[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #828
b-greek-digest Saturday, 19 August 1995 Volume 01 : Number 828
In this issue:
The Holy Spirit Is A Person
Re: The Holy Spirit Is A Person
Re: J 10:10, PERISSON EXWSIN
So what becomes of Colwell's Rule?
Re: So what becomes of Colwell's Rule?
Re: J 1:1 (fwd)
Re: J 1:1
Re: So what becomes of Colwell's Rule?
Re: J 1:1 (fwd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 95 9:27:31 -24000
Subject: The Holy Spirit Is A Person
Shortly after I began learning Greek, I decided to check out something I had
often heard, which was that while the Holy Spirit ("to pneuma agiov") was a
neuter noun, Jesus used masculine pronouns to refer to It/Him in John 14-16,
and this was often used as a proof text(s) that the Holy Spirit was a Person,
not a thing or a force.
As I looked at these chapters, I saw that the use of the masculine pronoun
could almost always be explained as a reference to an immediately preceding
mention of "ho parakletos," which is masculine, and that the NASB often
translated the neuter pronoun as "Whom" or "Him" even though its antecedent
was "pneuma," which is neuter. This may reflect the proper belief that the
Holy Spirit is a Person, but it also incorrectly reflects the fact that the
Greek pronoun is neuter, which proper English usually requires to be
translated as "it." [Of course, this gets into the issue of how to
translate, and arguments could be made that while "it" is technically
correct, it's a wrong translation because the Holy Spirit is not an "it" as
English understands the word "it."] Possibly 16:13-14 could be a use of a
masculine pronoun ("ekeinos") with "to pneuma" which occurs in 16:13, but it
could also just be Jesus referring again to "ho parakletos" from 16:7.
Maybe I missed a verse or two, but it seems to me that it is not correct to
say, as some do, that John's use of personal masculine pronouns for the Holy
Spirit, which is a neuter word ("pneuma"), is proof that the Holy Spirit is a
person, because John in fact DOES NOT use masculine pronouns for the Holy
Spirit but just follows proper rules of Greek grammar, i.e., he uses
masculine pronouns for "ho parakletos" and neuter pronouns for "to pneuma."
It is the English translations that choose to translate John's neuter
pronouns as "He" or "Him" or "Whom."
Am I correct in this? I've only had 1 year of Greek, so I may be missing
something here. I'm not denying or questioning the Personhood of the Holy
Spirit, just some preachers' and evangelists' use (misuse) of what John
writes.
Thanks!
------------------------------
From: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 95 11:34:44 EDT
Subject: Re: The Holy Spirit Is A Person
Eric Weiss wrote:
[. . .]
> Maybe I missed a verse or two, but it seems to me that it is not correct to
> say, as some do, that John's use of personal masculine pronouns for the Holy
> Spirit, which is a neuter word ("pneuma"), is proof that the Holy Spirit is a
> person, because John in fact DOES NOT use masculine pronouns for the Holy
> Spirit but just follows proper rules of Greek grammar, i.e., he uses
> masculine pronouns for "ho parakletos" and neuter pronouns for "to pneuma."
> It is the English translations that choose to translate John's neuter
> pronouns as "He" or "Him" or "Whom."
>
> Am I correct in this? I've only had 1 year of Greek, so I may be missing
> something here. I'm not denying or questioning the Personhood of the Holy
> Spirit, just some preachers' and evangelists' use (misuse) of what John
> writes.
It is very dangerous to infer much of anything about personhood
from Greek grammatical gender. The rules of Greek grammar
generally require the pronoun to agree in gender with its
antecedent, and Greek grammatical gender is very artificial (but
no more than, say, German, French, or Italian) compared to
English's notions of gender. For example, Matthew uses the
neuter pronoun to refer to the child Jesus:
Mt2:13 ... MELLEI GAR hHRWDHS ZHTEIN TO PAIDION TOU APOLESAI AUTO.
