[B-Greek] Re: IWANNHN 1:1
MAKARIOIOIPRAEIS at aol.com
MAKARIOIOIPRAEIS at aol.com
Mon Mar 7 23:52:20 EST 2005
Dear Stefano,
Please be careful to note what I actually wrote, I never said anything about
"being necessary definite":
"The point was that since QEOS here is anarthrous it does not necessarily
give it an indefinite meaning, seeing that it is so in John 1:1 has to do with
its word order in relation to the verb."
As far as John 1:1 I had already said:
"This differs from the preceding statement in that it stresses the predicate
QEOS as qualitative."
Concering Colwell's rule I agree with your point and is well known example of
a logical fallacy, which would be:
"Definite PN's that precede the verb usually lack the article .....therefore
Anarthrous PN's that precede the verb are always Definite."
I think this would be described as a "hasty generalization" or "circular
reasoning"
At any rate, as was already mentioned, much has been written after Colwell,
including the discussion of overlapping the categories as
"Qualitative/Definite" and "Qualitative/Indefinite" based on Philip Harner's essay. Harner did
make the point that the PN preceding the verb "may function primarily to express
the nature or character of the subject". I certainly had no intention to try
and challange that.
“The categories of qualitativeness and definiteness, that is, are not
mutually exclusive, and frequently it is a delicate exegetical issue for the
intepreter to decide which emphasis a Greek writer had in mind”
Philip Harner "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns"
and that was where "the five propositions" of John 1:1 came from.
Richard Windisch
>This means only that when a noun is definite (a priori!) don't need that
article when >precedes the verb. But this not legitimate the opposite, you cannot
say that an anarthrous name preceding the verb it must be necessary definite.
It could be definite or indefinite, it depend the context.
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list