[Nathan Anderson]

Wallace doesn't always seem to be consistent. I'll leave finding examples of this in the section relevant to our paper as an exercise to the reader (or you may claim that there aren't any), but outside of his discussion on Colwell's Rule applied to John 1:1, we see evidence of this.

One example that stuck out at me was his examples of qualitative and definite uses of anarthrous nouns. It seems to me that, although he claims to be making these distinctions based on observed rules as well as context, he basically calls a particular noun either definite (sometimes) or qualitative (mostly) when it suits him.

Nota bene: (is it kosher to use Latin on these forums?)

(Update: Oops! I hastily wrote this out, and in doing so, I quoted the wrong first verse! I quoted his rendition of 1 John 4:8 when I meant to quote Hebrews 1:2.)

"Hebrews 1:2 - epi escatou twn hmerwn toutwn elalhsen hmin en uiw: In these last days, [God] has spoken to us in Son" (The Article, Part I, Section E, subsection b: "Qualitative", p. 245) Footnote 71: "Some translations render this 'his Son,' though this is probably too definite and introduces the idea of possession without either the article or a possessive pronoun."

Well, okay, I guess that makes sense, even though in the past it seems to me that we've allowed context to determine whether a possessive pronoun might be implied...but I'll let it slide.

But then Wallace breaks his own rule!

"Luke 5:12 - peswn epi proswpon: falling on [his] face" (The Article, Part I, Section E, subsection c: "Definite", p. 247)

I mean, am I reading this correctly? Why is it okay to add an implied "his" to Luke 5:12 and not to Hebrews 1:2? Wallace never makes clear what all the rules to his game are, which makes it seem like they are arbitrary. Maybe they are.

Comments?

-- Nathan

[Frank]

Hmm... yes... my big wallace beef is the whole qualitative category. Out of his 5 examples he only give one decent one in my view. "The God is love". How can he say that its the largest category when most of his examples of it are fishy.

Frank

[I am not Josiah Helsel]

Franky boy,

What's wrong with saying God IS love in a totally definite and non-qualitative sense? Wallace wants to say that God IS the QUALITY of love. But what does that mean? Why say God is the quality of love. Just what exactly is this quality of love Wallace talks about? I've never experienced or felt the quality of love. (No, I don't mean it that way! I am perfectly content with being single, so long as I have my Britney album with me...) But I do know what we mean by love. So Frank, my dear, what is wrong with say that God IS love?

I am not Josiah Helsel

[5280 feet]

Dear ouj Josiah and Frank,

It does seem that non-JBH has a point...perhaps even the category of qualitative collapses and disappears when examined too closely. Goodness, gracious...taking on the big guys. Perhaps NSA should sponsor a "Greek Fight Night" in which JH, er, non-JH and Wallace (or a stand-in) could duke it out. I might pay mone for such...
_________________
5280, which being interpreted means one mile

[TEnloe]

I'm way late on this post, Nathan, but I see your point about Wallace's seeming inconsistency. Certainly I wasn't convinced by his argument for qeos being qualitative in Jn 1:1. ISTM that his argument there wasn't so much about Greek grammar as it was about trying to rhetorically avoid heretical interpretations. But it's easy to rebut an argument like that, since rhetorically speaking, it was very risky for the First Nicene council to use the word omoousion to convey orthodox Christology.

It would have been better for Wallace if he had explained in more detail why and how he selected his opinions on those matters--especially given the two examples you listed.