καλεῖται ἡ ἀκρόπολις ἔτι ὑπ᾽ Ἀθηναίων πόλις

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
I've not seen a single clear and irrefutable example of a definite anarthrous predicate nominative before the "be" verb in apostle John's writings. But I've seen plenty of instances where such nouns CANNOT be definite in his Gospel. Trinitarian Harner claimed that the following cannot be definite in the Gospel of John: John 1:14, 2:9, 3:4, 3:6 (twice), 4:9, 6:36, 7:12, 8:31, 8:44 (twice), 8:48, 9:8, 9:24-31 (5 times), 10:1, 10:8, 10:33-34 (twice), 12:6, 12:36, 18:26, 18:35. For once, he was absolutely correct. The record speaks for itself, θεὸς at John 1:1c is not definite. The betting average is zero, or best case, close to zero.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
By the way, notice that Harner included S-PN constructions with γίνομαι in his analysis of constructions which he considered to be parallel to the construction at John 1:1c. For starters, he included John 1:14 --

Καὶ ὁ Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο
 

Gryllus Maior

Active member
At the syntactical and structural level, both constructions are identical: both have a conjunction , both have an equative verb, both have the preposition πρὸς followed by a substantive in the accusative and both have a substantive in the nominative.




Smyth whom you cited disagrees with you here. He says a predicate noun in a construction like the one he furnished at 1150 ( without an equative verb) does NOT have the article. But in a S-PN construction with an equative verb, the PN can indeed have the article (see John 1:4). So there is at least one difference between the rules governing the predicate noun in the two different types of constructions under consideration. Please address and interact instead of just repeating empty slogans like "No, you're just wrong."

The problem you have is in not recognizing that an anarthrous pre-verbal PN is NEVER definite in the writings of apostle John, and possibly never in the entire GNT. Additionally, if you take a sample of all S-PN constructions (pre-verbal or otherwise) in the writings of apostle John and of the GNT in general you will find that most PNs are indefinite, and indefinite nouns cannot be the subject. That is the real reason why most PNs are anarthrous , and not as you insist, in order to distinguish them from the subject.

P.S. Again, please interact with the arguments instead of just repeating that you are right and I'm wrong.
Well, you are wrong, and in fact what you've written here approximates utter and complete nonsense. Your claim that "indefinite nouns cannot be the subject" is absurd, and is easily refuted even from John 1:


6 Ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος,c ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ θεοῦ, ὄνομα αὐτῷ Ἰωάννης...

No definite preverbal PN's, possibly in the entire GNT? Matthew 12:8,

κύριος γάρ ἐστιν τοῦ σαββάτου ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.

Nobody is going to listen to you if you continue making up rules backed up by indefensible claims.
 

Gryllus Maior

Active member
I've not seen a single clear and irrefutable example of a definite anarthrous predicate nominative before the "be" verb in apostle John's writings. But I've seen plenty of instances where such nouns CANNOT be definite in his Gospel. Trinitarian Harner claimed that the following cannot be definite in the Gospel of John: John 1:14, 2:9, 3:4, 3:6 (twice), 4:9, 6:36, 7:12, 8:31, 8:44 (twice), 8:48, 9:8, 9:24-31 (5 times), 10:1, 10:8, 10:33-34 (twice), 12:6, 12:36, 18:26, 18:35. For once, he was absolutely correct. The record speaks for itself, θεὸς at John 1:1c is not definite. The betting average is zero, or best case, close to zero.
In language usage, context trumps statistics every time.
 

Gryllus Maior

Active member
By the way, notice that Harner included S-PN constructions with γίνομαι in his analysis of constructions which he considered to be parallel to the construction at John 1:1c. For starters, he included John 1:14 --
"For starters..." So juvenile. John 1:14 uses the abstract noun σάρξ, so it's no semantically equivalent.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Well, you are wrong, and in fact what you've written here approximates utter and complete nonsense. Your claim that "indefinite nouns cannot be the subject" is absurd, and is easily refuted even from John 1:


6 Ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος,c ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ θεοῦ, ὄνομα αὐτῷ Ἰωάννης...

This is not a S-PN construction (the comma should have given you pause on this score). Rather ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ θεοῦ is in apposition to ἄνθρωπος . That Ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος stands alone is shown by the fact that if you were to take ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ θεοῦ out of the equation, the sentence makes perfect sense -- Ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος, ὄνομα αὐτῷ Ἰωάννης. Ἐγένετο X is Semitic Greek (the equivalent of what Trinitarians refer to as "translational Greek") and such a mode of speech is not infrequently encountered in the LXX. Also you seem to conveniently forget your own objections ( you say the verb Ἐγένετο is a non-starter vis a vis ἦν in any S-PN construction but not when it serves your purposes). In any case, here is an actual example of a S-PN construction:

ἀλλ’ ὅτι κλέπτης ἦν

John 12:6

See, the PN ? The writer did not consciously remove the article from it in order to distinguish it from the subject (only a code breaker would even begin to think this way), but it is anarthrous precisely because the writer wished it to be indefinite. It's hard to imagine such a noun as the subject in a S-PN construction. I did not have to learn this from any grammar book, only read enough Biblical Koine to intuitively realize that an indefinite substantive in a S-PN construction is rarely (if ever) the Subject. Not seen one so far.


No definite preverbal PN's, possibly in the entire GNT? Matthew 12:8,

κύριος γάρ ἐστιν τοῦ σαββάτου ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.

