[B-Greek] Definiteness
Brian Abasciano
bvabasciano at gmail.com
Thu Oct 12 01:28:55 EDT 2006
Sean,
By taking your point, I meant conceding, in case that wasn't clear.
I don't have time to look over all these examples. But let me say that
if they are all anarthrous preverbal PN's (I checked a few and saw that they
were), I would take most of them to not be fully represented by the English
translation, though I would say that these may still be the best
translations
possible. We can't always convey the full sense of the underlying Greek by a
normal type of English translation. I agree with Wallace and take such PN's
to empasize the characteristics of the class they belong to rather than
their membership in the class. I don't think the indefinite article
communicates that in English as clearly as the Greek. Wallace cites your
first example (Jn 4:19) as the most likely candidate of an indefinite
preverbal PN in the NT, but eventually concludes that it is best seen as
indefinite-qualitative, stressing Jesus' prophetic powers rather than his
membership in the class of prophets. I concur, though it certainly could be
strictly indefinite, which would then be well represented by the Englsih
translation using "a". As for the basis? I would say it is ultimately
context. But when so many are judged to be qualitative, then that becomes
the standard expectation of such constructions, and one finds this stated in
a grammar like Wallace, though one always needs to be open to other
possibilities on a case by case basis. I think we both agree with Harner (as
you cited him) that anarthrous preverbal PN's are generally primarily
qualitative. When they are, I don't think the English indefinite article
usually gives the same impression in English, though it can, and though
including "a" is often still the best we can do translation-wise because of
the awkwardness that often results in English when there is no sort of
article attached to a PN. It isn't always the case though. Using a few of
your examples, it would be awkward in English to say, "Sir, I see that you
are prophet" (4:19) to emphasize the prophetic character of the person
addressed. But it would not be overly awkward, and so I think these would be
better translations to represent the underlying Greek to say, "everyone who
commits sin is slave to sin" (8:34), and even better in English idiom, "you
are Samaritan" (8:48) [though admittedly, this last one plays on the English
coincidence of the same form for adjective and noun].
I don't know if we are now getting too much into translation as opposed to
grammar, but I hope I answered your question.
God bless,
Brian Abasciano
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sean Kasabuske" <alethinon61 at milwpc.com>
To: "Brian Abasciano" <bvabasciano at gmail.com>; <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Definiteness
> Brian
> "Thank you. I found your response helpful and take your point."
>
> Sean
> You're welcome, and thanks for engaging in this dialogue with me. I'm
> curious though, do you believe that the translations of the PN-V's below
> are mistranslations, or do they accurately convey the sense of the
> underlying Greek? If you don't believe that they accurately convey the
> sense of the underlying Greek, then on what do you base that
> understanding?
>
> 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)
>
> Thanks,
> Sean Kasabuske
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Abasciano" <bvabasciano at gmail.com>
> To: "Sean Kasabuske" <alethinon61 at milwpc.com>; <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 10:39 AM
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Definiteness
>
>
>> Sean,
>>
>> Thank you. I found your response helpful and take your point.
>>
>> God bless,
>>
>> Brian Abasciano
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Sean Kasabuske" <alethinon61 at milwpc.com>
>> To: "Brian Abasciano" <bvabasciano at gmail.com>;
>> <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 6:48 AM
>> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Definiteness
>>
>>
>>> 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