[B-Greek] hO KURIOS TO PNEUMA - subject or predicate?

Blue Meeksbay bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com
Mon Feb 15 20:04:24 EST 2010


Dear Stephen:
 
This is what Alford says about Chrysostom:
 
“The principal mistaken interpretation…is that of Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl, (Ecum., Estius, Schulz, - making TO PNEUMA the subject, and hO KUR.  the  predicate, which though perhaps (but would DE then have had its present position?) allowable, is against the context, hO KUR. being plainly resumed from hO KUR. in ver. 16.”
 
I have also read this concerning Chrys. from others. That being said, if indeed, this is true, why would they understand it in this way? It is not that they were novices in the Greek language!  Greek was their mother tongue. Perhaps extra-biblical references might shed light on some grammatical pattern they saw. (I was collecting similar subject/predicate phrases using ESTIN, but my computer shut down and I lost all my work so I will have to start over.)
 
You mentioned the subject and predicate were articulated, but are they equivalent? I am not sure if in Chrys. mind to say, “The Lord is the Spirit” is the same as saying “The Spirit is the Lord.” To say “the Lord is the Spirit” could be taken as a reference to Paul’s understanding in I Cor. 15:45  (especially since he is writing to the same church), but to say “the Spirit is the Lord” would seem to indicate a reference to the [Holy] Spirit also being understood as “Lord.”
 
Is this what you were hinting at when you said: “Καὶ τοῦτο Κύριός ἐστι / KAI TOUTO KURIOS ESTI ("and this is the Lord")?”
 
As I said in my first reply to your email, I tend to agree with you, and I still do! ... but I wonder why Chrys., et al. would believe TO PNEUMA should be seen as the subject. I know there are theological reasons for seeing it this way, but their understanding of this verse was not necessary to maintain their theological point of view. (And we do not want to go into theology).
 
I am reminded of an earlier post by Mark L. who said: 
 
The problem with using Greek grammar to make theological points is not that the underlying grammar is wrong.  The problem with using Greek grammar to make theological points is...well, we all know what it is.  It's just not I think, ever a good idea.
 
I think a better thing to say is:  The problem with using [B]Greek to make theological points is…well we all know what it is. It’s just not I think, ever a good idea.”  
 
(For if Paul did not use Greek grammar to make theological points, what did he use!)?   : >)
 
One last thing…do you have an idea why Alford made his point about DE? Is there some unique pattern of DE in a phrase that would apply to this verse? 
 
 
Sincerely,
Blue Harris
 




________________________________
From: Stephen Carlson <stemmatic at gmail.com>
To: Blue Meeksbay <bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com>
Cc: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Sat, February 13, 2010 6:16:21 PM
Subject: Re: OFF-LIST [B-Greek] hO KURIOS TO PNEUMA - subject or predicate?

On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Blue Meeksbay <bluemeeksbay at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thanks Stephen! When you read what he says before and after he makes clear
> he is seeing TO PNEUMA as the subject. It can be found in his “Homilies on
> Second Corinthians” Homily VII.

Thanks, but it still isn't that clear to me.  Part of the difficulty
is that when both the subject and predicate are articulated (as is the
case here), the two are being equated in some sense, so the
identification of the subject and predicate has more to do with
pragmatic than with semantic concerns.  My sense is that Chrysostom is
showing just such an equation by restating the clause the subject and
predicate inverted: Καὶ τοῦτο Κύριός ἐστι / KAI TOUTO KURIOS ESTI
("and this is the Lord").

Stephen Carlson



      


More information about the B-Greek mailing list