From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Wed Dec 31 1997 - 14:51:49 EST
Sorry about how long this is getting, but there's a lot here; I'll try to
cut where I can (e.g., I omit the discussion of SARX = "meat")
At 11:32 AM -0600 12/31/97, Jonathan Robie wrote:
>At 09:51 AM 12/31/97 -0600, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>>At 7:47 AM -0600 12/31/97, Jonathan Robie wrote:
>
>>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: SARX 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 would agree that in vs. 37 TON QEON is definite (and I would understand
it as applied as well to QEON ISAAK and QEON IAKWB.) In vs. 37, however, I
think that the subject is an implicit "he" in OUK ESTIN and that QEOS is
abstract (as God tends to be when He becomes the subject of theological
discourse--and I wonder whether God isn't usually abstract in 3rd-person
declarations about His nature such as this. In the context of the pericope,
it would appear that different sectarian Jews, although they all have YHWH
in mind and may all (if thinking Greek) use the word QEOS (maybe even with
an article), but their theological views are far enough apart that they may
as well be talking about different "gods." The same may well be true about
sectarian Christians today, and it may even account for the fact that some
refuse to recognize others as Christians--because they seem to be talking
about a different "God."
>>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 your "of" above was meant to be "or"--I'll understand it that way.
Well, it appears that we are re-opening anew that great dialogue over QEOS
in John's prologue. And somehow I have the feeling that whatever answer I
give to the above question, I'll be "damned if I do and damned if I don't."
Okay then: here goes:
(1) I think I've said before that the English version of John 1:1c that I
like best is, "... and what God was, the Word was." The virtue of this
version is that it leaves unspecified the CONTENT of "what God was" in
exactly the same way that QEOS without the article serving in that clause
as a predicate word does.
(2) "And the Word was a god" is not really inaccurate as an English
rendering of the Greek " ...KAI QEOS HN hO LOGOS"--but it is misleading
because the very fact that the indefinite article "a" and the lower-case
common noun "god" are used in it, which suggests that we're no longer
talking about the creator previously referred to as hO QEOS. But I think we
ARE talking about the same creator; the difference is that now we are into
a theological proposition wherein QEOS is not used definitely but is used
rather abstractly, as when we say: "What must God be in order to have
created the world and to have interracted with Israel and the Church as the
Bible affirms that He has acted?" When we put it that way--"WHAT (God) MUST
BE," we are no longer talking in specific and personal terms but in
abstract terms of how God is to be defined. Part of the reason for this, I
believe, is that HN in John 1:1c is copulative (as in Aristotle's "hO TI HN
EINAI"--"being what it is" (the Greek says "being what it was"), whereas, I
believe, the HN in the propositions of John 1:1a (EN ARCHi HN hO LOGOS) and
1:1b (hO LOGOS HN PROS TON QEON) is existential.
I'm pretty sure that I ought not to have come within a light year of this
question; let me affirm once again that I embarked upon this issue in an
effort to clarify the grammatical issue as I understand it, not to debate
theological issues--although what I had to say necessarily broaches the
question of the nature of theological language.
>>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...
Ah, yes! I definitely feel the same way! Have you ever wished you were
living in the 17th century and could share with Descartes the old-fashioned
notion of "clear and distinct ideas"? But nowadays we have great difficulty
with the seemingly simple notion of "the truth"--we're not always sure
about whether we're speaking of "the" truth or "THE" TRUTH. I think Plato's
distinction of relative stages of cognitive grasp as SAFHNEIA,
"transparency," was a pretty good one.
>>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.
Yes, and all my previous disclaimers still apply!
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:44 EDT