Isaac Newton wrote:According to Wallace in GGBB, p. 41, there are two types of S-PN constructions.
...
Question: Can we conclude that by definition, in a subset proposition the S and PN cannot both be definite nouns ? That is, the PN will either be qualitative, or indefinite but not definite ?
This is a bit of NT Greek "traditional grammar" found for example in Zerwick (171-175) and converted by Wallace into a RULE using some sort of math-like approach to the problem. Natural language is
not math.
The syntactical analysis of the use of the article in NT Greek has a long tradition and much that tradition has been reevaluated in the last half century by linguists involved in bible translation. Quite recently
Chapter 6 of Richard A. Hoyle, Scenarios, discourse and translation. SIL 2008.
http://www.sil.org/silepubs/Pubs/50670/ ... lation.pdfThe article with predicate nominative is used when the information is
hearer old. It need not be
discourse old. If the currently active scenario includes the idea represented by the substantive/noun then the article will be use even if it has not been referenced previously in the discourse. Failing a currently active scenario, if the idea is part of a shared cognitive framework then it can be assumed to be cognitively assessable and thus
hearer old. That is the default pattern. On the other hand a
hearer old substantive can be left anarthrous as a form of salience marking.
None of this addresses your question. But I think Wallace's approach is likely to get you headed down the wrong road on this. Smyth §1152:
Even in the predicate the article is used with a noun referring to a definite object (an individual or a class) that is well known, previously mentioned or hinted at, or identical with the subject ...
Notice the
or. It doesn't have to be identical with the subject. Consider John 1:49:
John 1:49 ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ Ναθαναήλ· ῥαββί, σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, σὺ βασιλεὺς εἶ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ.
Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” ESV
RP: εἶ ὁ βασιλεὺς ♦ NA/UBS: βασιλεὺς εἶ
So why the article in English? The lack of the article βασιλεὺς marks it as
salient, since βασιλεὺς εἶ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ is part of the shared cognitive framework thus
always hearer old without being
discourse old.
On the other hand, reading the Byz Textform:
Ἀπεκρίθη Ναθαναήλ καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ, Ῥαββί, σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, σὺ εἶ ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ. Robinson-Pierpont 2005
Is this really a convertible proposition? Would ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ
unambiguously point to the same referent as Ῥαββί in this context? I don't think so.
FOOTNOTE: Iver Larsen (Denmark/East Africa SIL) has had some favorable things to say about Hoyle's treatment of the article in
Scenarios and Discourse.
C. Stirling Bartholomew