"for Herod was about to search for the child, to destroy him." (NRSV)
AUTO is clearly neuter, required because the Greek word child,
PAIDION, is neuter. English's rules of grammar require a
masculine pronoun, because the English word "child" must be
either maculine or feminine.* Whether to use "he" or "it" in
English in referring to the Holy Spirit is more of a question of
theology then Greek grammar.
Stephen Carlson
* Actually, in American English babies (but not children) are
often grammatically neuter, presumably to avoid getting the
baby's sex wrong.
- --
Stephen Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, : ICL, Inc.
scc@reston.icl.com : and songs chant the words. : 11490 Commerce Park Dr.
(703) 648-3330 : Shujing 2:35 : Reston, VA 22091 USA
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 13:39:49 -0500
Subject: Re: J 10:10, PERISSON EXWSIN
At 3:09 PM 8/17/95, KevLAnder@aol.com wrote:
>Just a note about David L. Moore's treatment of J 10:10. My interest was
>piqued by his discussion because, frankly, I had never taken a close look at
>J 10:10; and when I opened my GNT and read J 10:10 I realized that a
>straightforward reading of the Greek text appears to favor his view that
>PERISSON be taken as a substantive adjective instead of as an adverbial
>qualifier of ZWHN. I then did some lexicon checking. It so happens that
>Thayer classifies PERISSON in J 10:10 as Moore would, translating PERISSON
>ECHEIN as "to have abundance." Thayer also cites a cognate usage of the
>adjective in antiquity: HOI MEN . . . PERISSA EXHOUSIN, HOI DE OUDE TA
>ANAGKAI DUNANTAI PORIZESTHAI ("On the one hand, those who have abundance, but
>on the other hand, those who do not have the wherewithal to get along" [my
>rough translation]), Xen. oec. 20,1. (Note that in this example PERISSA is
>anarthrous.) I thought David would also be interested in Alfred Plummer's
>comments on this verse.
>
> _have it more abundantly_] Omit 'more;' it is not in the Greek, and somewhat
> spoils the sense. More abundantly than what? Translate, _that they_ may
> have abundance.
>
>Marcus Dods in the _Expositor's Greek Testament_ also has some enlightening
>commentary:
>
> With quite other intent has Christ come: EGO HLTHON . . . ECHOSIN, that
> instead of being killed and perishing the sheep "may have life and may
> have abundance." This may mean abundance of life, but more probably
> abundance of all that sustains life. PERITTON ECHEIN in Xen., _Anab._,
>vii. > 6,31, means "to have a surplus". "The repetition of ECHOSIN gives
>the second
> point a more independent position than it would have had if KAI alone had
> been used. . . ." Meyer.
>
>I discovered that some translations, such as the NASB, list in the margin
>"have abundance" as an alternate translation.
I've been rather busy over the last couple days, and didn't have a chance
to look closely at the reasoning proposed for reading PERISSON EXWSIN in
John 10:10 to mean "have an abundance." Now that I've had a chance to look
carefully at David's two notes and Kevin's as well, there are some
questions I think need to be resolved about this passage and particularly
about the usage of EXEIN PERISSON.
(1) When the neuter of an adjective is used substantivally it normally
either is used with an article (Plato's well-known TO KALON, TO AGAQON,
etc.) or with a pronoun like TI, or there is at least an implicit noun with
which the form of the adjective should agree. If in this instance the noun
is ZWHN, then the form of PERISSON ought properly to be PERISSHN. But that
is not what's being argued here; in fact, I think that the argument is
precisely that PERISSON here is a substantive having the sense of
"superabundance" (in fact, its normal sense is "excessive, transcending the
norm").
