From: Jonathan Robie (jonathan@texcel.no)
Date: Wed Dec 31 1997 - 18:17:33 EST
At 01:38 PM 12/31/97 -0800, Dale M. Wheeler wrote:
>I must admit at the outset that this is one of my pet-peeves...
Well, I've probably hit the pet peeves of at least 50% of the list in the
last two days, so why should you be an exception? ;->
>If you look
>carefully at the various grammars you will find that some say that abstract
>nouns TAKE an article and some say that abstract nouns LACK the article; some
>even say BOTH ??!!?? What I've discovered is that MANY of the examples
>offered on both sides are simply invalid because of: (1) Apollonius' Canon,
>(2) Predicate Constructions, (3) preceding Prepositions, (4) figurative
>usage, etc., etc., etc.
As I recall, Smyth and Robertson both seem to suggest that abstract nouns
may appear with or without the article, with little difference in meaning.
Currently, this makes sense to me...
>The list you gave for definite/indefinite suffers
>from these same problems:
Just for the sake of clarity:
1. I am not treating QEOS as an example of an abstract noun here, just
exploring the use of QEOS without the article.
2. The reason that QEOS is definite without the article may be explained in
a given passage by Apollonius' Canon, Predicate Constructions, preceding
Prepositions, figurative usage, etc., but only if it is possible for QEOS
to be definite without the article. I do not see that these other
explanations invalidate the point that QEOS does sometimes occur with
definite meaning without the article. I do not know whether all instances
of definite anarthrous QEOS can be adequately accounted for by these
explanations or not.
>I agree with Dan that this one is qualitative; SARC is *not* an abstract
>noun, its a concrete noun, "flesh" is a concrete object, not an abstraction,
>thought, feeling, etc. John is not saying that Jesus became a hunk of
>flesh, but he took on the qualities of flesh, namely physicality. I think
>that will work with your (and my) theology.
OK, I can buy that. But "divine" seems weaker than what I think is implied
by QEOS HN hO LOGOS; I guess phrases like "fully God" are also qualitative.
>>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.:
>
>That's not accurate; BAGD, "QEOS," 1, Acts 7:43; 28:6; 2Thes 2:4; etc.
Acts 7:43 TOU QEOU [hUMWN] hRAIFAN - yes, but this refers specifically to a
god that non-Christians believe in, and is intelligible as such only
because the name of the God hRAIFAN is explicitly stated.
Acts 28:6 KAI ELEGON AUTON EINAI QEON - here, the reference is to the
beliefs of non-Christians who do not believe in God, and think that Paul is
a god.
Looking at these other references, I think the better claim is: in the
absence of clear indicators that identify other gods, QEOS in the singular
is definite, and always refers to God, the one God of the Christians. I'm
not positive that this is true either, and I'm interested in passages that
prove it false.
>>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.
>
>Acts 28:6
Again, this describes the beliefs of non-Christians.
>If I understand what you are driving at...you are looking for places
>where abstract nouns, which by definition are inherently qualitative
>(love, joy, peace), are in fact used definitely (the [specific] love [of
>God], etc.) or indefinitely (a [type of] joy [previously unknown]). I
>think its really important to remember that there are many other factors
>which guide Greek in its use/non-use of the article (I listed some
>above) than just the need to make a noun definite or indefinite or
>qualitative. You may not find such examples easily, since you must
>eliminate all the invalid examples (which most grammars don't bother
>to do !).
;->
I guess you understand my distress - the more I look at the article, the
more convinced I am that it eludes me...
>>Gal 5:22 hO DE KARPOS TOU PNEUMATOS ESTIN AGAPH XARA EIRHNH...
>>
>>It seems to me that English does the same thing here, translating "love,
>>joy, peace...", and not "a love, a joy, a peace...". Is it accurate to say
>>that *both* English and Greek often omit the definite article for abstract
>>nouns, even though a definite meaning is intended?
>>
>>I assume that the qualitative interpretation of this would be "lovingness,
>>joyfulness, peacefulness", and is not really an accurate translation.
>
>AGAPH in Gal 5:22 is *both* abstract (inherently, which means that it refers
>to an abstraction, not a concrete act, and is thus a quality) and qualitative
>(but NOT because its anarthrous, which is caused by the predicate cstr, but
>because its inherently qualitative). The verse is not referring to specific
>acts of love, joy, peace (which would be definite) but character qualities.
>Its not necessary to add the "-ness" ending for something to be abstract and
>qualitative.
Can the same be said of the construction "the Word was God", which doesn't
mean "the Word was the God" or "the Word was a God"?
>BTW, I agree wholeheartedly with Carl's observation that the article is very
>difficult to get a good grasp on;
This is the one thing that I'm quite positive I have grasped!
My dictionary lists this as one of the definitions of "definite": "Clearly
defined; precise and explicit". In this sense, I'm not at all convinced
that the Greek article is definite...
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