Definite PVAPN

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
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.

The CGG quotes I gives reasons
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.
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.)

[A reason for an indefinite sense at J 1:1c]

(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.

[I don't see that you identify someone at J 1:1b or c with θεός, at least not the same way as CCG and natural language expects]

...




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

[I see your argument as an attempt to reduce the significance of the lack of article at 1:1c]
...

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):

[You identify θεός at J 1:1c the same as 1:1b contra this entry. If it was mentioned before .... ]
 

Gryllus Maior

Active member
The CGG quotes I gives reasons

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.)

[A reason for an indefinite sense at J 1:1c]

(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.

[I don't see that you identify someone at J 1:1b or c with θεός, at least not the same way as CCG and natural language expects]

...




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

[I see your argument as an attempt to reduce the significance of the lack of article at 1:1c]
...

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):

[You identify θεός at J 1:1c the same as 1:1b contra this entry. If it was mentioned before .... ]
Grammars are only the beginning of wisdom. The omitted article for the PN is so common that it barely needs mentioning. You need to graduate from the grammars to actual use of the language.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Grammars are only the beginning of wisdom. The omitted article for the PN is so common that it barely needs mentioning. You need to graduate from the grammars to actual use of the language.

Nah, the fear of the Lord (which you seem not to have) is:

9:10 ἀρχὴ σοφίας φόβος κυρίου καὶ βουλὴ ἁγίων σύνεσις
תְּחִלַּת חָכְמָה יִרְאַת יְהוָה וְדַעַת קְדֹשִׁים בִּינָֽה׃
Proverbs
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known 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.

Represented by Wallace and virtually every other Trinitarian grammarian, because it is undeniable. As I said, Wallace is compromised because of his Trinitarian a priori no doubt, but he can at least correctly discern the grammar and context at John 1:1b (if not at John 1:1c) despite his theology. You fail right at the second clause of John 1:1, hence you are called the EXTRA lost.

They have ignored the simplest explanation for the anarthrous θεός and fail to see the genius in John's approach.

Rather, you have ignored the simplest (and only) explanation of the articular θεός at John 1:1b,-- that the noun is the Father in Heaven.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Grammars are only the beginning of wisdom. The omitted article for the PN is so common that it barely needs mentioning. You need to graduate from the grammars to actual use of the language.

Let's look at Smyth who you quoted.

You said θεός John 1:1b was the category of well-known. That's a sub category of "The Particular Article." It "denotes individual persons or things as distinguished from others of the same kind." But you describe θεός at 1:1b as not a person that the Word is "in company with" but a more generic use of θεός.

And you don't distinguish it from "others of the same kind."

So, you should not appeal to Smyth for the use of the article at John 1:1 as you have done.

-----

THE PARTICULAR ARTICLE

1119. The particular article denotes individual persons or things as distinguished from others of the same kind. Thus, μαίνεται ἅ̄νθρωποςthe man is mad (a definite person, distinguished from other men) P. Phae. 268c.
1120. Special uses of the particular article. The particular article defines

a. Objects well known: ὁ τῶν ἑπτὰ σοφώτατος Σόλων Solon the wisest of the Seven (Sages) P. Tim. 20d.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
Let's look at Smyth who you quoted.

You said θεός John 1:1b was the category of well-known. That's a sub category of "The Particular Article." It "denotes individual persons or things as distinguished from others of the same kind." But you describe θεός at 1:1b as not a person that the Word is "in company with" but a more generic use of θεός.

And you don't distinguish it from "others of the same kind."

So, you should not appeal to Smyth for the use of the article at John 1:1 as you have done.

-----

THE PARTICULAR ARTICLE​

1119. The particular article denotes individual persons or things as distinguished from others of the same kind. Thus, μαίνεται ἅ̄νθρωποςthe man is mad (a definite person, distinguished from other men) P. Phae. 268c.
1120. Special uses of the particular article. The particular article defines

a. Objects well known: ὁ τῶν ἑπτὰ σοφώτατος Σόλων Solon the wisest of the Seven (Sages) P. Tim. 20d.

Yes, if ὁ Θεὸς at John 1:1b is the category of the "well-known," as one appeals to Smyth on this score, then they would have to conclude that ὁ Θεὸς here is the Father. It is "well known" that the God of Jesus was the Father (and indeed of the Jews of Jesus's day as well), and not some unknown, undefined generic force of some sort waiting for "John" to apprehend in his prologue in some "genius" and "mysterious" way. Hence we start at 1 John 1:2 (ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα), and 1 John 2:1 (πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν), and John 8:42 (Εἰ ὁ Θεὸς Πατὴρ ὑμῶν ἦν), 2 Cor. 11:31 (ὁ Θεὸς καὶ Πατὴρ τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ ), and 1 Cor. 8:6 (ἀλλ’ ἡμῖν εἷς Θεὸς ὁ Πατήρ) and on and on...
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
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.

That is not true. Please do not continue to mis-represent Smyth on this score relative to John 1:1c. We have already straightened this out in another thread. Also, it is not his position that the only reason for the lack of the article in a S-PN construction ( with anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb) is to distinguish such a substantive from the Subject. Underlined above is "Gryllus's rule" which no serious grammarian subscribes to. Certainly not Smyth.

Don't be a false teacher, just maybe listen and learn for a change.
 

Gryllus Maior

Active member
That is not true. Please do not continue to mis-represent Smyth on this score relative to John 1:1c. We have already straightened this out in another thread. Also, it is not his position that the only reason for the lack of the article in a S-PN construction ( with anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb) is to distinguish such a substantive from the Subject. Underlined above is "Gryllus's rule" which no serious grammarian subscribes to. Certainly not Smyth.

Don't be a false teacher, just maybe listen and learn for a change.
You corrected nothing. Smyth explicitly states it.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Grammars are only the beginning of wisdom. The omitted article for the PN is so common that it barely needs mentioning. You need to graduate from the grammars to actual use of the language.

I think this quote from CCG belongs with your statement: "The omitted article for the PN is so common that it barely needs mentioning."

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