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. Where, 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, εἱς (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 bonte. 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"? or, 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,
ανθρωρος, βιος, οικια, etc. The article makes it individual, ὁ ανθρωπος; a similar principle will be found in Hebrew; and its form, when a word is in regimen, shows 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; -νομος παρεισηλθε-(Rom. 5:2020Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: (Romans 5:20)) in English, "law," the thing so called; ὁ νομος, the law (scilicet) of Moses; ανθρωπος, What (not who) came? A being that was a man not an angel. In English we should say "a man;" δἰ ανθρωπον, by man. In English, either "by a man," or "by man" would do, but better " by man."
What follows is striking: ὁ θανατος; but αναστασις νεκρων, anarthrous: The latter-this thing what is called by that name; the former might have been equally anarthrous, but ὁ points it out as the well known king of terrors. It is individualized, a being to the mind. Abstractions are the chief difficulty: being the article individualizes. But a thoroughly abstract word is made a unity of, i.e., individualized by contrast with all other things possible compared with it. Hence an individual of any kind, and an abstraction will both have the article. When I say "man," I individualize the kind or race, sum up qualities which distinguish him from animals, angels, God, etc., with which the mind would compare him. So ὁ ανθρωπος may be man, that kind of being summed up as an individual being in thought, or a particular individual man, already known. So ὁ νομος may be " law," or " Moses's law," or any other known law; less familiar here because νομος is more difficult to individualize abstractedly by a tacit comparison with other things: a few particular laws, is what we think of, or law simply in its nature, i.e., the name for what it is. Law cannot be so abstract a thought, is more positively instituted. With abstract qualities, the case is simple. That particular one is, itself, in contrast with all other qualities, ἡ ανομια, ἡ ἁμαρτια. I think it will be found that of such words, those that are in kind familiar to us in detail, we make what is called an abstraction of; i.e., we sum up the various things as a whole, and it becomes a unity, and in Greek has an article: as ἡ ἁμαρτια, ἡ ανομια. The principle applies anywhere, but such a word as νομος, for example, is less liable to be summed up thus. Species afford facility for this; if accustomed to be viewed as species, they are individualized in contrast with other species. In English every species is not individualized: the word remains -a kind of adjective. I say man. I say the horse, meaning the horse tribe, and the ox, sheep, that class. God and man are alone, I think, given a personal name thus, in English. It is not a set of beings, but a being. It is really a name.
Take, now, to illustrate the principle John chap. 1:- ὁ λογος is an individual personal being;-Θεος a kind of being;-προς τον Θεον a personal being; εν αρχη is absolute, [εν τη αρχη would be a particular beginning, perhaps, of all things, but one, designated one]; ξωη ην; it is, what was there [ἡ ξωη would have individualized it, and there would have been none anywhere else,—that life would have been in Him alone as a whole]; then ἡ ζωη, because it is the life mentioned, i.e., it is individualized. It is not what—but which life. So το φως το αληθινον, 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 τη σκοτια, it is important. You could not say φως φαινει εν because there would be no darkness if the nature (the what) of the thing was in question, but τη σκοτια 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 a 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. Εγενετο ανθρωπος sent παρα Θεου. What was sent? A man, not an angel; here it is evident. So παρα Θεου is what the being was, he was sent from; παρα του Θεου is Greek, but it individualizes God, παρα Θεου characterizes Him: the messenger was a man, but a man sent from God;-ονομα αυτω, is not his name was, but there was a name to him, John. We have, lower down, το ονομα αυτου, here 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 ονομα αυτου, 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;-εις μαρτυριαν, that is what he came for-his mission, what particular testimony it was, he goes on to say;-ὁ κοσμος is the one individual world, clearly;-τα ιδια, οἱ ιδιοι, 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, τα, οἱ all the units which bear the name or designation of ιδια, ιδιοι;-εξ αἱματων, etc., is clearly of what: εκ των αἱματων would have specified the particular kinds, i.e., individualized each kind of blood,-probably it is meant to exclude all, if not a mere hebraism εκ θεληματος ανδρος 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 (το φως των ανθρωπων), but here the whole is merely what the thing is, εκ marking nature or quality. Their birth was not of that kind, that was not what it was. It is not merely an actual will supposed to exist in the individual man.
