ADDITIONAL NOTES ON THE GREEK ARTICLE
[p. 85] ADDITIONAL NOTES ON THE GREEK ARTICLE
Every noun which is not itself a proper name is in direct contrast with this latter; it is the name of what a thing is, not of an individual.
When, in the nature of things, there is ostensibly only one, as sun, moon, heaven, imagination easily personifies them. But as John, Peter, etc., are names of individuals, or become so, so tree, table, glass, etc., is the name of a thing, not of an individual. Such a word, or appellative noun, answers to the question What? Just so a proper name answers to the question Who? I say, “Who, what individual, is that?” The reply is, “Peter, John,” etc. If I say, “What is that?” the answer is, “It is a tree, a table,” etc., that is what it is.
Habits of language may vary. A language may have an indefinite article, or use the number one for it; and either of these individualizes. Thus in French, un homme, a man; and even in Greek, ei|” (one) is often so used in the New Testament. But the noun in itself states what a thing is — table, chair, etc.
In this lies the whole doctrine of the article, at least the root of it all. The style of language varies as the mind of the people who speak it. An Englishman says “law”; that is, he uses the abstract idea “law” by itself.
French cannot bear this; it must have a positive object before the mind, it cannot deal in abstractions. Hence it can say sans loi, because sans excludes existence, but not par loi. Where the sentence implies existence it cannot use a mere abstract word. It must be toute loi, toute loi quelconque, or something tantamount.
Each nation may insist that its own habits of thought are the best. That does not affect the question which we have to treat.
Whenever a word is merely descriptive of something else, not an individual, it needs no article. So even in French, par bont�. In Latin all is thus abstract. Every noun, when not defined by a pronoun possessive or the like, answers to the question “What?” not to “Who?” It is not individualized. German and Dutch are more like French. Our business now is with the Greek; but the general principle will help us to understand it.
A noun, as elsewhere, is always a quality or kind of being, or answers to “What?” As, for instance, a[nqrwpo”, biov”, oijkiva, etc. The article makes it individual, oJ a[nqrwpo”. A similar principle will be found in Hebrew; and its form, when a word is in regimen, shews the individualizing, indicative, character of the article; Ish ha-Elohim, the man of God, that is, a man, that one, that is of God. So we have ha-Adam, that special race, or being, which God had created, and Himself quickened; so ha-nahar the Euphrates; ha-Baal the lord (Baal). Now, in Greek, when once we have taken a noun substantive for what a thing is called, and the article as indicative of individualization, all becomes easy. Novmo” pareishsee footnotelqe (Romans 5: 20), in English, “law,” the thing so called; oJ novmo”, the law; that is, of Moses. [Anqrwpo” h\lqe, What (not who) came? A being that was a man, not an angel. In English we should say “a man”; di j ajnqrwvpou, by man. In English, either “by a man,” or “by man” would do, but better “by man.”
[p. 87] Take, now, to illustrate the principle, John 1. JO lovgo” is an individual personal being; Qeov” a kind of being; pro;” to;n Qeovn a personal being; ejn ajrchsee footnote/ is absolute (ejn thsee footnote/ ajrchsee footnote/ would be a particular beginning, perhaps of all things; but one designated one); zwh; h\n, it is, what was there (hJ zwhv would have individualized it, and there would have been none anywhere else — that life would have been in Him alone as a whole); then hJ zwhv, because it is the life mentioned, that is, it is individualized. It is not what, but which life. So to; fwsee footnote” to; ajlhqinovn,+ it was the light of men. Here it is clearly individualized, a particular light, and, indeed, the only one owned as of men. In the case of thsee footnote/ skotiva/, it is important. You could not say fwsee footnote” faivnei ejn skotiva/ because there would be no darkness if the nature (the what) of the thing were in question, but thsee footnote/ skotiva/ is a particular darkness — abstract, no doubt, but what was opposite to the light of men, which was life in Christ the Word. What that found itself in was darkness opposed to it, and which could not comprehend it, the darkness of this world. It is stated mysteriously, but it is that darkness in which the light of men, Christ, shines. That darkness did not comprehend it — no doubt because it was darkness, but the opposite of that light. Whatever is contrasted has an article, for it is thereby a positive object individualized; consequently, as one whole before the mind; hence as above species.
