[B-Greek] Another example of a qualitative QEOS

kgraham0938 at comcast.net kgraham0938 at comcast.net
Thu Jul 6 18:03:04 EDT 2006



--
Kelton Graham 
KGRAHAM0938 at comcast.net

@Rolf:  You wrote:
> Dear Kelton, 
> 
> In languages such as classical/NT Greek and Hebrew some properties represent semantic meaning (the context can never change them) and other parts 
> represent conversational pragmatic implicature (they can be changed by the 
> context). For example, propeties such as durativity, dynamicity, and 
> telicity 
> can represent semantic meaning. For example, a word maked for durativity and 
> dynamicity, 
> such as "run" can never loose these properties. Other properties such as 
> stativity and punctiliarity can be changed by the context. 
> 
> On this background I ask: Can a word that is marked as a generic count-noun  loose this property? I doubt that this is possible. Yet this seems to be a  basic premise for those who take the predicate nominative in John 1:1c as qualitative. There is also a related question for those who believe that a  generic count noun can be changed into an abstract property: How can we know when such a change occur?
Response: My point would be this how are we defining count nouns?  If it is purely because a noun is referential ? Then I would imagine a word like PNUEMA could be referential such as in 'the Spirit' referring to the Holy Spirit, or qualitative such as 'God is Spirit.'
And my second question would be what rule states that count nouns cannot be taken as purely qualitative?  Do we even know enough about count nouns and how they function to make such judgments?
-------------------------------------------------------------
 It can not be the lack of article or word order, 
> because generic count nouns have and do not have the article and may have 
> different positions in the clauses. It seems to me that a subjective 
> judgement is the final criterion. A generic count noun can be 
> used as a singular noun "God," while the same word "god" continues to be 
> used as a generic count noun. I also accept that quality is the stress in 
> som cases, but that does not change the fact that that the referent 
> still is "God" or "god". So, the quality of divinity and being God/god are not opposites. 
Response:  Again, we need a criteria for even arguing that QEOS is a count noun.  As I have stated earlier just because a word have a reference does not mean it cannot be taken qualitatively.  And I would not argue that the criteria is subjective, I would argue that it is indeed based upon context, along with grammar. (but we cannot go into that here.)  
-------------------------------------------------------------
> Your example from 2 Macc 7:37 illustrates the point. The reference is to the 
> creator, and that means that QEOS in this verse is a singular noun. Whether 
> the attributes of the creator or divine quality was in the mind of the 
> speaker is difficult to say. You see a qalitative use of QEOS that I do not 
> see. But do you mean that this changes QEOS from being a singular noun to 
> becoming an adjective? 
Response:  I would argue that it is taken a common noun and using is qualitatively.  The reference to the creator is the first use of QEOS, he urges God to scourge the enemies into confess that he alone is God (by nature), in other words he is not saying "Make them confess that TON QEON is TON QEON", nor is he saying "Make the confess that TON QEON is a god."  He is simply saying make them confess that there is no other entitiy in the universe that can be labeled QEOS because the other entities are not QEOS by nature.  And I apologize if I went away from the Greek to much.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Or do you mean it still is a singular noun, which is 
> equivalent to a proper noun, but that the stress is on divine qualities? 
> 
> A similar example is Luke 20:38 
> 
> QEOS DE OUK ESTIN NEKRWN 
> 
> QEOS is clause-initial and there is no article. Even if one would argue that 
> the function of being God is stressed, still QEOS is a singular noun and the 
> reference is the creator. The challenge to those who *only* see a quality in 
> QEOS in John 1:1c is to demonstrate that a generic count noun can cease to 
> be a generic count noun and become a quality, and to outline criteria that 
> can be used to show that a generic count noun has becom a qualitaty. 

Response: Couple thoughts,  I would argue that QEOS in this verse is definite rather than qualitative  The difference btw this verse and 2 Macc is that in 2 Macc God has already been identified as TON QEON, the author is asking them to make them confess something about TON QEON, namely he is God, not the God nor a god, simply God.  In Luke it seems that QEOS here is a proper noun, especially in light of verse 37, "God of Abraham...."


More information about the B-Greek mailing list