In an earlier post in my blog, I reviewed the illogicality--the absurdity--in one's use of a predicate's syntax (that predicate being pre-copulatively positioned) by which he would make the following argument: 'Such syntax makes a predicate that is an anarthrous, singular, concrete, non-abstract count noun nevertheless fitting for when only an adjectival meaning for the predicate is logically permissible (for merely describing/referencing some feature of a subject that is a person/being), for it will then make only qualitative description of the subject; however, in no case will the context then permit that we take that predicate nominative both for naming a class that has a person as a countable instantiation of the class, and naming as well an instantiation of the class; and neither will context show that the predicate was used with poetic or figurative/metaphorical license.' I did not, however, specifically take Harner to task for such an error. What follows below, however, is how one of Jehovah's Witnesses (Wes W.) has taken Harner to task for his error.
Wes has made a masterful analysis of Harner’s seminal paper. Wes' analysis includes images of certain pages of Harner's paper as those pages appear in the journal that published the paper; however, those images are not reproduced here in my blog. Harner’s paper demolishes "Colwell’s rule." Wes' analysis of Harner's paper is fine review, though, of the fact that Harner himself slid into error, for he formulated the erroneous theory that singular, concrete, non-abstract count nouns that are both anarthrous and pre-copulatively positioned predicates may logically become so adjectival that they crowd out entirely the semantic of definiteness and indefiniteness. Without further ado, here is Wes' analysis, with some (very little, semantically insignificant) editing made by me (Al Kidd):
Wes has made a masterful analysis of Harner’s seminal paper. Wes' analysis includes images of certain pages of Harner's paper as those pages appear in the journal that published the paper; however, those images are not reproduced here in my blog. Harner’s paper demolishes "Colwell’s rule." Wes' analysis of Harner's paper is fine review, though, of the fact that Harner himself slid into error, for he formulated the erroneous theory that singular, concrete, non-abstract count nouns that are both anarthrous and pre-copulatively positioned predicates may logically become so adjectival that they crowd out entirely the semantic of definiteness and indefiniteness. Without further ado, here is Wes' analysis, with some (very little, semantically insignificant) editing made by me (Al Kidd):
“Harner's theological context is that he needs to undermine Colwell's rule, which takes John 1:1c as definite. This is a heresy for most Trinitarians, although most did not realize the ramifications at the time, and so Harner is showing a different option. He makes this point at the top of page 76 and introduces the concept of "qualitative significance.”
“There is no problem with "qualitative significance" with a definite or indefinite noun. In other words, if I say "this man is a sinner," the noun is indefinite but to what degree is the man sinful (adjective)? If I am discussing the man's sins in context, I am stressing the sinfulness of the man more. If I am making a general statement about descending from Adam, I am stressing sinfulness less. However, in both cases the noun is indefinite. In neither case can I say that "a sinner" is converted to "sinful" without the man being a member of the class "sinner."
“The last paragraph on page 78 is a healthy analysis of "this man is a prophet" (John 4:24). Note the subjectivity involved in the analysis that a noun can be both indefinite AND have qualitative stress. Note that he uses the term qualitative "sense" here.
“Bottom of page 79 and into page 80, Harner outlines the challenge of selecting definiteness or indefiniteness with the express "S/son of God" at Mark 15:39. On page 81 he argues that Mark may be stressing the "qualitative emphasis" and [so] just translate it as neither "a" nor "the" S/son of God," but just "God's S/son." Still no problem here, but what you need to watch carefully is that even translating the term as "God's S/son" does not mean that "son" is neither definite nor indefinite. It is one or the other. You are just leaving it up to the reader to decide. There is no problem with qualitative EMPHASIS for "S/son" but there is a problem converting it to a qualitative NOUN or "son-like." Harner does not fall into that trap here but you have to note his subjectivity in evaluating the problem.
“At the top of page 83, he frames the problem in John where about half of the grammatical constructs under question are definitely not definite. [In h]is first paragraph on page 83, he makes an uncharacteristic mistake at John 1:14 in that he is using a non-count noun "flesh" to compare with count nouns. As such, of course "flesh" can be used without a definite or indefinite article. He then uses John 1:14 as an example of "qualitative force" as evidence that you can translate the grammatical structure without the articles. The real reason is that it is a mass noun.
“At the top of page 85, he delivers his coup de gras to Colwell's rule where he discusses the convertible proposition.
“On page 85, his comments on Clause D are correct. He then postulates that John must mean something more than just indefiniteness. Harner errs when he introduces the term "qualitative meaning" in the second paragraph on page 85. Previously he used qualitative stress and emphasis and sense, but what is "meaning" and how do you leap from qualitative "stress" and "emphasis" to "meaning"? Since the premise is incorrect, he then concludes that the Word had "the nature of theos." How did "nature" enter the discussion and what is "nature" as opposed to "qualities" (i.e. qualitative)? Following his preceding arguments, it would only imply that the Word is definitely a god with stress on qualities, but is still indefinite.
“In the middle of page 86, he dismisses indefiniteness as polytheistic.
“His conclusion in the second paragraph on page 87 reflects that qualitative "stress," "sense," and "emphasis" have now become a full-blown linguistic "category"!
“In short, he acknowledges in the article that a noun in the construction can be indefinite with qualitative stress (bottom of page 78). He rejects that for John 1:1 for theological reasons (polytheism). He does not see that the Word can be a mighty one or _theos_ as a representative of God or as an indefinite member of class _theos_.”
Wes later added an addendum to his analysis:
“Qualitative is already a linguistic category of nouns to which abstract qualities properly belong, like love and self-control. Harner did not "invent" this category but improperly concluded that a non-quality noun can be a 100% qualitative noun without being definite or indefinite.
“When Harner mentions qualitative "stress," "force," "sense," and “emphasis,” I take all these as synonyms that easily apply to definite/indefinite nouns. They do not make an indefinite noun 100% "qualitative."
“However, when [Harner] uses terms towards the end of his article like qualitative "meaning," "category," and "noun," I understand [by] these [labels] that he is . . . [asserting that syntax can make] a definite/indefinite noun to be 100% qualitative, which is an assertion that he has not proven.”
