Greg Stafford Responds to Robert Hommel

On John 1:1 and Mass-Count Nouns

HOMMEL: Initially, I would question why we should accept an argument from silence. >>

GREG: Who is arguing from silence? I have provided numerous examples of singular count- noun predicates preceding the copula verb, none of which can be shown to have qualitative-only sense, and ALL of which can easily be translated and understood as count nouns with an indefinite sense. Hommel either does not understand what I have written online and in my book concerning this subject, or he is ignoring it.

It is Hommel, Hartley and others like them who continue to assume and force their meaning into the singular count-noun predicates of the aforementioned construction, and they even tamper with the text as did Hartley with Luke 7:39. If we had done what Hartley did there, then I doubt Hommel would fail to see the dishonesty. But since Hartely is a Trinitarian...

HOMMEL: After all, qualitativeness is not in question with regard to mass nouns, and it is easy enough to provide examples in English of count nouns exhibiting a purely qualitative force (e.g., "The subject of my study is man."). There are examples in the GNT of ANTHROPOS being used qualitatively (albeit not in Colwell's Construction) . . .>>>

GREG: Notice that in Hommel's above comments his (English) example is NOT with a singular, personalistic subject! Why does he fail to respond to the actual arguments I put forth? The same reason Hartely does: they have no logical response built on anything other than asumptions. I have explained this time and time again, and will do so once more in my forthcoming reply to Hartley, but if Hommel and Hartely refuse to accept the arguments as given, that is no reason why anyone else should fail similiarly, is it?

When Hommel or Hartley decide to produce an example of a singular count-noun predicate preceding the verb, in Greek, when used of a singular, personalistic subject where the predicate can be shown to have a qualitative-only sense, then we'll talk.

At this point, I am not convinced that either Hartley or Hommel have a clear understanding of my arguments, which is why in my last reply to Hommel I have asked him to reword my arguments, so that it can be seen whether he truly knows what he is talking about, at all. I submit he displays a severe lack of understanding when it comes to my arguments, and that his reading of the NT in light of post-biblical theology has drammatically affected his ability to properly exegete what are really rather simple passages.

Finally, Hartley and Hommel can "respond" all they want, but unless they know what it is to which they are responding, and stop missing the point(s), then does it really matter? If anyone is confused or needs any additional clarification on any of the points raised in my discussions with Hommel, Hartely, or anyone else, please send me an email. [email protected]

Best Regards,

Greg