From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Wed Dec 31 1997 - 10:51:30 EST
At 7:47 AM -0600 12/31/97, Jonathan Robie wrote:
>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...
I hope this isn't unwelcome advice, but I'm inclined personally to think it
is a mistake to try to catalog the whole array of uses of the article.
Precisely because what became the Greek article started life as a weak
demonstrative pronoun and continued to have that use in such expressions as
hO D'EFH ("and he said") and the like, it's going to be hard to make an
all-encompassing statement, and if this is for beginners, it might be wiser
to indicate some of the more common functions and note that the article is
"a mystery that has not even to us in these latter days been fully
revealed"--or at least that there will be refinements that one will
continue to learn (I at least find myself discovering new things about the
use of the article almost every year, and that after studying and teaching
Greek for more than 40 years).
>Before I start, let me mention that the grammars I am using do not give
>clear definitions for terms like "definite" and "indefinite", nor
>linguistic tests to determine whether something is definite, and I could
>use something more concrete than my intuitive grasp of the concept. I
>notice, when reading Wallace's grammar, that he treats both of the
>following predicates as qualitative:
>
>John 1:14 hO LOGOS SARC EGENETO
>John 1:1c KAI QEOS HN hO LOGOS
>
>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!
Don't take this seriously, but you might realize that one possible
translation of SARX is "meat." I think what our recurrent lengthy
disquisitions on the Johannine prologue have disclosed, more than anything
else, is that any one language (Greek, in this instance) can, in certain
circumstances, be untranslatable with precision into a given other
language--simply because it doesn't work the same way. 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 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.:
>
>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. And
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. Here again,
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.
>Here are some other examples of non-articular QEOS that seem to be definite:
>
>Matt 6:24 OU DUNASQE QEWi DOULEUEIN KAI MAMWNAi
>Matt 12:28 EN PNEUMATI QEOU EGW EKBALLW TA DAIMONIA
>Matt 14:13 ALHQWS QEOU hUIOS EI
>Matt 19:26 PARA DE QEWi PANTA DUNATA
>Matt 27:54 ALHQWS QEOU hUIOS HN hOUTOS
>Mark 11:22 ECETE PISTIN QEOU
>Luke 2:14 DOXA EN hUYISTOIS QEWi
>
>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 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.
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