesting > >to compare it to the percentage of articular nouns in non-prepositional > >phrases to anarthrous nouns in the same construct. Hmm. > > I ran just EN followed immediately by singular nouns and the results > were: > > 1) with article: 705x > 2) w/o article: 781x > > My own impression in reading the GNT is that the article with all > prepositions is omitted between 2/3 and 3/4 of the time, depending > on the author. Thanks for the info on the EN constructs. Surely would be nice if we could confirm your suspicions with data on some other prepositional constructs, like EIS, KATA, etc. On the basis of the above data we would probably say it is more like 1/2 of the time that the article is omitted. But, the real question is: how many of those anarthrous constructs reflect definite nouns? > Its one of the things with the article that I *constantly* > make sure that my Greek students see when reading so that they get use to > it, since its very "un-English". > > > I ran EN followed immediately by PNEUMA and: > > 1) w/o article: 36x > 2) w/ article: 7x > > Mark 12:36 (GNT) > Luke 2:27 > Luke 4:1 > Luke 10:21 > Acts 19:21 > Roma 1:9 > 1Cor 6:11 What would be especially helpful is the list of the 36 occurrences without the article, so we can determine how many of them are definite. Did you already send me that list? > >By the way, I just checked the first passage, Mt 3:11, and found > >EN hUDATI ... EN PNEUMATI hAHIWi KAI PURI translated (NKJV) > >"with water ... with the Holy Spirit and fire." > > > >I am not denying the baptismal work of the Holy Spirit, but > >why can't we take PNEUMATI hAGIWI consistently with the other > >two, since they too are anarthrous nouns in prepositional phrases > >and are not translated as referring to a specific water or fire > >(note the lack of definite articles in the translations). > > > >That is, why not just take it consistently throughout as: I baptize > >with water ... but He will baptize with holy spirit and fire? > > This certainly is an interesting one. There's two things I'd > observe: > > 1) I follow the rule of thumb that the absence of the article after > a > preposition isn't proof of anything, and so in the case of PURI it > could be > definite (the [eschatological ?] fire), or generic (which in Greek > which > probably still have an article; "fire" as most translate, which I > suppose > could refer to general trials upon believers or unbelievers), or > indefinite > (most unlikely, "a fire"). However, the fact that there is one > preposition > governing both nouns would probably indicate that they are to be > treated > the same, ie., definite (which is why I'm inclined towards > "eschatological" > fire myself). Or, both qualitatively. > Matt 4:16 > Matt 11:21 > Luke 1:17 > Luke 1:75 > Luke 1:79 > Luke 4:36 > Luke 10:13 > Luke 21:25 > Luke 21:34 > Luke 24:19 > John 4:23, 24 > Acts 2:46 > Acts 7:22 > Acts 16:2 > 2Cor 1:12 > 2Cor 11:27 > 2Cor 12:10 > Ephe 4:24 > Ephe 5:19 > Ephe 6:4 > Colo 2:18 > Colo 2:23 > 1The 4:4 > 2The 3:8 > 1Tim 2:7 > 1Tim 2:9 > 1Tim 2:15 > 1Tim 5:17 > 2Tim 1:13 > Titu 3:3 > Hebr 12:23 > 2Pet 3:18 > 1Joh 3:18 > 2Joh 1:3 > Reve 14:10 > Reve 18:16 > > 2) I'm not sure what "with holy spirit..." would mean?? Are you > referring this to something other than the person/deity The Holy Spirit? If > it refers to the person, it would seem to me that this is an English > issue, not a Greek one at all, and English demands the article for a > specific individual in such a phrase. Perhaps the contrast is between physical water and spiritual holiness, symbolized by fire (a prediction of Acts 2:3-4). > > BTW, in the "my $0.02" department", what you're suggesting is > actually not that far from what I think Paul is referring to (though I'm > constrained to see the person of the HS here because of the use of the EN PNEUMATI > phrase in Eph); ie., this is not referring to a specific individual > "filling", but rather the corporate "infusion" of the character of God into the > local assembly, which results in certain observable characteristics, 4 of > which are detailed in the following participles (just so they would know > what to look for as an external objective way to be sure that they were a > "Spirit-filled church"). This is what Wallace is trying to get at > in his explanation of this in his grammar. Yes, I've got to check out his book. Thanks. Also, I've got enough to do now checking out all those references in my free time. Paul Dixon --- B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu