[B-Greek] John 1:1c

kgraham0938 at comcast.net kgraham0938 at comcast.net
Tue Jul 4 15:49:18 EDT 2006


Hello Rolf, 

I have heard of some linguist who argue for what is called 'bare nouns.' that is, nouns that do not have the definite or indefinite article  as a result they are neither mass nor count, precisely because they denote qualities rather than physical entities.  

If this is true, how can one tell if QEOS is really not a bare noun but rather a count noun.  If one argues that count nouns are nouns that can be plural then I would argue that there are examples within the GNT where count nouns are taken to be qualitative as well as other biblical sources.
--
Kelton Graham 
KGRAHAM0938 at comcast.net

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli at online.no> 

> Dear Kelton, 
> 
> Collins Cobuild English Grammar says regarding nouns: 
> "A noun is used to identify a person or thing. In this chapter we describe 
> six main types of nouns. They are classified according to whether they have 
> a plural form, whether they need a determiner in front of them, and whether 
> they occur with a singular verb or plural verb when they are the subject of 
> the verb. 
> 
> count nouns - a bird, birds - have plural, need determiner 
> uncount nouns - happiness, equipment - no plural, usually no determiner 
> singular nouns - the moon, a day - no plural, need determiner 
> plural nouns -clothes, scissors - no singular 
> collective nouns - the public, the staff - either singular or plural verb 
> proper nouns - Mary, London, The United Nations -start with capital letter" 
> 
> Best regards, 
> 
> Rolf Furuli 
> University of Oslo 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: 
> To: 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 4:30 PM 
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] John 1:1c 
> 
> 
> > 
> > Hello Rolf, I enjoyed reading your post, they are very insightful. My 
> > question is how are you defining "count nouns." Is it simply based upon a 
> > word being able to be plural or is there some other definition. The 
> > reason I ask is because there are some who believe that some nouns are 
> > neither mass nor count, how do know that QEOS is not one of those? 
> > 
> > And I understand what you are saying with regards to the English rendering 
> > of Jn 1:1c, I've often said that the english translation needs explaining 
> > with it. 
> > -- 
> > Kelton Graham 
> > KGRAHAM0938 at comcast.net 
> > 
> > -------------- Original message -------------- 
> > From: "Rolf Furuli" 
> > 
> >> Dear Barry, 
> >> 
> >> I understand Carl´s warning, since I have seen and participated in 
> >> similar 
> >> threads for many years. So I will only try to deal only with linguistic 
> >> matters. 
> >> 
> >> LEXICON 
> >> When I use the term "linguistically," I include lexicon, grammar, and 
> >> syntax and the principles of applied lingusitics. As for lexicon, the 
> >> Greek 
> >> word QEOS is in Greek a common noun or 
> >> appellative, as Iver said, and we can add that it is a count noun. The 
> >> noun 
> >> QEOS can in the NT and the LXX refer to the creator, to idols, and to the 
> >> spirit sons of the creator (angels). Certain things in the world are 
> >> unique, 
> >> there is just one of its kind. When a noun refers to such a person or 
> >> thing 
> >> it is said to be " a singular noun" (Collins Cobuild English Grammar 1993 
> >> p. 
> >> 11). One example is "the sun". There are many suns, but when we use the 
> >> term 
> >> "the sun," it can only refer to one thing. I suppose that Greek 
> >> grammarians 
> >> and commentators will agree that QEOS of John 1:1b is a singular noun; it 
> >> refers to the only creator of the universe. (NB:QEOS as a singular noun 
> >> occurs both with and without the article.) The important question now is 
> >> the 
> >> nature of QEOS in 1:1c (by "nature" I mean whether it is qualitative or 
> >> gentilic, whether it is a singular noun or an appellative). 
> >> 
> >> GRAMMAR AND SYNTAX 
> >> There is no grammatical rule that can be used to pinpoint the nature of 
> >> QEOS 
> >> in 1:1c. Colewell´s rule cannot be used, as was adequately pointed out 
> >> some 
> >> years ago on this list by Dixon, who also has written a thesis about this 
> >> question. I would define communication as making a part of a meaning 
> >> potential visible and hiding everything else. The lexical meaning of 
> >> words 
> >> exist in the minds of those speaking the same language and not in 
> >> lexicons, 
> >> which contain just glosses. The context does not generate any new lexical 
> >> meaning at all, but it helps to make visible a part of the meaning 
> >> potential 
> >> of each word and find the references. So, we can hope that the syntax and 
> >> the relationship between the words og John 1:1 can make visible whether 
> >> QEOS 
> >> in 1:1c is a singular noun or a common count noun. 
> >> 
> >> (Please note that I do not here include quality (divine), because there 
> >> are 
> >> just two options, singular noun or common noun. This does not mean that I 
> >> at 
> >> this stage exclude the rendering "and the word was divine," because, even 
> >> if 
> >> one opts for this rendering, the word QEOS of 1:1c cannot be stripped of 
> >> its 
> >> substantive nature and be transformed into an adjective. It is a 
> >> substantive, 
> >> but some will argue that the stress is on its divine quality and not on 
> >> its 
> >> existence as an entity.) 
> >> 
> >> In order to make use of the syntax (and context) to identify the nature 
> >> of 
> >> QEOS in 1:1c, we need to analyze the relationship the subject, verb, 
> >> predicate and other parts of the clauses, and to see how the lexical 
> >> meaning 
> >> of the words, tenses, and the use of prepositions and particles exclude 
> >> some 
