From: Daniel Ria–o (danielrr@mad.servicom.es)
Date: Fri Jan 02 1998 - 08:58:35 EST
>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...
...
>The older grammars like Robertson and Smyth don't seem to discuss
>qualitative force; if SARC and QEOS are both qualitative, and QEOS is best
>translated "divine", as Wallace suggests, then I would think that SARC in
>John 1:14 should be translated "fleshly", which would certainly upset my
>theology! 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.:
............
I think that no coherent theory of the articular use in Greek can
be deduced from the employment of the article with *Qeo/s* in NT Greek,
since, at last in many of the NT books, the presence/absence of the article
with *Qeo/s* is deployed as a conventional device to express certain
nuances of meaning of a translated term or different non-Greek concepts.
The study of the question is of course complicated by the manuscript
transmission, and the filoalexandrianism of some editors. Probably this is
more a philological than a linguistical question. Maybe some lismember
recalls an article which dealt specifically with the problem of the article
with *Qeo/s", and whose title & author I can not recall now. An extensive
treatment of the use of the article, although not methodologically
irreproachable in Gildersleeve & Miller Greek Syntax.
Daniel
___________________________________________________________________
Daniel Rian~o Rufilanchas
c. Santa Engracia 52, 7 dcha.
28010-Madrid
Espan~a
e-mail: danielrr@mad.servicom.es
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:48 EDT