Convertible propositions (John 1:4)

How do I work out the meaning of a Greek text? How can I best understand the forms and vocabulary in this particular text?
Forum rules
This is a beginner's forum - see the Koine Greek forum for more advanced discussion of Greek texts. Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up.

When answering questions in this forum, keep it simple, and aim your responses to the level of the person asking the question.
Jason Hare
Posts: 951
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Convertible Propositions

Post by Jason Hare »

Louis L Sorenson wrote:Note: I have merged the above post and my reply into this thread]

Here is an old thread in the archives. http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/ ... 00643.html. This thread should stay under the current thread http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/vie ... =46&t=1345. I see no need to start a new thread.

Some may want to check out this ancient book on the Greek language. http://books.google.com/books?id=PCpMAA ... ns&f=false

A > B <> B >A
Thanks for that. Let's take the example from that book of Luke 11:34. It reads:
ὁ λύχνος τοῦ σώματός ἐστιν ὁ ὀφθαλμός.
Would it make any sense at all (this question is for John and Barry above) to say that this can be converted in the following way?
ὁ ὀφθαλμὸς τοῦ σώματός ἐστιν ὁ λύχνος.
Of course not! You have to take ὁ λύχνος τοῦ σώματος as a unit -- that is, as ὁ τοῦ σώματος λύχνος and consider the entire subject as equivalent to the predicate nominative. It could only be understood that ὁ ὀφθαλμός ἐστιν ὁ τοῦ σώματος λύχνος -- "the eye is the lamp of the body." You cannot break the genitive phrase off of either the subject or the predicate nominative and attach it to its opposite. It is nonsensical. We are just lucky in John 1:4 that τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων φῶς and ἡ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ζωή both have meaning. This doesn't mean that it can or should be switched around or played with between the two nominative phrases of the sentence!
Jason A. Hare
The Hebrew Café
Tel Aviv, Israel
Louis L Sorenson
Posts: 711
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 9:21 pm
Location: Burnsville, MN, USA
Contact:

Re: Convertible propositions (John 1:4)

Post by Louis L Sorenson »

Here is another thread which could be relevant: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/01/ ... bject.html
Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 2159
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Convertible propositions (John 1:4)

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

Jason Hare wrote:
Barry Hofstetter wrote:Jason, it took me a while to parse out what I think is wrong with what you're saying. A controvertible proposition simply means that the subject and predicate are reversible because they precisely, in every way, are interchangeable. In this case, the qualifying genitive would remain with the new predicate and it would still mean the same thing, i.e, (in English for convenience), "the light was the life of men" would be the same as "the life was the light of men." In a nod to another post, I think this is possible here because both light and life are specified with the article -- it is a specific light and a specific life which are absolutely equated, and not equated in a generic or qualitative sense.
This makes no sense to me at all. It's like saying that
The butcher was the savior of the town.
is the same as
The savior was the butcher of the town.
That's just ridiculous.

Yet, it is clear that The savior of the town was the butcher is the conversion of the initial statement. As long as the modifiers that are part of the noun phrase are pulled along with the head noun, it works. Otherwise, it does not.

I remember when I was in high school and took Algebra for the first time how people had difficulty understanding that in
9(x+1) = 36
you could not just subtract the x from both sides to balance it. It's about order of operations and keeping what must be together together! In this case, first divide by nine, then subtract one. And (x+1) is not the same as x. Such is the case also with "light of the world," which is not the same as "light" (generically). While, we could say that "the light of the world" is itself here identified as "life," we cannot say that "light" (generically) is identified as the light of the world - else, we might be speaking of the light of the Sun or of a candle.

The full subject (along with its modifiers) must be convertible with the full predicate nominative (along with its modifiers). Otherwise makes no sense whatsoever. I disagree with your statement that "life was the light of men" is the same as "light was the life of men." It cannot be true.
Since I never made that statement, of course you should disagree with it. What I said was "'the life was the light of men' is the same as 'the light was the life of men.'" I see what you are saying here, and in the case of the examples you give, it's certainly true. It's combination of the semantic context of the words, the context, and the specific syntax of the statement. In the case of John 1:4, the subject and the predicate are of such a nature (i.e., semantic range) and the syntax is such (both have the definite article) that the qualifying genitive phrase works with both.