(2) Examples have been cited especially from Xenophon of an expression
PERISSON EXEIN. In particular, Anabasis 7.6.31 reads: PERITTON D'EXONTES
TOUTO EI TI ELABETE PARA SEUQOU? But here there's the pronoun TOUTO for
PERITTON to agree with, so it's not a substantive (TOUTO TO PERITTON,
theoretically, "this superabundance"). A passage from the Oeconomicus has
been cited (20.1) HOI MEN ... PERISSA EXOUSIN, HOI DE OUDE TA ANAGKAIA
DUNANTAI PORIZESTHAI. This strikes me as at least a little ambiguous
because Attic idiom has a way of using the verb EXEIN with an adverbial
expression in the sense "to be in a _____ state or condition." Moreover
there's a tendency to use either the neuter singular or the neuter plural
of an adjective as an adverb (call it, if you like, an internal or
"adverbial" accusative. In this sense the above passage would be
understood, "Some people are excessively well off, while others cannot even
scrape together what they need."
(3) If we look at John 10:10 in this manner, what prevents our
understanding the text EGW HLQON hINA ZWHN EXWSIN KAI PERISSON EXWSIN as "I
came so they might have life and be in a superfluous state." What, you may
ask, is a superfluous state? Well, it's not the most felicitous English
word in the context, but in terms of root meaning, it means to be in an
"overflow" condition. The parallel with the saying to the woman at the well
in Samaria has been noted 4:14 TO hUDWR hO DWSW AUTWi GENHSETAI EN AUTWi
PHGH hUDATOS ALLOMENOU EIS ZWHN AIWNION. This notion of the PLHRWMA, the
inexhaustible resource of life offered by Jesus, is a distinctly Johannine
theme. The fundamental notion of ZWH AIWNIOS seems to be the transcendance
of finitude, of every power to put an end to anything.
(4) There's one other tiny little item I might mention: David argued that
it is troublesome that we don't have a pronoun like AUTHN with PERISSON
EXWSIN in John 1:10. That really can't be a very serious consideration in
itself, given the natural tendency of Greek expression toward ellipsis.
However, as I've argued, it just may be that EXWSIN here doesn't take even
an implicit ZWHN.
I don't really think the meaning of the verse differs significantly from
one way of reading it to the other, and it may well be that you are right,
David, in this interpretation, but I'm not sure that the classical examples
cited are sufficient to prove PERISSON/PERITTON was actually used
substantivally rather than adverbially.
Perhaps this is all quibbling. I don't really think it changes the
fundamental sense that we derive from John 10:10.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: KevLAnder@aol.com
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 15:11:15 -0400
Subject: So what becomes of Colwell's Rule?
It is truly unfortunate that so much misunderstanding and misuse of Colwell's
Rule has been propogated for the cause of orthodoxy--and all this revolving
around one verse of Scripture, J 1:1. Why, even in the recent Greek grammar
authored by David Alan Black (Broadman, 1993, on p 182) Colwell's Rule is
incorrectly articulated (pardon the pun, please). But, then again, now I am
not so sure about that either.
Paul Dixon in a recent post has cited E.C. Colwell himself as employing his
"Rule" in a circular fashion.
> "Loosely speaking, this study may be said to have increased the
definiteness
> of a predicate noun before the verb without the article, and to have
decreased the
> definiteness of a predicate noun after the verb without the article" (E.
C. Colwell, "A
> Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek Testament," JBL 52
(1933):13).
If I had doubts before about Colwell's Rule, or discomfort about talking of
an 87% probability that a definite predicate noun preceding an equative verb
will be anarthrous, I am woefully uncertain now. If Colwell himself played
fast and loose with his own Rule, then what can be said concerning the
soundness of his research methodology as a whole on this matter? Perhaps I
had better go back and read Colwell's 1933 article. Or better yet, I ought to
take a look at the raw data of the Greek Testament and discover for myself
whether Colwell was really on to something or not.
I would like to thank Paul Dixon for such an informative post, although I
would have liked to have read more of what he has to say upon this head.
Hence, I am curious to ask him the same question that I have asked myself:
So what becomes of Colwell's Rule?
