[B-Greek] Another example of a qualitative QEOS

kgraham0938 at comcast.net kgraham0938 at comcast.net
Fri Jul 7 21:06:56 EDT 2006


@Dr.Conrad: You wrote:
> 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"? 
Response: Well I really did not mean anything when I capitalized Spirit.  I was typing from work and did not have a particular translation in front of me.  But to address your point, I could go along with a lower case 'g' if there was a footnote like the NET bible saying that this was a qualitative use of QEOS or some other note that explains what the translator means and the reason behind the translation. 
I think the main difference btw the 'god' vs 'a god' rendering is that the 'a god' rendering automatically is an indefinite,  one could say that it is indefinite qualitative but it still has an indefinite aspect to it.  There is no room for a purely qualitative rendering. 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carl:> 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"? 
Response: That is an interesting , but I think and I may be wrong is that count nouns according to Rolf and others are never really qualitative.  Or should I say purely qualitative, so they would argue that either it is indefinite-qualitative or definite-qualitative but not purely qualitative.  So with the 'a god' rendering, the LOGOS is not the same nature are TON QEON.
--------------------------------------------------
> 
> 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? 

Response:The only thing I can think of is that QEOS is here is appositional to hO PATER, so I would think that would make it definite.
 ------------------------------------------------------------- 
> 
> 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. 
Response:  Well I was trying not to go too far off the rules of B-Greek.  My view of the context is that he is trying to plead with God to make them confess that he is God (alone) in regards to his own nature.  That there are no idols that can claim to be God but TON QEON.
> 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------- 
Carl:> 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? 
Response: No I don't think so, I think QEOS here is a common noun being used qualitatively.
------------------------------------------
> 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. 
Response: Well, the problem I think is that if we put 'a god' into the actual text, it does not come across the way you are communicating.
" to make you confess that he alone is a god."  I think when you add the indefinite article it conflicts with the word 'alone.'
> 
> > -------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> 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. 

Response: Well I would argue that Jn 1:1 c is purely qualitative, not definite or both.  I would say that the english rendering that we normally use is fine as long as it comes with explaination.
--
Kelton Graham 
KGRAHAM0938 at comcast.net


More information about the B-Greek mailing list