Even in your example of above, it sort of works, as long as butcher is understood as the guy that cuts up the animals, and not butcher as the one who destroys the town, especially if we read your "of the town" as possessive, "The savior was the town's butcher."

But you are certainly correct that many other times, the entire statement has to be rewritten in English to demonstrate whether or not the predicate and subject are fully controvertible.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter, M.A., Th.M.
Ph.D. Student U of FL
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.
John Brainard
Posts: 72
Joined: September 18th, 2011, 5:17 pm

Re: Convertible propositions (John 1:4)

Post by John Brainard »

Maybe we should review several different examples of subject and predicate propositions to see if a pattern emerges.

What happens when neither the S or PN have the definite article? Can that be convertible as well?

John
Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 2159
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: Convertible propositions (John 1:4)

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

John Brainard wrote:Maybe we should review several different examples of subject and predicate propositions to see if a pattern emerges.

What happens when neither the S or PN have the definite article? Can that be convertible as well?

John
Well, the short answer to that is yes... :lol:
N.E. Barry Hofstetter, M.A., Th.M.
Ph.D. Student U of FL
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.
John Brainard
Posts: 72
Joined: September 18th, 2011, 5:17 pm

Re: Convertible propositions (John 1:4)

Post by John Brainard »

Barry Hofstetter wrote:
John Brainard wrote:Maybe we should review several different examples of subject and predicate propositions to see if a pattern emerges.

What happens when neither the S or PN have the definite article? Can that be convertible as well?

John
Well, the short answer to that is yes... :lol:
I thought that would be the case. :D

I am still wrestling with convertible propositions. I do not view them quite the same way that I view simple appositions. If the subject and the Predicate nominative are equal then it would seem that they are convertible with out the aid of a genitive phrase or any other grammatical intrusion. Yet one has surfaced. Is that the exception or is that the rule? :?:

John
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Convertible propositions (John 1:4)

Post by David Lim »

Barry Hofstetter wrote:[...] What I said was "'the life was the light of men' is the same as 'the light was the life of men.'" I see what you are saying here, and in the case of the examples you give, it's certainly true. It's combination of the semantic context of the words, the context, and the specific syntax of the statement. In the case of John 1:4, the subject and the predicate are of such a nature (i.e., semantic range) and the syntax is such (both have the definite article) that the qualifying genitive phrase works with both. [...]
Sorry Barry, like Jason, I think that the suggestion that "the life was the light of men" is the same as "the light was the life of man" is stretching the limit of language. Let me give you another example:

"The son is the ruler of Israel." is not "The son of Israel is the ruler."
This has exactly the same grammatical structure so grammar (both being definite) is not one of the criteria.

You may say that it is the semantic meaning that tells us that the genitive phrase qualifies both, but let us look closer at this example.
The first means "{ The son (some son) } is { the ruler that rules Israel }" where "the son" is a reference to some son in focus or the son that everyone knows.
The second means "{ The son who is born of Israel } is { the ruler (some ruler) }" where "the ruler" is a reference to some ruler in focus or a well-known ruler.

In Greek of course it is slightly different because word order is flexible, but the same principle holds.
"η ζωη ην το φως των ανθρωπων" in John 1:4 clearly means "η ζωη η εν αυτω ην το φως των ανθρωπων" and nothing else.
Furthermore, even if John 1:4 was missing from every manuscript, I would not believe an emendation that reads "το φως ην η ζωη των ανθρωπων" for two reasons:
(1) "το φως" is not yet introduced and is therefore unlikely as a subject.
(2) John has a well-structured introduction that always goes from one thing to the next in sequence. Specifically in that portion:
  • in him was life
    the life was the light of men (here I would expect a statement that goes from "the life" in the previous statement to "the light" in the next)
    the light shines in the darkness
    the darkness did not take hold of [the light]
δαυιδ λιμ
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4165
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Convertible propositions (John 1:4)

Post by Jonathan Robie »

This thread mostly conflates grammar with logic. Grammar won't tell you if two propositions are convertible.