Kevin L. Anderson
Concord, CA
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 15:51:16 -0500
Subject: Re: So what becomes of Colwell's Rule?
At 2:11 PM 8/18/95, KevLAnder@aol.com wrote:
>It is truly unfortunate that so much misunderstanding and misuse of Colwell's
>Rule has been propogated for the cause of orthodoxy--and all this revolving
>around one verse of Scripture, J 1:1. Why, even in the recent Greek grammar
>authored by David Alan Black (Broadman, 1993, on p 182) Colwell's Rule is
>incorrectly articulated (pardon the pun, please).
Even if correctly articulated, I would hope that it won't become arthritic.
(Couldn't resist. I apologize)
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 95 17:03:06 EDT
Subject: Re: J 1:1 (fwd)
Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church wrote:
> Recently there has been considerable discussion regarding
> Colwell's Rule, its meaning and abuse, and whether Colwell himself was
> guilty of abusing his own rule.
> In 1975 my Th.M. thesis, "The Signifance of the Anarthrous
> Predicate Nominative in John," argued that it was an abuse of Colwell's
> rule to argue that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the copulative
> verb tend to be definite. This is the converse of Colwell's rule which
> asserts that definite predicate nouns preceding the copulative tend to be
> anarthrous.
Is this really Colwell's rule? If so, it is of no relevance to
Jn1:1c. In Jn1:1c, if THEOS is to be a predicate nominative,
instead of the subject, am I right in thinking that KAI hO QEOS
HN hO LOGOS must mean "and God was the Word" -- completely ruling
out the possibility of predicate nominative QEOS being arthrous?
Stephen Carlson
- --
Stephen Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, : ICL, Inc.
scc@reston.icl.com : and songs chant the words. : 11490 Commerce Park Dr.
(703) 648-3330 : Shujing 2:35 : Reston, VA 22091 USA
------------------------------
From: Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church <pauld@iclnet93.iclnet.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 21:27:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: J 1:1
If we recognize a contrast between Jn 1:1c and Jn 1:14 (the two
natures of the Logos), then the translation at 1:1c should probably
parallel that of 1:14. That is, if 1:14 is translated, "and the Word
became flesh," then 1:1c might be, "and the Word was deity." This
translation brings out the qualitative force of the anarthrous nouns. In
both cases it is not 'the God', or 'a god', nor 'the flesh' or 'a flesh',
but "deity ... flesh."
On Thu, 17 Aug 1995, David Coomler wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 1995, Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church wrote:
>
> KevLAnder@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > Anyway, Colwell argued that THEOS in J 1:1 has a greater probability of being
> > translated "God" (definite), not "a god" (indefinite), since 87% of definite
> > predicates preceding the verb in the GNT are anarthrous.
>
> My understanding is that neither is really accurate, and that when
> translating it into English it becomes descriptive--in other words, "god"
> with a small g. The word was neither completely identical with God (big
> G), nor simply an individual god ("a god"), but rather god in an
> adjectival sense--or as some translate it, "divine." I think "the word
> was god" or "the word was divine" are both more accurate than either of
> the two extremes of making the word absolutely identical with God or a
> separate god.
>
> David
>
------------------------------
From: Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church <pauld@iclnet93.iclnet.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 21:48:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: So what becomes of Colwell's Rule?
So, what becomes of Colwell's Rule? Colwell considered only
definite predicate nouns, then asserted the probability of articularity.
If his rule is valid, then its only application may be in the writing of
koine Greek where the author has a definite predicate noun in mind and
wishes to write it preceding the copulative verb. The rule would suggest
he do so without the definite article.
It might have application in textual criticism where variant
readings may include articular and anarthrous constructions. If we know
the predicate noun to be definite (?), then Colwell's probabilities might
help us decide. But, then again, if the probability tells us the
expected rendering, should we not opt for the more difficult reading?
