hO QEOS in Phil. 3:19

dixonps at juno.com dixonps at juno.com
Wed Jan 10 12:45:57 EST 2001




On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 07:55:26 -0600 "Carl W. Conrad"
<cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> writes:
> At 2:05 AM +0000 1/10/01, Mark Wilson wrote:
> >hWN TO TELOS APWLEIA
> >hWN hO QEOS hH KOILIA
> >KAI hH DOZA EN THi AISCUNHi AUTWN
> >
> >Is the definite article with QEOS used
> >to indicate its grammatical function?
> >
> >Could the second part above be translated:
> >"whose belly [is] their god"
> 
> Yes; of course "their" is implicit in the article; 
> since both hO QEOS and hH KOILIA have articles,
> it doesn't matter which one you consider the 
> subject, and which the predicate noun.

What seems particularly significant with the construction (articles on
both the subject and the predicate nominative) is the identification of
each with the other to the exclusive of all else:  their god is their
belly and their belly is their god.  God is viewed as nothing else but
their belly.

Had there been no article on either KOILIA or QEOS, following the typical
construction of articular noun ... anarthrous noun, indicating the
subject and predicate respectively, then the most that could have been
said is that the noun indicated by the article is part of the class
indicated by the anarthrous noun, whether the nuance of the latter be
indefiniteness or qualitativeness.  Hence, hO QEOS KOILIA = God is
bellyish (if qualitative), or God is a belly (if indefinitive).  But, God
could be something else, as well.

Hence, the double articular construction argues that their belly and
their belly alone is what they worship and serve.  A serious indictment,
indeed.

Paul Dixon



More information about the B-Greek mailing list