[B-Greek] Definiteness

Sean Kasabuske alethinon61 at milwpc.com
Wed Oct 11 06:48:40 EDT 2006


Brian
"I think an important point that Wallace makes that may deserve attention is
that the two major studies (apparently three if you count Colwell himself on
some level) on this found no indefinite anarthrous pre-verbal nouns. It may
be determined by context, but if the scholars giving focused attention to
the issue find no examples of indefinites (apparently based on their
assessment of context inter alia), then that is strong evidence for
Wallace's rule, at least as a pragmatic observation of actual usage. I
suppose this raises all sorts of disagreements about how to best approach
grammar, formulating rules, etc., but for those who think there is at least
some value in usage based grammatical "rules" or whatever one wants to call
them, this may weigh heavily in favor of a general stance of approaching
such PN's in accordance with Wallace's "general rule"."

Sean
I wish I had more time to respond to this question fully, but my schedule
this week is cramped. Here are some of the observations I've made:

Colwell: The only thing we really learned from the Colwell years is how 
eager
theologians are to find support for their presuppositions, and how sloppy
some can be in their research. Some of the biggest names in the theological
business, including Bruce Metzger and William Barclay, used Colwell's Rule
to dismiss "a god" as a valid translation alternative. Yet surely these men
saw the many PN-V's in John that are typically translated into English with
the indefinite article, didn't they? They must have been aware of them. So
how can we account for the fact that they asserted that an indefinite
translation is wrong based on a rule that was being misapplied? I suspect
that they didn't actually read Colwell's article themselves, but merely
assumed that it settled matters because people they trusted claimed that it
settled matters. What the Colwell fiasco taught us is that we should not put
'scholars' on some pedestal as though they don't put their pants on one leg
at a time like the rest of us. They are people who have presuppositions and
can make embarrassing mistakes, and if we follow them blindly we may
ultimately share their embarrassment.

Harner: We learned two valuable things from Harner, (i) a definite QEOS at
John 1:1c would equate the LOGOS with hO QEOS, which leads to modalism (or
metaphor), and (ii) that PN-V's can be used to highlight the nature of the
subject. What Harner apparently assumed and didn't prove, is that indefinite
nouns are not a valid tool for highlighting a subject's nature. Harner was
wrong in this, for indefinite nouns can be used to highlight nature and they
often are. I shared this example last month:

Illustration: A man committed adultery and immediately regretted it. He
approached his minister and confessed his sin. In the throes of his shame
and despair over his egregious act he cried out, "I don't know how I could
have done such a thing". His minister replied, "You failed because you are a
sinner, my son, just as I am".

In context, his minister was not simply placing him in some generic category
of sinners as a purely factual statement that he belonged to said category.
No, he was telling him that he failed because he, like the rest of us, is
sinful "by nature" as a result of being born from Adam. The minister could
have used an adjective and said, "you failed because you are sinful", but he
chose instead to employ another tool: an indefinite noun.

Harner noted that when an anarthrous noun is placed before the verb
qualitativeness becomes "more important" then whether the noun is definite
or indefinite, so that the noun's sense is "primarily" qualitative. Notice
that he doesn't say that the noun is not definite or indefinite, but that
qualitativeness is "more important" then whether it is definite or
indefinite. In the above example, "sinner" fits this description. In context
it is the man's sinful nature that the minister is focusing on, and so this
qualitativeness is "more important" then whether "a sinner" is definite or
indefinite. Yet, that doesn't change the fact that "a sinner" is indefinite.

Dixon: Paul's thesis did an excellent job of demonstrating the problems with
Colwell's Rule and the misapplication of it. He also observed that any noun
that is not definite is "technically" indefinite (see p. 9 of his thesis).
But he separates the indefinite nouns that are used qualitatively from the
other indefinite nouns "for expediency" (again, see p. 9), and proceeds 
under the assumption
that definite, indefinite, and qualitative are exclusive categories. Clearly
he and Wallace are not in agreement on this crucial point.

I question Dixon's approach because the assumption that D, Q, & I are
exclusive categories is not developed or substantiated, yet it is the very
basis for claiming that certain PN-V's are not indefinite. According to 
Dixon, there
is only one lonely indefinite noun in all of John's Gospel, and I find that
rather difficult to believe. Note the following PN-V's from John (I
apologize that I didn't have time to include the greek):

4:19 "Sir, I see that you are _a prophet_" (NRSV)
6:70 "one of you is _a devil_" (NRSV)
8:34 "everyone who commits sin is _a slave_ to sin" (NRSV)
8:44 "He was _a murderer_ from the beginning" (NRSV)
8:44 "for he is _a liar_ and the father of lies" (NRSV)
8:48 "you are _a Samaritan_" (NRSV)
9:17 "He is _a prophet_" (NRSV)
9:24 "this man is _a sinner_" (NRSV)
9:25 "he is _a sinner_" (NRSV)
10:1 "anyone who. climbs in by another way is _a thief_" (NRSV)
10:13 "_a hired hand_ does not care for the sheep" (NRSV)
12:6 "he was _a theif_" (NRSV)
18:35 "I am not _a Jew_, am I?" (NRSV)
18:37a "So are you _a king_? (NRSV)
18:37b "You say that I am _a king_." (NRSV)

According to Dixon, none of the above PN-V's are indefinite!  If you find
such a position compelling, then can you explain precisely why the above
translations don't accurately convey the sense of the underlying Greek?
According to what demonstrably valid analytical process will you test your
conclusion to verify it's correctness?

Sincerely,
Sean Kasabuske





More information about the B-Greek mailing list