[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