Predicate Nominatives in the prologue where subject and complement are articular

John Milton

Well-known member
@Gryllus Maior is incapable of responding to our discussions to your satisfaction?

I have not found that to be the case, in fact on one occasion he corrected me and I thanked him for it.
My initial post had nothing to do with Gryllus. You got yourself into this mess with your strawman claim, and your inaccurate and lazy response made it worse.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
My initial post had nothing to do with Gryllus. You got yourself into this mess with your strawman claim, and your inaccurate and lazy response made it worse.

What is clear is that those who say that θεός is anarthrous so that the subject can be identified are wrong. John 1:4 proves this and for the same linguistics reason as John 1:1c.

If this does not apply to you, that is fine. You may disagree with @Gryllus Maior and agree with Wallace/Harris that a definite θεός at 1:1c identifies Jesus with the Father.

For such a studied verse that has high theological significance it's quite surprising that while Trinitarians agree with the theological meaning, they don't agree on why.

Before about 1950 Trinitarian scholars considered θεός at 1:1c to be qualitative.

Then Metzger miss used Colwell to prove it was definite. Then Paul Dixon cleared that up and most are back to qualitative.

It's just amazing. I may amaze easily.
 

Gryllus Maior

Well-known member
What is clear is that those who say that θεός is anarthrous so that the subject can be identified are wrong. John 1:4 proves this and for the same linguistics reason as John 1:1c.

If this does not apply to you, that is fine. You may disagree with @Gryllus Maior and agree with Wallace/Harris that a definite θεός at 1:1c identifies Jesus with the Father.

For such a studied verse that has high theological significance it's quite surprising that while Trinitarians agree with the theological meaning, they don't agree on why.

Before about 1950 Trinitarian scholars considered θεός at 1:1c to be qualitative.

Then Metzger miss used Colwell to prove it was definite. Then Paul Dixon cleared that up and most are back to qualitative.

It's just amazing. I may amaze easily.
Here is Calvin on John 1:1c:


And the Speech was God

. That there may be no remaining doubt as to Christ’s divine essence, the Evangelist distinctly asserts that he is God. Now since there is but one God, it follows that Christ is of the same essence with the Father, and yet that, in some respect, he is distinct from the Father. But of the second clause we have already spoken. As to the unity of the divine essence, Arius showed prodigious wickedness, when, to avoid being compelled to acknowledge the eternal Divinity of Christ, he prattled about I know not what imaginary Deity; 12 but for our part, when we are informed that the Speech was God, what right have we any longer to call in question his eternal essence?

interestingly enough, no mention of definite articles or predicate nominatives. No mention of "qualitative." He simply read and properly understood the implications of the text. Calvin is more than capable in the languages:

I wonder what induced the Latins to render ὁ λόγος by Verbum, (the Word;) for that would rather have been the translation of τὸ ῥη̑μα. But granting that they had some plausible reason, still it cannot be denied that Sermo (the Speech) would have been far more appropriate. Hence it is evident, what barbarous tyranny was exercised by the theologians of the Sorbonne, 10 who teased and stormed at Erasmus in such a manner, because he had changed a single word for the better.

At any rate, the grammatical discussion so distorted by our participants on this forum are practically nonexistent before the 19th century, and rare until the mid-20th century. This partly because scholars knew the language on a level not always attained even by our Ph.D's these days, and so could assume a common frame of reference.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Here is Calvin on John 1:1c:






interestingly enough, no mention of definite articles or predicate nominatives. No mention of "qualitative." He simply read and properly understood the implications of the text. Calvin is more than capable in the languages:



At any rate, the grammatical discussion so distorted by our participants on this forum are practically nonexistent before the 19th century, and rare until the mid-20th century. This partly because scholars knew the language on a level not always attained even by our Ph.D's these days, and so could assume a common frame of reference.

