From: Jonathan Robie (jonathan@texcel.no)
Date: Wed Dec 31 1997 - 12:32:56 EST
At 09:51 AM 12/31/97 -0600, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>At 7:47 AM -0600 12/31/97, Jonathan Robie wrote:
>>I am trying to give a simple, fairly-adequate explanation of the use of the
>>noun in my next lesson, which is why these questions are popping up...
>
>I hope this isn't unwelcome advice, but I'm inclined personally to think it
>is a mistake to try to catalog the whole array of uses of the article.
I agree; I am trying to give a basic understanding of its meaning and
present some of the more common cases. We'll see if I succeed or not...
>Don't take this seriously, but you might realize that one possible
>translation of SARX is "meat."
I'm not sure that fits well with my personal theology:
Definite: "and the Word became the roast"
Indefinite: "and the Word became a piece of meat"
Qualitative: "and the Word became a hunk"
Perhaps we could agree on the latter, and let Richard Gere play Jesus in
the next Hollywood film...but back to Greek...
>Quite frankly, I'm
>beginning to wonder how valid this use of the term "qualitative" really is
>for predicate words in Greek, and I'm beginning to suspect that it is
>little more than a device whereby we justify to ourselves our own
>theological bias and content ourselves that the Greek really does say what
>we think it OUGHT to mean.
I've looked at the examples Wallace presents as "qualitative" in his
chapters on the article, and none of them seems to require a qualitative
interpretation, nor does a qualitative interpretation seem to have any real
advantages for most of them.
>> 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. 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.:
>>
>>Luke 20:38 QEOS DE OUK ESTIN NEKRWN ALLA ZWNTWN
>
>I think that might do as a working definition, but I'm not fully convinced
>it is accurate to say that in Lk 20:38 QEOS isn't indefinite. I think it
>would make sense to say there, "He is not a god of corpses but rather of
>living persons." In fact, I think it is all the more powerful a statement
>when put that way: it becomes a comparative theological statement about
>sectarian differences between Pharisees and those who understand God as
>Jesus does; this is comparable to the title of a book decades old by J.B.
>Phillips, "Your God is too Small," where I submit "God" is indefinite.
Either definite or indefinite makes sense in this particular verse, but I
think I would argue for a definite interpretation based on the context of
the verse that precedes it:
Luke 20:37-38 ...hWS LEGEI KURION TON QEON ABRAAM KAI QEON ISAAK KAI QEON
IAKWB. QEOS DE OUK ESTIN NEKRWN ALLA ZWNTWN, PANTES GAR AUTWi ZWSIN.
I think that the article in TON QEON ABRAAM makes it clear that it is
definite, and this extends to the repeated use of QEOS in the rest of the
sequence: TON QEON...KAI QEON...KAI QEON...QEOS DE...
>I think this is a reason why, although I think I understand quite well what
>those who object to translating "KAI QEOS HN hO LOGOS" as "And the Word was
>a god," there really is something accurate about that version.
Can you be precise about what you see as accurate about that translation?
Do you see this as an accurate translation of one possibility among several?
>I think that our determination to put the Greek in the phraseology that
>really seems appropriate to our understanding of English is getting in the
>way of our understanding the Greek.
Well, I *do* think that we English-speakers are used to having definite or
indefinite articles in front of most of our nouns.
>>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.
>
>I think this is generally right--that QEOS is being used in these instances
>as a proper noun. Certainly that's why editors put it in upper-case letters
>in the translations. But I wonder whether it is safe to make a complete
>blanket statement about QEOS in the NT like this--that it's always a proper
>name. As I indicated above, I really do not think it is in John 1:1c or in
>Lk 20:38.
I think that I agree that it is not used as a proper name in those two
verses; I am not sure whether they can nevertheless be definite. I wish I
had a good working definition of what "definite" and "indefinite" mean,
anyways...
>I earnestly hope that I am not stepping on any theological "toes" in what
>I'm saying here, but I'm not arguing theology so much as I'm trying to say
>something about the Greek.
Sure, I think we all understand that this is about the Greek, and I want to
keep out of unnecessary theological controversies, but I *do* want to
understand the Greek here, and that may involve exploring some
possibilities that may be theologically sensitive to some...I hope everyone
understands that I'm not doing this to cause offense or to prove that my
understanding is the one true understanding or anything, I just want to get
a better understanding of the Greek.
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 - 15:38:44 EDT