hO QEOS in Phil. 3:19
dixonps at juno.com
dixonps at juno.com
Thu Jan 11 12:49:12 EST 2001
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 00:53:51 -0600 "Steven R. Lo Vullo"
<doulos at chorus.net> writes:
>
> hWN TO TELOS APWLEIA
> hWN hO QEOS hH KOILIA
> KAI hH DOZA EN THi AISCUNHi AUTWN
>
> Normally the process for determining which word is the subject and
> which is the predicate nominative is that the subject will be the KNOWN
> entity. So, generally speaking, pronouns will take priority, then
proper
> names, then the articular noun. But when there are two articular nouns
> and one is not a proper name, it often becomes difficult if not
impossible to
> distinguish the S from the PN. I think this is why Carl said either one
could be the
> subject in the above case. I think a couple of things about the
articles in
> the clause in question need to be pointed out before we attach too much
> significance to them.
If in a double articular construction either noun may be the subject and
the other the predicate nominative, and if the meaning is the same either
way, then what we have is identification or definition whereby the one is
being identified with the other to the exclusion of all else.
If you deny this, then what significance, if any, do you find with the
double articular construction?
Paul Dixon
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list