Or it could be that disagreeing with Calvin on this topic was a capital offense in Geneva. No need for rigor. Not that he was the first. The inquisition proved that.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
What is clear is that those who say that θεός is anarthrous so that the subject can be identified are wrong.
This is a specific claim about a specific verse. It has nothing to with the claim that you made in your initial post.
John 1:4 proves this and for the same linguistics reason as John 1:1c.
Your assertion is nothing more than an appeal to context in the guise of linguistics. The fact is that many grammarians point to the article as a means to distinguish the subject (which is often articular) from the predicate nominative. You might disagree as to whether or not this is the best explanation for what we find in John 1:1, but it is a reasonable explanation.
If this does not apply to you, that is fine. You may disagree with @Gryllus Maior and agree with Wallace/Harris that a definite θεός at 1:1c identifies Jesus with the Father.

For such a studied verse that has high theological significance it's quite surprising that while Trinitarians agree with the theological meaning, they don't agree on why.

Before about 1950 Trinitarian scholars considered θεός at 1:1c to be qualitative.

Then Metzger miss used Colwell to prove it was definite. Then Paul Dixon cleared that up and most are back to qualitative.

It's just amazing. I may amaze easily.
I do believe you are easily amazed.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
Here is Calvin on John 1:1c:






interestingly enough, no mention of definite articles or predicate nominatives. No mention of "qualitative." He simply read and properly understood the implications of the text. Calvin is more than capable in the languages:



At any rate, the grammatical discussion so distorted by our participants on this forum are practically nonexistent before the 19th century, and rare until the mid-20th century. This partly because scholars knew the language on a level not always attained even by our Ph.D's these days, and so could assume a common frame of reference.
I agree with the thrust of this. I don't see what is gained by applying a specific label to what John wrote. Either option is a possibility, and neither option "proves" much.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Here is Calvin on John 1:1c:






interestingly enough, no mention of definite articles or predicate nominatives. No mention of "qualitative." He simply read and properly understood the implications of the text. Calvin is more than capable in the languages:



At any rate, the grammatical discussion so distorted by our participants on this forum are practically nonexistent before the 19th century, and rare until the mid-20th century. This partly because scholars knew the language on a level not always attained even by our Ph.D's these days, and so could assume a common frame of reference.

Before the 19th century:

 

Gryllus Maior

Well-known member
Before the 19th century:

Among the very few places where this is discussed with any attention to Greek grammar. They really don't add anything to the discussion, do they?
 

Gryllus Maior

Well-known member
My point is that the grammar for the lack of the article was discussed much earlier than you portrayed.

It's not a new development.
Oh, is that your point? I had forgotten about Origen and Athanasius, actually, so I'll alter my comment to "very little" discussion. And there really is very little discussion. If there discussion actually helps anybody today, please illustrate how.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Oh, is that your point? I had forgotten about Origen and Athanasius, actually, so I'll alter my comment to "very little" discussion. And there really is very little discussion. If there discussion actually helps anybody today, please illustrate how.

Here is your comment:
Post in thread 'Predicate Nominatives in the prologue where subject and complement are articular'
https://forums.carm.org/threads/pre...-and-complement-are-articular.1378/post-90505

Earlier you said one of the reasons you participated here was to help defend the orthodox Trinitarian view, or words to that effect.

Now it appears you appeal to Calvin as one who defended the orthodox view without demonstrating it from the languages. We should trust him because he knows the languages.

I see how someone who portrays themselves as widely read in the languages could admire Calvin and this approach.

It strikes me as authoritarian, "trust me, I am widely read." I would expect this from the RCC before the reformation.

Calvin benefited from those who challenged the church and studied the languages making their own translations. Wycliffe, Tyndale and others risked their lives to do this.

It's ironic that Servetus lost his life at the hands of the reformers.

What benefit are these discussions? I am not here to proselytize or convince others to join me in any way. I am here to advance my understanding of the languages in my own little niche. I am here also for entertainment. It's an avocation.

I have been given incentive to crack open old dusty tomes and have advanced my understanding of newer books on linguistics.

I have honed my arguments and yes, I am encouraged that they are solid.

Having someone say that it's wrong because they say so does not change this.
 
Top