From: Paul S. Dixon (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Sep 04 1997 - 13:52:39 EDT
If there is another exception to the rule, then we should probably opt
for it. Phil 2:13 labors under the following considerations:
1. There is a textual problem, to be sure. The Majority text,
D, and other manuscripts do have the definite article hO before QEOS. If
this is the correct reading, then we have something like 1 Jn 4:4, hH
hAMARTIA ESTIN hH ANOMIA, where the subject and predicate nominative are
2. I think the rule does not apply when names are given,
inasmuch as names are definite and do not require the article. QEOS may
be a name for God here. Incidentally, QEOS in Phil 2:13 certainly is
Dr. Paul S. Dixon, Pastor
anet-greek101 archives - http://
On Wed, 3 Sep 1997 12:56:15 -0600 "Williams, Wes"
>>In a sentence or clause containing an
>>articular noun and an anarthrous noun (such as in Jn 1:1c, but not
>>the rule is that the subject is denoted by the articular noun. Can
>>anybody give me an exception to this rule in the Greek NT? LXX?
>>Greek writings? Is there any Greek writing where in the same
>>clause an anarthrous noun is the subject and an articular noun is the
>I am really interested in the answer to this! So far, I haven't
>exceptions in my reading, but my antenae may not have been on the
>frequency to notice.
> This will be hotly contested, but how about Phil 2:13?
>For God is the One acting within YOU for the sake of his good
>QEOS GAR ESTIN hO ENERGWN ...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:27 EDT