[B-Greek] Another example of a qualitative QEOS

CEP7 at aol.com CEP7 at aol.com
Fri Jul 7 20:34:50 EDT 2006


In a message dated 7/7/06 4:54:09 PM, cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu writes:

<< 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"? >>

et.al. 

I'll not cite the entire exchange, but I think it might be helpful to think 
about what we mean when we say God and a god. Usually, nouns do not change 
there meaning in the same sentence unless there is clear contextual warrant. With 
respect to John 1:1b-c, the distinction between definite, qualitative, and 
indefinite may not be that significant in determining the meaning of QEOS. If 
QEOS simply means "a powerful immortal being" in John 1:1b, then it would mean "a 
powerful, immortal being" in John 1:1c. However, if QEOS means John 1:1b, 
then it would also mean John 1:1c. I believe NEB translates this verse as "What 
God was, the Word was" which keeps the meaning QEOS the same. So whether we 
translate QEOS as God, god, a god, or a God makes little difference as long as 
the meaning is retained. Unfortunately, God and a god in English usually conn
otes two very different meanings and that is what needs to be avoided.


Charles E. Powell
Pastor
Forest Lake Bible Church
1000 37th St
Niceville, FL 32578
850-678-5879

601 31st St
Niceville, FL 32578
850-678-9118
cep7 at aol.com



More information about the B-Greek mailing list