The main thing about this whole thing is the mislogic employed by
Colwell and the many who have followed suit. Let's get back to a clear
understanding of what is implied by the conditional statement. "If A,
then B" does not imply, "If B, then A." Nor does "If A, then B," imply
"If not A, then not B."
I personally have seen the conditional abused repeatedly. Mark
16:16 (accept the reading for the sake of argument) says, "He who
believes and is baptized shall be saved." Some, of course, have deduced
from this that if a man believes but is not baptized, then he is not
saved. Scripture, however, never says if a man is not baptized, then he
is not saved. It does say, though, if he does not believe, then he is
condemned already (Mk 16:16b).
Paul Dixon
On Fri, 18 Aug 1995 KevLAnder@aol.com wrote:
> It is truly unfortunate that so much misunderstanding and misuse of Colwell's
> Rule has been propogated for the cause of orthodoxy--and all this revolving
> around one verse of Scripture, J 1:1. Why, even in the recent Greek grammar
> authored by David Alan Black (Broadman, 1993, on p 182) Colwell's Rule is
> incorrectly articulated (pardon the pun, please). But, then again, now I am
> not so sure about that either.
>
> Paul Dixon in a recent post has cited E.C. Colwell himself as employing his
> "Rule" in a circular fashion.
>
> > "Loosely speaking, this study may be said to have increased the
> definiteness
> > of a predicate noun before the verb without the article, and to have
> decreased the
> > definiteness of a predicate noun after the verb without the article" (E.
> C. Colwell, "A
> > Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek Testament," JBL 52
> (1933):13).
>
> If I had doubts before about Colwell's Rule, or discomfort about talking of
> an 87% probability that a definite predicate noun preceding an equative verb
> will be anarthrous, I am woefully uncertain now. If Colwell himself played
> fast and loose with his own Rule, then what can be said concerning the
> soundness of his research methodology as a whole on this matter? Perhaps I
> had better go back and read Colwell's 1933 article. Or better yet, I ought to
> take a look at the raw data of the Greek Testament and discover for myself
> whether Colwell was really on to something or not.
>
> I would like to thank Paul Dixon for such an informative post, although I
> would have liked to have read more of what he has to say upon this head.
> Hence, I am curious to ask him the same question that I have asked myself:
> So what becomes of Colwell's Rule?
>
> Kevin L. Anderson
> Concord, CA
>
------------------------------
From: Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church <pauld@iclnet93.iclnet.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 21:57:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: J 1:1 (fwd)
You are correct in concluding that it is inappropriate to apply
Colwell's rule to Jn 1:1c. The conditions are not the same. In Jn 1:1c
we have an anarthrous predicate noun. Colwell's Rule applies only to
definite predicate nouns. Forget Colwell here.
Paul Dixon
On Fri, 18 Aug 1995, Stephen Carlson wrote:
> Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church wrote:
> > Recently there has been considerable discussion regarding
> > Colwell's Rule, its meaning and abuse, and whether Colwell himself was
> > guilty of abusing his own rule.
> > In 1975 my Th.M. thesis, "The Signifance of the Anarthrous
> > Predicate Nominative in John," argued that it was an abuse of Colwell's
> > rule to argue that anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the copulative
> > verb tend to be definite. This is the converse of Colwell's rule which
> > asserts that definite predicate nouns preceding the copulative tend to be
> > anarthrous.
>
> Is this really Colwell's rule? If so, it is of no relevance to
> Jn1:1c. In Jn1:1c, if THEOS is to be a predicate nominative,
> instead of the subject, am I right in thinking that KAI hO QEOS
> HN hO LOGOS must mean "and God was the Word" -- completely ruling
> out the possibility of predicate nominative QEOS being arthrous?
>
> Stephen Carlson
> --
> Stephen Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, : ICL, Inc.
> scc@reston.icl.com : and songs chant the words. : 11490 Commerce Park Dr.
> (703) 648-3330 : Shujing 2:35 : Reston, VA 22091 USA
>
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #828
*****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu