Definite PVAPN

Roger Thornhill

Active member
Question for but not limited to @Gryllus Maior because he sees θεος at J 1:1c as definite.

Levinsohn in his “Discourse Features” calls attention to the section in Wallace’s grammar on page 243 and the category of anarthrous nouns with a definite force.

Wallace GGBB 263 gives Mt 27:42 and John 1:49 as examples of preverbal anarthrous predicate nominatives that precede the verb and which are definite.

Walace has a footnote (p 263 fn 21) that many of Colwell’s constructions have another feature that makes them definite such as monadic noun, a genitive modifier or is a proper name.

Levonsohn:163 after discussing Colwell's rule for Mt 27:42 as "cited by Wallace" says “The problem with any anarthrous substantive that is not a proper name is that, even if it has already been used in the passage (i.e,. has been activated), the new reference could still have an indefinite force.

So, it appears Levinsohn rejects Colwell's rule and Wallace qualifies it.

Do you see θεός at 1:1c as a monadic noun or as a proper name? It does not have a genitive modifier.

Or is there another reason and if so, what is it?
 
Last edited:

Gryllus Maior

Active member
Question for but not limited to @Gryllus Maior because he sees θεος at J 1:1c as definite.

Levinsohn in his “Discourse Features” calls attention to the section in Wallace’s grammar on page 243 and the category of anarthrous nouns with a definite force.

Wallace GGBB 263 gives Mt 27:42 and John 1:49 as examples of preverbal anarthrous predicate nominatives that precede the verb and which are definite.

Walace has a footnote (p 263 fn 21) that many of Colwell’s constructions have another feature that makes them definite such as monadic noun, a genitive modifier or is a proper name.

Levonsohn:163 after discussing Colwell's rule for Mt 27:42 as "cited by Wallace" says “The problem with any anarthrous substantive that is not a proper name is that, even if it has already been used in the passage (i.e,. has been activated), the new reference could still have an indefinite force.

So, it appears Levinsohn rejects Colwell's rule and Wallace qualifies it.

Do you see θεός at 1:1c as a monadic noun or as a proper name? It does not have a genitive modifier.

Or is there another reason and if so, what is it?
The PN in such constructions can be either definite or indefinite, depending on context. Here, since I see θεός as having the same referent as τὸν θεόν, it's naturally definite.
 

Roger Thornhill

Active member
The PN in such constructions can be either definite or indefinite, depending on context. Here, since I see θεός as having the same referent as τὸν θεόν, it's naturally definite.

And since Linguistics grammars say that the same subject is in view based on και, do you have a grammatical reason for your view or is it theological?
 

Roger Thornhill

Active member
The PN in such constructions can be either definite or indefinite, depending on context. Here, since I see θεός as having the same referent as τὸν θεόν, it's naturally definite.

I did not get back in time to edit so please forgive two responses. What you describe is said by Wallace GGBB 220 as Kataphoric as rare.

Are you equating the two referents as the same referent?
 
Question for but not limited to @Gryllus Maior because he sees θεος at J 1:1c as definite.

Levinsohn in his “Discourse Features” calls attention to the section in Wallace’s grammar on page 243 and the category of anarthrous nouns with a definite force.

Wallace GGBB 263 gives Mt 27:42 and John 1:49 as examples of preverbal anarthrous predicate nominatives that precede the verb and which are definite.

Walace has a footnote (p 263 fn 21) that many of Colwell’s constructions have another feature that makes them definite such as monadic noun, a genitive modifier or is a proper name.

Levonsohn:163 after discussing Colwell's rule for Mt 27:42 as "cited by Wallace" says “The problem with any anarthrous substantive that is not a proper name is that, even if it has already been used in the passage (i.e,. has been activated), the new reference could still have an indefinite force.

So, it appears Levinsohn rejects Colwell's rule and Wallace qualifies it.

Do you see θεός at 1:1c as a monadic noun or as a proper name? It does not have a genitive modifier.

Or is there another reason and if so, what is it?

Colwell's so-called "rule" was debunked long ago. I'm surprised anyone still takes it seriously. Does Gryllus still hold on to it ?
 
The PN in such constructions can be either definite or indefinite, depending on context. Here, since I see θεός as having the same referent as τὸν θεόν, it's naturally definite.

If θεός at John 1:1c has the same referent as τὸν θεόν in John 1:1b, then the Logos would be "with" (πρὸς) himself, so that's a non-starter.
 
And since Linguistics grammars say that the same subject is in view based on και, do you have a grammatical reason for your view or is it theological?

From previous discussions on this issue with him, it seems to be purely theological, though not an orthodox Trinitarian POV, since according to standard Trinitarians (like Wallace) his position (of taking θεός at John 1:1c as definite) is Modalism.
 

Roger Thornhill

Active member
From previous discussions on this issue with him, it seems to be purely theological, though not an orthodox Trinitarian POV, since according to standard Trinitarians (like Wallace) his position (of taking θεός at John 1:1c as definite) is Modalism.

Well he says it is because he sees them as having the same referent. That did not click with me and so I idiotically asked him what he had already stated.

But that makes the article at 1:1b kataphoric to 1:1c, and that is very rare according to Wallace.
 

Gryllus Maior

Active member
I did not get back in time to edit so please forgive two responses. What you describe is said by Wallace GGBB 220 as Kataphoric as rare.

Are you equating the two referents as the same referent?
Why are you bringing up yet another category? In John 1:1, both uses of θεός simply refer to "God." There is nothing in the context to suggest otherwise. The logos is with God and is God, and what that means has to be unpacked, which John does.
 

Gryllus Maior

Active member
Well he says it is because he sees them as having the same referent. That did not click with me and so I idiotically asked him what he had already stated.

But that makes the article at 1:1b kataphoric to 1:1c, and that is very rare according to Wallace.
No it doesn't. Anaphoric and cataphoric are not the only uses of the article. The article for τόν θεόν simply introduces a noun well known to the readers of the text in the larger framework.
 

Roger Thornhill

Active member
No it doesn't. Anaphoric and cataphoric are not the only uses of the article. The article for τόν θεόν simply introduces a noun well known to the readers of the text in the larger framework.

According to Wallace the individualizing articles are anaphoric in a general way even if they fit another category.

My comment refers to your saying that 1:1bc have the same referent and 1c is definite because 1:1b is definite.

So you are the one connecting the two. The well known article refers to a previous referent, in this case I presume you mean OT.

But 1:1c does not have the article and so it has nothing to point with. 1:1b does have the article and so it can point backwards and forwards. To point forward would make it cataphoric.
 
According to Wallace the individualizing articles are anaphoric in a general way even if they fit another category.

My comment refers to your saying that 1:1bc have the same referent and 1c is definite because 1:1b is definite.

So you are the one connecting the two. The well known article refers to a previous referent, in this case I presume you mean OT.

But 1:1c does not have the article and so it has nothing to point with. 1:1b does have the article and so it can point backwards and forwards. To point forward would make it cataphoric.
How can you fail to understand this, Gryllus!?
 
It's like dealing with particularly stubborn children who just refuse to listen.

A better analogy is that we refuse to listen to false teachers (Ref. 2 Cor. 11:13-15)

You seriously expect us to believe your private theory at John 1:1b and c ? Even Trinitarian academics reject your understanding here and call it Modalism . Here is Daniel Wallace GGBB p. 119:

Further, calling θεος in 1:1c definite is the same as saying that if it had followed the verb, it would have had the article. Thus it would be a convertible proposition with λόγος v (i.e., “the Word” = “God” and “God” = “the Word”). The problem with this argument is that the θεος in 1:1b is the Father. Thus to say that the θεος in 1:1c is the same person is to say that “the Word was the Father.” This, as the older grammarians and exegetes pointed out, is embryonic Sabellianism or Modalism.
 

Gryllus Maior

Active member
A better analogy is that we refuse to listen to false teachers (Ref. 2 Cor. 11:13-15)

You seriously expect us to believe your private theory at John 1:1b and c ? Even Trinitarian academics reject your understanding here and call it Modalism . Here is Daniel Wallace GGBB p. 119:
I don't really "expect" anything. Ironically, the matrix in which this convoluted exegesis represented by Wallace arose is the attempt to safeguard a developed Trinitarian theology of the relationship of the Father and the Son, which I think is far from John's thinking here. They have ignored the simplest explanation for the anarthrous θεός and fail to see the genius in John's approach.
 

Roger Thornhill

Active member
I don't really "expect" anything. Ironically, the matrix in which this convoluted exegesis represented by Wallace arose is the attempt to safeguard a developed Trinitarian theology of the relationship of the Father and the Son, which I think is far from John's thinking here. They have ignored the simplest explanation for the anarthrous θεός and fail to see the genius in John's approach.

How does your unique theory stack up to Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek (CGCG)?

Meaning of the Definite Article
--------------------------------------
Basic Meaning

28.1 Greek has a definite article (ὁ, ἡ, τό the), but no indefinite article (Engl. singular a or an ). The Greek equivalent of an indefinite article is the lack of an article: (e.a.)

(1) πρῶτον μὲν ἠρεμεῖν δεῖ διδάσκειν τὸν ἵππον. (Xen. Eq. 7.8) First it is necessary to teach the horse to stay still.

(2) οὐ γὰρ πώποτε ἐκτήσω ἵππον πλείονος ἄξιον ἢ τριῶν μνῶν. (Isae. 5.43) For you have never had a horse worth more than three minae.

The article is ‘definite’ because it refers to someone/something that is identifiable: the article expresses that it is clear who/what is meant, and that it can be distinguished from other people/things.

...

28.2 The lack of an article in prose is normally significant, but in poetry the article is omitted much more freely:

...

28.9 A predicative complement (→26.8–12) normally does not have the article, as it generally introduces new information. However, it has the article when it is identifiable for one of the reasons given above (e.g. because the concept has been mentioned before, or because it refers to an entire class):
 
Last edited:

Gryllus Maior

Active member
How does your unique theory stack up to Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek (CGCG)?



28.9 A predicative complement (→26.8–12) normally does not have the article, as it generally introduces new information. However, it has the article when it is identifiable for one of the reasons given above (e.g. because the concept has been mentioned before, or because it refers to an entire class):
28.9 A predicative complement (→26.8–12) normally does not have the article, as it generally introduces new information. However, it has the article when it is identifiable for one of the reasons given above (e.g. because the concept has been mentioned before, or because it refers to an entire class): (15) ὁ ἐρῶν τῶν καλῶν ἐραστὴς

Repeating this just because I can (since I finally got the Kindle edition of the grammar for just such emergencies). Yes, my theory fits quite well (and Smyth as well, who simply reports that PN's regularly omit the article in order to distinguish it from the subject). CGG here gives a discourse reason that is not necessarily in contradiction with the Smyth.
 

Roger Thornhill

Active member
I don't really "expect" anything. Ironically, the matrix in which this convoluted exegesis represented by Wallace arose is the attempt to safeguard a developed Trinitarian theology of the relationship of the Father and the Son, which I think is far from John's thinking here. They have ignored the simplest explanation for the anarthrous θεός and fail to see the genius in John's approach.

I tend to agree with that motive, not just for this subject and not just for this grammarian. Robertson and Harris do it for the same reason. Wallace does throughout his grammar. Colwell made a rule that Metzger used for the same purpose. And it seems that those who follow them will say anything to distract from a possible indefinite force to θεός at J 1:1c.
 
Top