> >> possibilities but open for others. In 1:1b we find two entities, hO LOGOS 
> >> and hO QEOS. hO QEOS is a singular noun, and John, chapter 1 shows that 
> >> the 
> >> same is true with hO LOGOS, both are unique and the only one of its kind. 
> >> (Please remember that I try to argue strictly linguistically and not 
> >> metaphysically.) So, we have two singular nouns in one clause (1:1b), one 
> >> is 
> >> subject and the other is a nominative predicate. And their relationship 
> >> is 
> >> expressed by the preposition PROS (often rendered by "with") and with the 
> >> imperfect form of EIMI. Even though both substantives have the article 
> >> they 
> >> are not convertible terms, and the proposition is not reciprocating. 
> >> But one was with the other in the past. This is in my 
> >> view a necessary syntactical conclusion. 
> >> 
> >> In 1:1c we again meet the singular noun hO LOGOS, and its article 
> >> indicates 
> >> that 
> >> it is the subject. The verb is again the imperfect form of EIMI, and 
> >> the anarthrous QEOS is the nominative predicate. What does the lexicon, 
> >> grammar, and 
> >> syntax of 1:1b,c indicate? That the anarthrous QEOS of 1:1c is a common 
> >> count noun and not a singular noun. This is suggested by the lack of 
> >> article 
> >> in 1:1c as contrasted with the singular noun QEOS in 1:1b, which has the 
> >> article. The syntax of 
> >> 1:1b, c simply does not allow that the anarthrous QEOS and the articular 
> >> LOGOS in 1:1c are convertible terms or reciprocate. Particularly the 
> >> preposition 
> >> PROS excludes the possibility that hO LOGOS is identical (in every 
> >> respect) 
> >> with hO QEOS. 
> >> 
> >> However, my claim of an impossible rendering was regarding the English 
> >> rendering "And the Words was God". Since "God" with capital "G" in 
> >> English 
> >> is a singular noun, which is in the same slot as proper names, the use of 
> >> "God" with capital letters both in John 1:1b and c indicates that the 
> >> meaning and references of these two words are exactly the same. So, when 
> >> "the Word" is said to be "God," what is made visible is that "the Word" 
> >> is 
> >> identical with "God" in every respect. It is therefore linguistically 
> >> impossible to make a translation which says that an entity or individual 
> >> is 
> >> "with" another entity or individual, and at the same time *is* this 
> >> individual. Such a translation can only be defended by an introduction of 
> >> metaphysics. The conclusion that the anarthrous QEOS of 1:1c is a common 
> >> noun, opens for two possibilities, 1) that the stress is on the nature of 
> >> the Word, or 2) that the stress is on gentilics, i.e., the word is a 
> >> member 
> >> of the family of gods. Point 1) cannot blot out the substantive 
> >> characteristics of LOGOS, and 2) does not necessarily represent 
> >> henotheism 
> >> or polytheism. But these are questions for another forum. 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Best regards, 
> >> 
> >> Rolf Furuli 
> >> University of Oslo 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> ----- Original Message ----- 
> >> From: "Barry" 
> >> To: 
> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 12:41 PM 
> >> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] John 1:1c 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> > 
> >> >> -----Original Message----- 
> >> >> From: b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org 
> >> > [mailto:b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] 
> >> >> On Behalf Of Rolf Furuli 
> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 6:15 AM 
> >> >> To: B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org 
> >> >> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] John 1:1c 
> >> >> 
> >> >> Dear David, 
> >> >> 
> >> >> I have read your posts for many years, and my impression is that you 
> >> >> have 
> >> > a 
> >> >> very good grasp of the Greek language and Greek grammar. Moreover, you 
> >> > also 
> >> >> have the ability to ask fine and important questions. To your question 
> >> >> regarding theology I will answer that John 1:1 is one of those places 
> >> > where 
> >> >> theology must play a role in the translation process, since the 
> >> >> renderings 
> >> >> "and the word was divine" and "and the word was a god" both are 
> >> >> linguistically possible (But the rendering "and the Word was God" is 
> >> >> linguistically impossible, but theologically possible.) 
> >> > 
> >> > Linguistically impossible? My goodness, I think our theological 
> >> > presuppositions are peeking through, well disguised with rhetoric, but 
> >> > observable nonetheless. Of course it's linguistically possible. Do you 
> >> > care to prove your claim using simply the categories of linguistics? 
> >> > 
> >> > N.E. Barry Hofstetter 
> >> > Adjunct Faculty & IT Support 
> >> > The Center for Urban Theological Studies 
> >> > http://www.cuts.edu 
> >> > Classics Instructor, The American Academy 
> >> > http://www.theamericanacademy.net 
> >> > 
> >> > And my site: 
> >> > 
> >> > http://mysite.verizon.net/nebarry 
> >> > 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> --- 
> >> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek 
> >> B-Greek mailing list 
> >> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org 
> >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> 
> 
> > --- 
> > B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek 
> > B-Greek mailing list 
> > B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org 
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek 
> > 
> 
> 
> --- 
> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek 
> B-Greek mailing list 
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek 


More information about the B-Greek mailing list