jEgevneto a[nqrwpo” sent para; Qeousee footnote. What was sent? A man, not an angel; here it is evident. So para; Qeousee footnote is what the being was, he was sent from; para; tousee footnote Qeousee footnote is Greek, but it individualizes God, para; Qeousee footnote characterizes Him. The messenger was a man, but a man sent from God; o[noma aujtwsee footnote/ is not “his name was,” but “there was a name to him,” John. We have, lower down, to; o[noma aujtousee footnote: then it is a particular name amongst others. Here what had he? a name, which was John. You could not say, I apprehend, as stating a fact, o[noma aujtousee footnote, because the genitive gives a particular name — his name. It is known that in ordinary cases the possessive pronoun requires the article before the noun. Eij” marturivan, that is what he came for — his mission: what particular testimony it was, he goes on to say. JO kovsmo” is the one individual world, clearly.
+See earlier Morrish edition.
[p. 88] Ta; i[dia, oiJ i[dioi, I note as being plural, where the plurality itself clearly individualizes, gives positive objects as units to the mind — only it also embraces all of them — tav, oiJ, all the units which bear the name or designation of i[dia, i[dioi. jEx aiJmavtwn, etc., is clearly of what: ejk twsee footnoten aiJmavtwn would have specified the particular kinds, that is, individualized each kind of blood — probably it is meant to exclude all, if not a mere Hebraism. jEk qelhvmato” ajndrov” is noticeable because a genitive very commonly brings an article with it, as giving the particular kind of the governing noun, and so objectively individualizes it (to; fwsee footnote” twsee footnoten ajnqrwvpwn), but here the whole is merely what the thing is, ejk marking nature or quality. Their birth was not of that kind, this was not what it was. It is not merely an actual will supposed to exist in the individual man.
JO lovgo” savrx is a common form of proposition, that individual person or being did now become that.
Th;n dovxan aujtousee footnote, there was the particular actual glory which they saw; dovxan wJ” then, what it was, its quality. This may suffice.
Qeovn stands as a name. Yet involving they saw. Yet even here, where it is used personally and objectively, the article is used; pro;” to;n Qeovn, it was somebody He was with; para; Qeousee footnote, the quality of His mission. So here eJwvrake Qeovn, Him, who is truly such; to;n Qeovn would have been personally, and not have given the force; it would have been the fact. Here it is more in the nature of things.
In John 8 it is ejk tousee footnote Qeousee footnote, for it was from God Himself [that] He came out. In verse 44, Ye are ejk patro;” tousee footnote diabovlou; the devil is personal, individual; but they were not out of him personally but characteristically. They had him morally as their father. From the devil as father, the source of what they were.
To; yeusee footnotedo” objectively contrasted with hJ ajlhvqeia and so individualized; yeuvsth” is what he is.
jEk twsee footnoten ijdivwn — of distinct things which are his own.
So peri; aJmartiva” is neither one particular sin, nor as an ideal or abstract whole, but what they could or could not convict Him of.
[p. 89] So ajlhvqeian, speak truth, what characterizes the speaking. Hence, as heretofore observed, in such cases of accusatives after verbs, and of the verb substantive, an anarthrous word is usual.
In John 5: 37 we have an instance which might seem strange, fwnh;n aujtousee footnote. It is not properly his voice as one known voice which speaks, but a voice, any voice of his; so ei\do” aujtousee footnote, anything that was his form. It is not one known voice or form, but anything that (what) was that. But to;n lovgon aujtousee footnote (verse 38) because that is one recognized word. In verse 41, para; ajnqrwvpwn, that character of praise, para; twsee footnoten ajnqrwvpwn living individuals in fact. So verse 44, dovxan par j ajllhvlwn, but th;n dovxan th;n para; tousee footnote movnou Qeousee footnote.
