[B-Greek] omision of the definite article
Steve Runge
srunge at logos.com
Wed Feb 20 11:07:23 EST 2008
Harold,
Harold,
You raise a very appropriate corrective to what I claimed about the referent of EKEINOS.
HH: You leave out the possibility that EKEINOS refers to Christ, and this is the standard interpretation of the passage. Verse 8 is a long ways back to go to get the referent for EKEINOS, which can obtain a referent simply because of the contrast in the immediate vicinity. The contrast can be between QEOS and MONOGENHS QEOS. As you point out, the author has already contrasted these two terms clearly by adding the phrase hO WN ESI TON KOLPON TOU PATROS to the second. See how standard translations handle the verse:
KJV John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
NIV: John 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.
John 1:18 No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known.
HH: You may object that there is no stated object for the verb EXHGHSATO, but there is none under your theory either. MONOGENHS QEOS is the subject of the last sentence, not the object. In both Greek and Hebrew the verbal object is sometimes not stated if it has already been mentioned in the sentence and is clear from the context.
SR: I mistakenly analyzed the verb EXHGHSATO as passive, not middle. On top of this, MONOGENHS QEOS is nominative, not accusative. I blew it on multiple levels. Taking EKEINOS as referring to Christ would make the subject a casus pendens, with a null object referring to the Father. Thanks for pointing this out.
Regarding the omission of the definite article, you would need to read Levinsohn's fuller discussion to evaluate his claim (all of chapter nine). I quoted from the introduction. There is an article available online that addresses the omission of the article with QEOS in 1 Cor. 1 that should provide some elaboration on the issue, short of accessing Levinsohn (2000).
http://www.sil.org/siljot/2006/2/48004/siljot2006-2-02.pdf
Besides the work that Levinsohn has done on the issue, there is currently a doctoral dissertation being written under Buist Fanning at DTS on the use of this device in Matthew.
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Harold Holmyard
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 6:35 AM
To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] omision of the definite article
Hi, Steve,
> Here is a brief answer to your question, excerpted from Stephen Levinsohn's "Discourse Features of New Testament Greek" (2000:148).
>
> "Throughout the Greek New Testament, nouns whose referents are "known, particular" (BDF §252) are at times preceded by the article (they are said to be "articular or arthrous"-Porter 1992:104) and at times appear without it (they are said to be "anarthrous"). Wallace (1996:209) notes:
>
> 'The function of the article is not primarily to make something definite that would otherwise be indefinite... There are at least 10 ways in which a noun in Greek can be definite without the article. For example, proper names are definite even without the article (PaÂlov [PAULOS]means "Paul," not "a Paul"). Yet, proper names sometimes take the article. Hence, when the article is used with them it must be for some other purpose.'
>
> This chapter is concerned with one such purpose. It claims that, if the referent of an anarthrous noun phrase is known and particular (or, to be more exact, if the author assumes that the reader will be able to assign it unique referential identity-see sec. 9.1), this gives it prominence. It is marked as prominent because it is of particular importance.
>
HH: This passage is not necessarily relevant. QEOS is not, strictly speaking, a proper noun. It is a common noun that takes the role of a proper noun. So the definite article used with it is used to make the word definite.
>
>
> I take QEOS to be the topic of 18a, with OUDEIS fronted for emphasis: 'NO ONE has seen God at any time.'
HH: OUDEIS is "fronted" because it is the subject of the verb. Actually, if anything is fronted, it is QEON as the object of the verb.
> This part of the verse functions as a foil for the second part of the verse, where the topic switches to the MONOGENHS QEOS from QEOS.
HH: This is not exactly true. QEOS need not drop out of sight in the
second part of the verse if he is the understood object of the verb
EXHGHSATO. Since this "God" has already been mentioned and is menttioned
again in the term "Father," the author might not feel it necessary to
mention him again. Or the verb could be one that does not strictly
require an object, for example if it had a sense like "gave insight."
BAGD suggests a translation of "brought news."
> To clarify that this latter participant is distinct from QEOS, there is additional thematic information provided in the hO WN EIS TON KOLPON TOU PATROS. This means that we have a statement about the Father in 18a, and a statement about the Son in 18b.
>
HH: MONOGENHS also seems to be additional information, since it normally
refers to an offspring.
> So why drop the article when the reference is to an established participant? Based on Levinsohn's principle above, it is to attract some extra measure of attention to QEOS, which functions as a foil for the more important MONOGENHS QEOS which follows.
HH: No, Levinsohn's principle is that an extra measure of attention is
added to a proper name by adding the article. The principle is not that
an extra measure of attention is added by not having the definite
article. And, again, the principle is for proper names, while QEOS is
not entirely a proper name in itself.
> In other words, 18a functions as a foil for 18b, and the topic of 18a is connected to the that of 18b both semantically and syntactically. The gist of what is being communicated might be paraphrased something like:
> "While nobody has ever seen God, the only begotten God, the one who is in the bosom of the Father, has been made known by John. And this is the testimony of John when..."
>
HH: This is an interesting interpretation.
> The first statement in 18a is that no one has ever seen the Father, period. Against this backdrop, the writer states that the only begotten God, the one who is in the Father's bosom, has indeed been made known. I understand the agent making him known in this verse to be John, not the Father. Note that this whole section concerns John's testimony about Jesus, that he himself is not the Christ but that Jesus is. Verse 19 continues this theme, moving back to the testimony of John using the forward-pointing hAUTH to attract extra attention to what he has to say.
>
>
>
> You are probably asking why I say John made him known, rather than the Father. It is important to determine who EKEINOS refers to in 18b. I expect some will understand it to refer to QEOS, but this does not account for why the writer would use the far demonstrative in this setting. John the Baptist is the only person referred to so far in this chapter using EKEINOS, back in 1:8 where the writer clarifies that 'that one' was not the light, since the thematic focus is on 'this one'=Jesus in v. 7.
>
> The writer of John chooses to be cryptic at times for reasons I do not fully understand, using the demonstratives as personal pronouns to make contrastive statements. The Baptist is the only one in the chapter that has been referred to using EKEINOS, so it would seem best to view him as the referent, and not the Father. Furthermore, this whole section is a build up to John's testimony in v. 19 ff., highlighting that he is making known the One that the Father has sent to represent Himself. This section is not about the Father, but about the Son and John. John is the only one who has testified and born witness in this chapter, not the Father (cf. vv. 7, 8, 15, 19). I do not see why the writer would use EKEINOS for the Father in this context.
>
HH: You leave out the possibility that EKEINOS refers to Christ, and
this is the standard interpretation of the passage. Verse 8 is a long
ways back to go to get the referent for EKEINOS, which can obtain a
referent simply because of the contrast in the immediate vicinity. The
contrast can be between QEOS and MONOGENHS QEOS. As you point out, the
author has already contrasted these two terms clearly by adding the
phrase hO WN ESI TON KOLPON TOU PATROS to the second. See how standard
translations handle the verse:
KJV John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
NIV: John 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who
is at the Father’s side, has made him known.
John 1:18 No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close
to the Father’s heart, who has made him known.
HH: You may object that there is no stated object for the verb
EXHGHSATO, but there is none under your theory either. MONOGENHS QEOS is
the subject of the last sentence, not the object. In both Greek and
Hebrew the verbal object is sometimes not stated if it has already been
mentioned in the sentence and is clear from the context.
Yours,
Harold Holmyard
>
---
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
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list