First of all, this is not from the Gospel of John. Secondly, I take κύριος here as indefinite. And thirdly, Trinitarians take κύριος here qualitatively, rather than definitely. Read Harner on this score, here. A snippet:

"Possibly he means that the Son of Man is "the" Lord of the Sabbath. But this translation would shift the emphasis of the whole passage dealing with sabbath observance. The question is not who the lord of the Sabbath is, or what the nature or authority of the Son of Man is. Thus it appears more appropriate to say that the son of man is simply "lord" of the sabbath. The predicate noun has a distinct qualitative force, which is more prominent in this context than it's definiteness or indefiniteness."
:)

So "nobody" agrees with you here.

Nobody is going to listen to you if you continue making up rules backed up by indefensible claims.

Bold above seems to be your forte, not mine.... On another note, my posts are for an audience of One, namely He Who must not be Named, so not too concerned what "readers" think.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
"For starters..." So juvenile. John 1:14 uses the abstract noun σάρξ, so it's no semantically equivalent.
σάρξ in John 1:14 is not an abstract noun, but is a synecdoche meaning "a human being." It is clearly indefinite. I'm rather surprised -- your biblical Greek is quite deficient. Not that I mind. :ROFLMAO:
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
In language usage, context trumps statistics every time.

Problem is that neither the context nor the statistics are you friends here.

I mean when even Trinitarians like Wallace start condemning your position at John 1:1c, that should be a huge wake up call, shouldn't it ? But not for the Gryllus, apparently.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
"For starters..." So juvenile. John 1:14 uses the abstract noun σάρξ, so it's no semantically equivalent.


@Gryllus Maior

I am curious as to why you are so dogmatic that σαρχ is abstract at John 1:14 when BDAG says otherwise.

BDAG has 1. the material that covers the bones of a human or animal body but assigns σαρχ at John 1:14 to 3. one who is or becomes a physical being, living being with flesh.

An example in John for the latter category is John 17:2 where the NRSV renders it “people.”

Also Louw-Nida
9.11 σάρξ, σαρκός f: (a figurative extension of meaning of σάρξ 'flesh,' 8.63) humans as physical
beings - 'people, human being.' πᾶσα σὰρξ ὡς χόρτος 'all people are like grass' 1 Pe 1.24; ὁ λόγος
σὰρξ ἐγένετο 'the Word became a human being' Jn 1.14.

I checked the resources you have recently quoted here and they don't appear to favor an anarthrous noun as abstract.

Smyth
1131. Abstract substantives generally have the article: ἡ ἀρετὴ μᾶλλον ἢ ἡ φυγὴ σῴζει τὰ̄ς ψῡχά̄ς valour rather than flight saves men's lives X. C. 4.1.5.

CCG
28.7 A noun usually also has the article when it refers to an abstract concept (note that English does not use the article in such cases):


Interesting Smyth on the lack of the article says:

1129. Words denoting persons, when they are used of a class, may omit the article. So ἄνθρωπος, στρατηγός, θεός divinity, god (ὁ θεός the particular god). Thus, πάντων μέτρον ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν man is the measure of all things P. Th. 178b.
 
Last edited:

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Mark 1:4 just came to my remembrance :

ἐγένετο Ἰωάνης ὁ βαπτίζων ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ κηρύσσων βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν.

This is not a S-PN construction, now is it ? ὁ βαπτίζων ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ is rather in apposition to Ἰωάνης


Similarly at John 1:6 ( Ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος,c ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ θεοῦ, ὄνομα αὐτῷ Ἰωάννης...) we do not have a S-PN construction.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
@Gryllus Maior

I am curious as to why you are so dogmatic that σαρχ is abstract at John 1:14 when BDAG says otherwise.

BDAG has 1. the material that covers the bones of a human or animal body but assigns σαρχ at John 1:14 to 3. one who is or becomes a physical being, living being with flesh.

An example in John for the latter category is John 17:2 where the NRSV renders it “people.”

I checked the resources you have recently quoted here and they don't appear to favor an anarthrous noun as abstract.

Smyth
1131. Abstract substantives generally have the article: ἡ ἀρετὴ μᾶλλον ἢ ἡ φυγὴ σῴζει τὰ̄ς ψῡχά̄ς valour rather than flight saves men's lives X. C. 4.1.5.

CCG
28.7 A noun usually also has the article when it refers to an abstract concept (note that English does not use the article in such cases):


Interesting Smyth on the lack of the article says:

1129. Words denoting persons, when they are used of a class, may omit the article. So ἄνθρωπος, στρατηγός, θεός divinity, god (ὁ θεός the particular god). Thus, πάντων μέτρον ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν man is the measure of all things P. Th. 178b.

Just great....:)
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Just great....:)


Louw-Nida 9.11 σάρξ, σαρκός f: (a figurative extension of meaning of σάρξ 'flesh,' 8.63) humans as physical beings - 'people, human being.' πᾶσα σὰρξ ὡς χόρτος 'all people are like grass' 1 Pe 1.24; ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο 'the Word became a human being' Jn 1.14.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Louw-Nida 9.11 σάρξ, σαρκός f: (a figurative extension of meaning of σάρξ 'flesh,' 8.63) humans as physical beings - 'people, human being.' πᾶσα σὰρξ ὡς χόρτος 'all people are like grass' 1 Pe 1.24; ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο 'the Word became a human being' Jn 1.14.

But of course....
 
Top