John perhaps tests the principle best, from the peculiarly abstract way in which many things are stated by him. In more narrative books it is simpler.
I quote now some more peculiar forms. Acts 14: 3, iJkano;n me;n ou\n crovnon. Here, clearly, it was not the object to designate one particular, pretty long, time, individualizing it from others — but what the time was; it was a iJkano;” crovno”.
With h\n and ejgevneto, as stated, it is the question of what took place; there was a oJrmhv there [ver. 4 and some (h\san) were with the Jews and some with the apostles], verse 5, wJ” de; ejgevneto oJrmh; twsee footnoten ejqnwsee footnoten te kai; jIoudaivwn su;n toisee footnote”, etc. The individuals twsee footnoten of both classes.
It is a mistake to think there is never an anarthrous noun followed by an article. When the first noun depends on another word to which it answers, as “What,” and the following one is of individuals who refer to that, you will have the first anarthrous, the second not. When the first is an individual whole, dependent on the following genitive, it must have the article, to; plhsee footnoteqo” thsee footnote” povlew”.
It was the multitude, the one whole multitude of that city, not of another (verse 4); but oJrmh; twsee footnoten ejqnwsee footnoten, etc., because there it is merely what took place, and does not belong wholly and exclusively as an embodied individual to those people.
Verse 8, kaiv ti” ajnh;r ejn Luvstroi” ajduvnato” toisee footnote” posi;n. The man was ajduvnato” toisee footnote” posivn: his two individual feet, though there is no aujtousee footnote (his); cwlo;” ejk koiliva” mhtro;” (aujtousee footnote), his mother’s womb is merely a date to characterize his lameness. The womb is not before us objectively as an existing thing.
Verse 10, ei\pe megavlh/ thsee footnote/ fwnhsee footnote/ is somewhat peculiar but accounted for in the same way; megavlh/ fwnhsee footnote/ would do, but simply characterize the manner of ei\pe: thsee footnote/ fwnhsee footnote/ is his voice, raised to a loud pitch, — I have not the character of speaking but Paul’s voice; megavlh/ fwnhsee footnote/ is practically one word. Hence the article in the plural, unless there be a limiting word, means all of that kind.
Verse 13, tauvrou” bulls: tou;” tauvrou” would be individuals designated; and the what is tauvrou” that is, all that comes under that name.
All this is not a different principle from the previous paper on it, but goes to the root; the other more to the form. The former is grammatical, this metaphysical.
The noun is always characteristic, or the what of something, even when there is an article. The article indicates an individual, or single object (many if plural) which is that “what.” The form of subject and predicate is merely an effect of this. The person “oJ” or object I call man, the what of the object is an animal. Other words may take the place of the article in individualizing, as ti”, pasee footnote”, polloiv. OiJ polloiv is something else; oiJ gives a number of designated individuals in contrast with one, a number of individuals lost in the designation polloiv in contrast with some one or few otherwise connected though contrasted with them — oiJ hJgemovne”, oiJ polloiv; polloiv is, becomes, a qualification, not a mere uncertain number. Hence, as a general rule, an unmentioned individual kind has no article; a[ggelo”, a[nqrwpo”, pro;” parqevnon. It is what the being is; singular, but known by its character.
When mentioned, the article comes too as a rule, because an individual (now known) is designated.
There is an oracular absence of the article which, though apparently exceptional, only confirms the rule: pneusee footnotema agion: kai; duvnami” uJyivstou. It specially characterizes what it was and is, not merely historical of what took place, in which case the article would have been used. The translation (Acts 1: 8) is right: “Ye shall receive power, the Holy Ghost coming upon you”; not as in the margin: this would have been, I conceive, th;n duvnamin.