[B-Greek] Another example of a qualitative QEOS
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Jul 7 17:53:16 EDT 2006
On Jul 6, 2006, at 6:03 PM, kgraham0938 at comcast.net wrote:
>
>
> --
> 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.'
I suppose you mean PNEUMA. In John 4:24 the text is PNEUMA hO QEOS,
formally very much like QEOS HN hO LOGOS. NET Englishes that as "God
is spirit" and the translator's note says, "Here (PNEUMA is
understood as a qualitative predicate nominative while the articular
QEOS is the subject." If in fact you were referring to John 4:24,
it's interesting that you offered the version with a capitalized
"Spirit" -- which looks more like a proper name than a qualitative
predicate noun. Would you be content with a version of John 1:1c such
as "The Logos was god"? and if that were an acceptable version, would
it be so very different from "The Logos was A god"?
> 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?
I wonder whether a particular count noun taken as "qualitative" must
not be one or more of a kind. So again, I wonder if QEOS in John 1:1c
as a "qualitative count noun" wouldn't have to be precisely (or more
or less) "a god"?
One thinks of 1 Cor 8:5-6 KAI GAR EIPER EISIN LEGOMENOI QEOI EITE EN
OURANWi EITE EPI GHS, hWSPER QEOI POLLOI KAI KURIOI POLLOI, 6 ALL'
hHMIN hEIS QEOS hO PATHR. I would think that the plural here QEOI is
clearly a count noun; is QEOS in hEIS QEOS hO PATHR a count noun as
well? It would appear that there's an implicit existential ESTI: "for
us there exists one god (or one God) ..." Is QEOS here qualitative?
or definite? Unquestionably hO PATHR adds a more precise
identification, but what entitles the translator to capitalize god/
God in 1 Cor 8:6?
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.)
I suppose you mean a "context" that goes beyond what the Greek text
says. The thing I have found fascinating about this thread is how
difficult it is to talk about this text without going beyond the
grammatical indications of the text and its immediate context. So
much seems to depend upon the assumptions that are brought from
outside the text to bear upon the text.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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.
This seems to have been typed too quickly to be altogether clear. The
essential part of the text is ... EXOMOLOGHSASQAI DIOTI MONOS AUTOS
QEOS ESTIN. Are you trying to say that QEOS here is a proper name?
Certainly there's a sense here that the subject of MONOS AUTOS QEOS
ESTIN is QEOS and is alone as such: not one god of the kind "gods"
but the only one god of His/its kind. But I'd have to go with Rolf
here; I think the sense is "that he himself is alone a god." I.e., if
"god" means anything, he is the only one who really is a god.
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> 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...."
Curiously KJV Englishes Lk 20:38 as "For he is not a God of the dead,
but of the living: for all live unto him. " That is to say, it uses
the indefinite article with the capitalized "God" -- rather
inconsistently, it seems to me. Isn't the formulation of this a
response to the implicit question, "What kind of god is He?
It's unclear to me, Kelton, whether you are arguing that QEOS in John
1:1c is (a) qualitative, (b) definite, or perhaps (c) both? I really
think that you're trying to justify the Englishing of KAI QEOS HN hO
LOGOS as "and the Word was God" -- but that you're finding it
difficult to do so on purely grammatical grounds.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad2 at mac.com
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list