Romans 3: 19-20

Toby Anderson kjvonly21 at hotmail.com
Fri Aug 30 14:22:06 EDT 2002


Greetings brer Jim,

You wrote:
> 	The first two instances of NOMOS here are preceded 
> by definite articles while the last two do not have the articles.
...
> 	What is the force of the definite article or its absence?

Let me rephrase the question:
  What role does the article and the lack thereof play in determining
whether or not the noun term is being used individually, collectively,
indefinately or distributively?

After my signature below, I give some fuller quotes from Thayer.

In the case of hO nomos (with the article), Thayer says:

'it defines only the class, that all and every one of those who bear the
name are brought to mind'

The words 'all and every' indicate distributive usage (as opposed to the
collective or individual usage).

and without the article Thayer says:

'More or less frequently the art. is wanting before appellatives of
persons or things of which only one of the kind exists, so that the art.
is no needed to distinguish the individual from others of the same kind,
as elios, ge, theios...; and also of those persons and things which the
connection of discourse clearly shows to be well defined, as nomos (the
Mosaic law ...)'

I believe Thayer is saying that since the discourse (context) has already
clearly defined 'the nomos', then the article is no longer needed because
it has clearly been identified as one unique kind of NOMOS (that is, the
MOSAIC nomos as opposed to the Roman NOMOS..).

May Jesus bless us lively stones,
  TOby

Thayer says in his 4.5 page dissertation of hO:

================================================
'Since it is the business, ot of the lexicographer, but of the grammarian,
to exhibit the instances in which the article is omitted in the N.T. where
acording to the laws of our language it would have been expected, we refer
those interested in this matter to  ... and only add the foll. remarks:

1. More or less frequently the art. is wanting before appellatives of
persons or things of which only one of the kind exists, so that the art.
is no needed to distinguish the individual from others of the same kind,
as elios, ge, theios...; nad also of those persons and things which the
connection of discourse clearly shows to be well defined, as nomos (the
Mosaic law ...) [ see  nomos, 2 p. 428a])'
======================================================

Thayer says on nomos page 428
=======================================================
`nomos without the article  ...[some interpreters contend that nomos
without the article denotes not the law of Moses but law viewed as 'a
principle', 'abstract adn universal'.. This distinctin is contrary to
usage ... and many other exx. i, and to the context in such Pauline pass.
as as the foll.: Rom ii.17...(cf. Romii:12 adn iii.19;.. '
=====================================================

Back to Thayer says in his 4.5 page dissertation of hO:
===============================================================
'II. As the DEFINITE or Prepositive Article ...1 to substantives that have
no modifier; and
---a.--- those that designate a person or a thing that is the only one of
its kind; the art. thus distinguishes the same from all other persons or
things, as O elios, o ouranos, ..., o theor, o logos..'
===============================================================

--- this is the collective usage of hO (and in general any article)

Thayer continuing:
===============================================================
'---b.--- ... The article is used with names of things not yet spoken of,
in order to show that definite thngs are referred to, to be distinguished
from others of the same kind and easily to be known from the context'

===============================================================
--- this is the individual usage of hO.

Thayer continuing:
===============================================================
' ---c.--- The article prefixed to the PLURAL often either includes all
and every one of those who by the given name are distinguished from other
thngs having a different name..'
===============================================================

--- this is the distributive usage of hO

Thayer continuing:
===============================================================
' ---d.--- The article prefixed to the SINGULAR sometimes so defines only
the class, that all and every one of those who bear the name are brought
to mind; thus o avthrwpos Mt xv.11;
===============================================================

--- this is also the distributive usage of hO


Thayer's last 2 examples show that we do need to take into account whether
the article is plural or singular as well. The number of the Greek noun
will match the number of the article. In English, it's more complicated
the article 'the' can modify either a plural noun or a singular noun;
hence other parts of the context must be used to glean the meaning, for
example, what's the differences between:

the horse is 
the horse are
The horses are
Horses are.
A horse is
many a horse is
a certain horse is 
every horse is
He received 50 dollars a horse




More information about the B-Greek mailing list