ὁ λογος σαρξ is a common form of proposition, that individual person or being did now become that.
την δοξαν αμτου, there was the particular actual glory which they saw; δοξαν ὡς, then, what it was, its quality. This may suffice.
την δοξαν stands as a name. Yet involving they saw. Yet even here, where it is used personally and objectively, the article is used; προς τον Θεον it was somebody He was with; but παρα Θεου, the quality of His mission. So here ἑωρακε Θεον, Him, who is truly such; τον Θεον 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 εκ του Θεου, for it was from God himself [that] He came out.
In verse 44 you are εκ πατρος του διαβολου; 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.
το φευδος objectively contrasted-with ἡ αληθεια and, so, individualized; ἡ αληθεια what he is.
εκ των ιδιων-Of distinct things which are his own.
So περι ἁμαρτιας is neither one particular sin, nor as Ian ideal or abstract whole, but what they could or could not convict Him of.
So αληθειαν, 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 5:3737And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. (John 5:37) we have an instance which might seem strange, φωνην αυτου. It is not properly his voice as one known voice which speaks, but a voice, any voice of his; so ειδος αυτου, anything that was his form. It is not one known voice or form, but anything that (what) was that. But τον λογον αυτου (ver. 38) because that is one recognized word. In (ver. 41) παρα ανθρωπων that character of praise, παρα των ανθρωπων living individuals in fact. So (ver. 44) δοξαν παρ’αλληλων, but την δοξαν την παρα του μονου Θεου.
John, perhaps, tests the principle best, from the peculiar, abstract way in which many things are stated by him. In more narrative books it is simpler.
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 ἱκανον χρονον. With ην and εγενετο, as stated, it is the question of what took place; there was a ὁρμη there [ver. 4 and some (ησαν) were with the Jews and some with the apostles] ver. 5, ως δε εγενετο ὁρμη των εθνων τε και Ιουδαιων συν τοις, etc. The individuals των 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, το πληθος της πολεως.
It was the multitude, the one whole multitude of that city, not of another (ver. 4); but ὀρμη των εθνων, etc., because there it is merely what took place and does not belong wholly and exclusively as an embodied individual to those people..
Ver. 8, και τις ανηρ εν Αυστροις αδυνατος τοις ποσιν. The man was αδυνατος τοις ποσιν: his two individual feet, though there is no αυτου (his); χωλος εκ κοιλιας μητρος. [αυτου], his mother's womb is merely a date to characterize his lameness. The womb is not before us objectively as an existing thing.
Ver. 10, ειπε μεγαλη τη φωνη is somewhat peculiar, but accounted for in the same way; μεγαλη φωνη would do, but simply characterize the manner of ειπε: τη φωνη is his voice, raised to a loud pitch,-I have not the character of speaking but Paul's voice; μεγαλη φωνη is, practically, one word. Hence, the article in the plural, unless there be a limiting word, means all of that kind.
Ver. 13, ταυρους bulls, τους ταυρους would be individuals designated; and the what is ταυρους, i.e.; 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 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 (many if plural) object which is that, "What." The form of subject and predicate is merely an effect of this. The person “ό”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 τις, πας, πολλοι. Oἱ πολλοι is something else; οἱ gives a number of designated individuals in contrast with one, a number of individuals lost in the designation πολλοι in contrast with some one or few otherwise connected though contrasted with them-οι ἱγγεμονες, οἱ πολλοι, πολλοι is, becomes, a qualification, not a mere uncertain number. Hence, as a general rule, an unmentioned individual kind has no article; αιγγελος, ανθρωπος, προς παρθενον. 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: πνευμα ἁιγιον: και δυναμις ὑψιστου. 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 1:88But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. (Acts 1:8)) is right: "Ye shall receive power, the Holy Ghost coming upon you;" not as in the margin, that would have been, I conceive, την δυναμιν.