[B-Greek] omision of the definite article

vasilis tsialas tsialas78 at hotmail.com
Wed Feb 20 04:48:04 EST 2008


Generally speaking, it is true that in the Greek language the article is used to denote identity
and the omission of the article to denote quality, such as, "this is the dog" and "this is a dog."
But there some exceptions. Hebrews did not use articles for proper names, because a proper name shows the identity by itself.
This hebraism is maintained sometimes in the GNT. It is also noted in connection with the word THEOS, that the article sometimes
is not used where THEOS is used as a complement (π.χ. δούλος θεού, τέκνα θεού κ.λπ.) or constructed with
some prepositions (συν θεώ, παρά θεώ κ.λπ.), even though in such cases THEOS seems to refer to identity and not
to quality.
 
As regards John 1:18, I have the feeling that the use of the article would be more natural for Greek, and I speculate that
this was the reason  to be "corrected" by later GNT copyists with the addition of the article.Finally, I speculate, as it already mentioned, that the use of μονογενής, 
which denotes a uniqueness strong enough to be equated with identity,
caused the writer to feel that there was no need for the article.
 
 
As for myself, I would be very interested to know if there are articles on the specific topic, and because I acknowledge 
my limitations in my knowledge, I encourage anyone who sees mistakes in my thoughts to correct me.
I would really appreciate that.
 
 
 
P.S.: The Textual Commentary on the New Testament, by B. Metzger, (p. 169-170) says:
The anarthrous use of qeo,j (cf. 1.1) appears to be more primitive. 
There is no reason why the article should have been deleted, and when ui`o,j supplanted qeo,j it would certainly have been added. 
The shortest reading, o` monogenh,j, while attractive because of internal considerations, is too poorly attested for acceptance as the text.
Some modern commentators4 take monogenh,j as a noun and punctuate so as to have three distinct designations of him who 
makes God known (monogenh,j( qeo,j( o` w'n eivj to.n ko,lpon tou/ patro.j .). [It is doubtful that the author would have written monogenh.j qeo,j,
which may be a primitive, transcriptional error in the Alexandrian tradition (u=c=/;=c=). 
At least a D decision would be preferable. A.W.] 
 
Tsialas Vasileios,
 
Athens, Greece
 



> Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 16:19:55 -0800> From: lightmanmark at yahoo.com> To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org> Subject: [B-Greek] omision of the definite article> > On Feb 19th Matt wrote:> > "Can someone explain to me, or point me in the right direcion,> to a good > explanation of the significance of the omission > of the definite article > before theos in the NT [and especially in respect to John 1:18]?"> > Dana and Mountly in A Manual Grammar of the Greek NT argue> that often the article is used before theos when God's IDENTITY > is in view whereas the article is omitted when God's NATURE is > in view. They say you can see this is John 1:1 and Romans 8:1ff.> > I have not really systematically checked this out, but it seems to me> this is SOMETIMES true, though trying to distinguish when a writer > refers to God as person versus God as essence seems pretty subjective,> > > > > > ---------------------------------> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.> ---> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek> B-Greek mailing list> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/


More information about the B-Greek mailing list