Converting a proposition is the same thing as finding its converse. If a proposition is true, that does not mean its converse is true. This has nothing to do with grammar, and precious little to do with the Greek language.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Convertible propositions (John 1:4)

Post by David Lim »

Jonathan Robie wrote:This thread mostly conflates grammar with logic. Grammar won't tell you if two propositions are convertible.

Converting a proposition is the same thing as finding its converse. If a proposition is true, that does not mean its converse is true. This has nothing to do with grammar, and precious little to do with the Greek language.
Actually this thread has been going around a few different issues, only one of which is convertible propositions. The most recent issue is whether in John 1:4 we have that "the X = the Y of Z" is equivalent to "the X of Z = the Y". Barry said "In the case of John 1:4, the subject and the predicate are of such a nature (i.e., semantic range) and the syntax is such (both have the definite article) that the qualifying genitive phrase works with both.", to which both Jason and I disagree. This has nothing to do with whether a proposition's converse is true, as the two that Barry claims equivalent are not converses of each other. "X implies Y" is a converse to "Y implies X". In a language it typically occurs as "X is Y" is a converse to "Y is X", but that is not what Jason and I were talking about.
δαυιδ λιμ
Jason Hare
Posts: 951
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Convertible propositions (John 1:4)

Post by Jason Hare »

Jonathan Robie wrote:This thread mostly conflates grammar with logic. Grammar won't tell you if two propositions are convertible.

Converting a proposition is the same thing as finding its converse. If a proposition is true, that does not mean its converse is true. This has nothing to do with grammar, and precious little to do with the Greek language.
And yet grammarians (such as Wallace on page 31 of The Basics of New Testament Syntax, in the section entitled “Two Kinds of Semantic Relationships”) discuss the fact that convertible propositions exist in the Greek language. This is not just a question of logic, except that logic also exists within statements – to one extent or another. If both sides of the verbs εἰμί, γίνομαι and ὑμάρχω are specific enough, they refer to the same referent completely and are convertible – that is, they are specific and are logically “distributed,” thus they must both say the same thing.

‘The boy in the red shirt is my older brother’ is completely equivalent to ‘my older brother is the boy in the red shirt.’ They say exactly the same thing. Why? Because both are clear. ‘The boy in the red shirt’ is identifiable and distinct from the other boys that are in the area, and ‘my older brother’ is clearly a reference to one specific person. It must be that this is an instance of ‘P = Q.’

‘The man in the white shirt is a doctor’ and ‘a doctor is the man in the white shirt’ are not saying the same thing. Why? Because ‘a doctor’ is not specific enough. If it had said ‘the doctor who delivered my son,’ then the proposition would be convertible (‘the man in the white shirt is the doctor who delivered my son’ = ‘the doctor who delivered my son is the man in the white shirt’). Thus, by form, a sentence of this form with an indefinite PN is not logically convertible. ‘Socrates is a human’ is not the same as ‘a human is Socrates’ – because not all humans are Socrates.

The question at hand is… can the defining attributes of the PN be applied to the subject while retaining the original meaning? The answer is clearly no.

‘The murderer was the brother of the mayor’ is not equivalent to ‘the brother was the murderer of the mayor.’

‘The computer was the property of the school’ is not equivalent to ‘the property was the computer of the school.’

‘The life was the light of men’ is not equivalent to ‘the light was the life of men.’

The genitive that is attached to the PN is part and parcel of the phrase itself. It is the defining element that makes the proposition convertible (in that both the S and the PN are defined to enough an extent as to be able to switch them and still refer to the same thing – because it essentially is saying ‘P = P’ [like in ‘my brother is my father’s son,’ both ‘my brother’ and ‘my father’s son’ refers to Michael – a specific person in my family]). We cannot allow that Robertson was correct in writing that the genitive could be transferred to the second element of the sentence. It is absolutely wrong, and this indeed has something to do with understanding convertible propositions and Greek grammar.
Jason A. Hare
The Hebrew Café
Tel Aviv, Israel
Locked

Return to “What does this text mean?”