From: Al Kidd (akidd@infoave.net)
Date: Tue Jan 06 1998 - 12:07:50 EST
Jonathan,
I include something more that may help you
to see where I am coming from, for if we have
a definite predicate--say, a title-phrase equivalent
to the definite, personal name YHWH--, then
should it not have been articulated?
Of course, a personal name will not always be
articulated, for it may be _markedly_ anarthrous. But
unmarked and anaphoric uses of a proper name are very likely
to be articulated. (See J. Heimerdinger and S. Levinsohn,
"The Use of the Definite Article before Names of People in
the Greek Text of Acts with Particular Reference to Codex
Bezae," _Filologia Neotestamentaria_ 5 [May 1992] 15-38.)
So again I ask If QEOS in John 1:1c were a title-phrase
equivalent to the personal name YHWH (Jehovah/Yahweh),
which is true enough for QEOS in John 1:1b, then should not
John have perhaps made it to appear in 1:1c with the article
(thus >>HO QEOS<<) as well, this if for no other reason than
that the "name" (HO QEOS) might then have appeared so that it
should signal anaphoric reference to its earlier use in 1:1b? Of
course, that would make 1:1c a convertible proposition, and
1:1c, in context with 1:1b just as we have it, should then
have to read as anticipation and justification for
Sabellianism, which is an unscriptural denial that two
beings (two individuals) are given us _in the context_.
If, however, John is targeting a readership that accepts
that there are divine beings (spirit persons, gods) other
than Jehovah--but who are in service to their Creator
(Jehovah)--, then the absence of the article must
_naturally_ suggest that the Logos really does own the
nature of divinity. And we should see John's choice of
syntax as that which lays emphasis on that nature (divinity)
for the Logos-Son, the one who, according to 1:18, is an
only-begotten god (a certain spirit person, namely, the one
who is uniquely derived from God the Father, and accordingly
is much more glorious than all the other spirit sons of God).
John's readership would neither naturally nor readily see
trinitarianism--nor so see binitarianism--as explanation for
the absence of the article in 1:1c.
Jonathan Robie wrote:
> At 07:47 PM 1/5/98 EST, Paul S. Dixon wrote:
>
> >Well, you certainly get no argument here. But, hardly anybody
> >I know of these days is arguing that QEOS in Jn 1:1c is definite.
> >Colwell and others subsequently did argue that, but their
> >argumentation was logically fallacious. Most NT scholars today
> >seem to be taking QEOS in 1:1c qualitatively, and rightly so. The
> >anarthrous precopulative predicate nominative in John is almost
> >always qualitative.
>
> Paul, you are certainly better informed on this than I am - after all, you
> wrote a thesis which has been quoted in Wallace's popular intermediate
> grammar, and seems to have influenced the treatment in Mounce's popular
> elementary grammar. In fact, I think it is fair to say that your thesis has
> been very influential in pushing the qualitative interpretation in these
> kinds of constructions.
>
> I don't think that I agree that "hardly anybody" would argue that John 1:1c
> is definite these days; in private email, I have found that several
> scholars I respect on this list seem to think that it is quite likely
> definite, but that this can not be proved on grammatical grounds. This also
> seems to be the position of Robertson and Smyth, two old grammars whose
> judgement I respect.
>
> For now, I've decided to leave "qualitative" out of my online grammar.
> Fortunately, it is just a bunch of web pages, which I can change at any
> time. I need to know more before I can do that. Astute readers will note
> that I have also left myself some wiggle room in some of the explanations ;->
>
> I'm somewhat agnostic about the question. My internal systematic grammar
> still does not have a category for "qualitative", and the linguists I've
> asked do not use it as a technical term or know how to test for it. Is the
> term "qualitative" ever used for anything other than anarthrous
> precopulative nominative predicate nouns? Does this exist as a usage for
> nouns in other languages? The term "definite" does exist in the linguistics
> literature, and there is discussion of how to test for it. Do classical
> Greek scholars talk about "qualitative" uses of anarthrous precopulative
> nominative predicate nouns? (I do not know the answer to that last
> question.) I guess the question I am asking is this: is this a grammatical
> category that came to be because of John 1:1c?
>
> There do seem to be a number of constructions of this form that could
> plausibly be interpreted as qualitative; this is especially true in the
> gospel of John, where most of these constructions could plausibly be
> interpreted as qualitative. However, some other instances of the same
> construction seem to be definite. This implies to me that it may not be the
> construction itself, but the sense of what is being said in some of these
> constructions, that seems to promote a qualitative interpretation.
>
> 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 - 15:38:48 EDT