Re: Phil. 2.13? (gram. subj.?)

McGaughy also states that predicate nouns preceding the subject are 
anarthrous.  I have dug up several instances of this elsewhere in the 
New Testament, and Paul also seems to adhere to this principle in other 
loci.  That would indicate that "QEOS" would be the predicate here.

--DNW, David.Wigtil@hq.doe.gov

___________________________ Reply Separator ______________________________
Subject: Phil. 2.13? (gram. subj.?)
Author:  rod.j.decker@uwrf.edu_at_internet at X400PO
Date:    11/1/94 5:42 PM

Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT

So that newcomers don't get the wrong impression that they have 
accidentally subscribed to the "b-Q" list rather than b-greek :) I'd like 
to pose a question in a grammatical area. (I'm not complaining about the Q 
thread;  it's been interesting even though prudence has suggested that I 
keep my mouth shut and just listen!)

Phil. 2:13, 'Theos gar estin ho energwn en humin...'

1. Which is the subject ('Theos' or 'ho energwn')? 
2. Is this a convertible or subset proposition?

Based on Porter's _Idioms..._, Wallace's _Exegetical Syntax_, and 
McGaaughy's _Analysis of Einai_, I'm working with these guidelines:

1. If one substantive is a pronoun (except interrogatives), it is the 
subject.  This is true even if the pronoun is not explicitly stated but is 
inherent in the verb.

2. If one of the substantives has an article or is a proper name, it is 
the subject.

3. If #2 is ambiguous, the nominative first in word order is the subject.

Qualifications: These three are arranged hierarchically. (Thus a pronoun, 
if present, is always the subject.) If both substantives meet the 
qualifications of #2, the first (in word order) is the subject, but the 
statement is to be treated as a convertible proposition (i.e., they are 

My question re. Phil. 2:13 hinges, in part, on whether 'theos' is to be 
treated as a proper name. Wallace says no (& I think I agree), but also 
lists this text as a convertible proposition--which the above principles 
would not allow, though the sense of the context suggests that it would 
make no difference in this instance; i.e., 'the one who works in you is 
God' is no different (semantically) than 'God is the one who works in 

Any comments or suggestions?

Rod Decker
Calvary Theological Seminary, Kansas City