From: Al Kidd (akidd@infoave.net)
Date: Thu Jan 08 1998 - 04:36:19 EST
Hello, Jonathan.
Though your counter example is for a pre-verbal, anarthrous
predicate nominative, that is as far as you made it go. Your
counter example does not give us a context wherein we find
the same noun used in an immediately preceding, equative
clause where it functions as part of a title-phrase equivalent to the
personal name "Jehovah." Now, had you given us such a
context, and had you asserted also that your example is used
grammatically as an equivalent to the personal name "Jehovah"--
for "Jehovah" should have to be the personal name meant
inasmuch as "the Father" is not a personal name--, then
such a counter example as you might have given us should
have to be articulated for sake of anaphora.
Theologians have asserted that QEOS 1:1c is definite, and that the
Logos (Jesus) is Jehovah, and that that is what is meant by what they
take to be a personal-name equivalent to "Jehovah" in 1:1c. Some assert
that the name Jehovah is for the second person of the Trinity.
No, QEOS 1:1c is used in an equative sentence as a predicate
syntactically marked for emphasis on the prehuman, divine nature
declared for the Logos in 1:1c.
Now, let us look at your examples of anarthrous titles.
First is Mark 1:1. It is not an equative sentence, a sentence type
that is used for attributing something to the subject, and wherein
a syntax may be chosen for laying emphasis upon the predicate.
Next is Matt 26:68. XRISTE morphologically signals a vocative
use of the title: it is in the vocative case. And a vocative cannot
appear as a predicate. The title might have appeared in the nominative
case with an article, but even if it had, its context here should still
give us invocation of the title as a means for addressing the one they
were ridiculing.
Next is Luke 2:11. The title is without anaphora. Furthermore,
its syntax in an equative sentence is a means for giving us the
title as a predicate with emphasis upon the declared Savior's
offices, so that we should find that 'he (the one just born) is
really the long-awaited Christ, the long-awaited Lord.'
Next is Luke 23:2. Here predicative emphasis is given
the office that they accuse the subject (Jesus himself)
to be presumptuously assuming.
You asked how we should interpret XRISTOS HN hO LOGOS.
A certain office for the Logos is being stressed. A (partial) paraphrase
may best capture the flavor of the Greek: The Logos really was a
XRISTOS.
Al Kidd
***************************
Jonathan Robie wrote:
> At 02:10 PM 1/7/98 -0500, Al Kidd wrote:
>
> > ". . . if we have _AT JOHN 1:1c_ a certain kind of
> > predicate--say, a title-phrase equivalent to the
> > definite, personal name YHWH or a title-phrase
> > equivalent to some other person (namely, the
> > person of the Logos--, then should _it_ [--namely,
> > that predicate at John 1:1c--] not have been
> > articulated?"
>
> A counter-example:
>
> CRISTOS HN hO LOGOS
>
> If my current view of the article, as of 8:40 a.m. on January 7th, 1998, is
> correct, that is, the view I expressed yesterday, then the answer is: "not
> necessarily, at least not on grammatical grounds". If a non-articular noun
> is unmarked, then failing to use the article does not rule out the definite
> interpretation. If this actually were the intended meaning ("the Word was
> identical to and interchangeable with Yahweh"), though, one might expect
> the author to use the article to make his point very clear.
>
> However, I don't think that anybody is arguing that John 1:1c means "the
> Word was Yahweh", or "the Word was God the Father", so the grammatical
> question may be moot.
>
> The grammar does not prove everything we may wish to assert about a
> statement. Sometimes we have to go beyond what is explicitly stated.
>
> >Yes, such a kind of predicate--a title-phrase that
> >functions grammatically similar to a personal name--
> >may be articulated. And it will be just as both you
> >and I pointed out earlier, i.e., it will be convertible
> >with the subject. Instances are:
> >
> >1 Cor. 10:4 hH PETRA DE HN hO XRISTOS,
> >John 1:25 SU OUK EI hO XRISTOS . . . OUDE hO PROFHTHS,
> >John 7:26 hOUTOS ESTIN hO XRISTOS,
> >John 7:40 hOUTOS ESTIN ALHQWS hO PROFHTHS,
> >John 7:41 hOUTOS ESTIN hO XRISTOS,
> >John 20:31 IHSOUS ESTIN hO XRISTOS
> >Rev. 6:8 ONOMA AUTWi hO QANATOS
>
> But the article is not *always* used with titles:
>
> Mark 1:1 ARCH TOU EUAGGELIOU IHSOU CRISTOU hUIOU QEOU
> Matt 26:68 PROFHTEUSON hHMIN, CRISTE, TIS ESTIN hO PAISAS SE;
> Luke 2:11 hOTI ETECQH hUMIN SHMERON SWTHR hOS ESTIN CRISTOS KURIOS EN POLEI
> DAUID
> Luke 23:2 KAI LEGONTA hEAUTON CRISTON BASILEA EINAI
>
> This is nowhere near exhaustive, but I think it makes the point.
>
> >Well, I suggest that this rules out that one
> >should take QEOS at John 1:1c as a personal-name
> >equivalent to the personal name YHWH.
>
> I'm not sure that it rules it out. For instance, I think this is probably
> grammatical:
>
> CRISTOS HN hO LOGOS
>
> How should that be interpreted?
>
> Jonathan
>
> jonathan@texcel.no
> Texcel Research
> http://www.texcel.no
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:49 EDT