Skip to content

John 4:25

Stirling Bartholomew wrote: Salience marking of the anarthrous definite noun is a difficult concept for some of us to adjust to. It seems counter intuitive at least to English language natives. But it is affirmed by several of the widely read authors in NT text-linguistics.
Yeah, though I'd feel better if I could find some study outside of Koine or ancient Greek that addressed this. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — December 9th, 2013, 4:02 am
 
Stephen Carlson wrote:
Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:
Peter Streitenberger wrote:Joh 4,25: Λέγει αὐτῷ ἡ γυνή, Οἶδα ὅτι Μεσίας ἔρχεται- ὁ λεγόμενος χριστός· ὅταν ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος, ἀναγγελεῖ ἡμῖν πάντα. Is it possible that the woman has *a* Messiah in mind, that means not a determined one? If so, it should be translated: "I know that *a* Messiah comes" instead of "*the* Messiah".
In the light of the recent discussions about the linguistic explanations for the use of the article it would be very interesting to hear discourse based explanations for this. But the first thing to notice is that "determined" is a wrong term for the Greek article, especially if it bears the baggage of the English articles.
As Janssen formulated Levinsohn's approach to the article, "the article is used with a noun only if the writer assumes identifiability on the part of the reader, and does not wish to give prominence to the constituent concerned." In this case, the position of Μεσίας before the verb suggests that it is prominent. As a result, this example does not fit the use of the article. Since the non-use of the article here says nothing about the definiteness of Μεσίας due to its prominence, one would have to rely on world knowledge--i.e., how reasonable would it be that there could be two Messiahs at any given time. My sense is that, outside of certain sectarian communities, Μεσίας is inherently definite.
Salience marking of the anarthrous definite noun is a difficult concept for some of us to adjust to. It seems counter intuitive at least to English language natives. But it is affirmed by several of the widely read authors in NT text-linguistics. Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — December 8th, 2013, 5:16 pm
 
Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:
Peter Streitenberger wrote:Joh 4,25: Λέγει αὐτῷ ἡ γυνή, Οἶδα ὅτι Μεσίας ἔρχεται- ὁ λεγόμενος χριστός· ὅταν ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος, ἀναγγελεῖ ἡμῖν πάντα. Is it possible that the woman has *a* Messiah in mind, that means not a determined one? If so, it should be translated: "I know that *a* Messiah comes" instead of "*the* Messiah".
In the light of the recent discussions about the linguistic explanations for the use of the article it would be very interesting to hear discourse based explanations for this. But the first thing to notice is that "determined" is a wrong term for the Greek article, especially if it bears the baggage of the English articles.
As Janssen formulated Levinsohn's approach to the article, "the article is used with a noun only if the writer assumes identifiability on the part of the reader, and does not wish to give prominence to the constituent concerned." In this case, the position of Μεσίας before the verb suggests that it is prominent. As a result, this example does not fit the use of the article. Since the non-use of the article here says nothing about the definiteness of Μεσίας due to its prominence, one would have to rely on world knowledge--i.e., how reasonable would it be that there could be two Messiahs at any given time. My sense is that, outside of certain sectarian communities, Μεσίας is inherently definite. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — December 8th, 2013, 2:54 pm
 
cwconrad wrote:
John 4:25 λέγει αὐτῷ ἡ γυνή· οἶδα ὅτι Μεσσίας ἔρχεται ὁ λεγόμενος χριστός
I'm wondering whether the attributive phrase, ὁ λεγόμενος χριστός, doesn't factor into this anarthrous Μεσσίας. [...]
I just thought of something. Is it possible that "ο λεγομενος χριστος" was an insert by the writer, rather than spoken by the woman, in light of John 1:41? It doesn't affect the implication that "μεσσιας" was understood to refer to a particular one, but it would mean that it may not be an ordinary "attributive"? Statistics: Posted by David Lim — December 7th, 2013, 11:13 am
 
John 4:25 λέγει αὐτῷ ἡ γυνή· οἶδα ὅτι Μεσσίας ἔρχεται ὁ λεγόμενος χριστός
I'm wondering whether the attributive phrase, ὁ λεγόμενος χριστός, doesn't factor into this anarthrous Μεσσίας. Cf. Smyth §1142:
1142. When the name of a person or place is defined by an appositive (916) or attributive, the following distinctions are to be noted: a. Persons: Περδίκκᾱς Ἀλεξάνδρου Perdiccas, son of Alexander T. 2. 99: the official designation merely stating the parentage. Δημοσθένης ὁ Ἀλκισθένους (the popular designation) distinguishes Demosthenes, the son of Alcisthenes (T. 3. 91) from other persons named Demosthenes. (Similarly with names of nations.).
But perhaps this may be one of those usages of the article that differ between Hellenistic and the older Attic Greek, as Stephen Carlson has mentioned. Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — December 7th, 2013, 8:32 am