[b-greek] Re: hO QEOS in Phil. 3:19

From: Steven R. Lo Vullo (doulos@chorus.net)
Date: Thu Jan 11 2001 - 01:53:51 EST


On 1/10/01 11:45 AM, dixonps@juno.com wrote:

> What seems particularly significant with the construction (articles on
> both the subject and the predicate nominative) is the identification of
> each with the other to the exclusive of all else: their god is their
> belly and their belly is their god. God is viewed as nothing else but
> their belly.
>
> Had there been no article on either KOILIA or QEOS, following the typical
> construction of articular noun ... anarthrous noun, indicating the
> subject and predicate respectively, then the most that could have been
> said is that the noun indicated by the article is part of the class
> indicated by the anarthrous noun, whether the nuance of the latter be
> indefiniteness or qualitativeness. Hence, hO QEOS KOILIA = God is
> bellyish (if qualitative), or God is a belly (if indefinitive). But, God
> could be something else, as well.
>
> Hence, the double articular construction argues that their belly and
> their belly alone is what they worship and serve. A serious indictment,
> indeed.

hWN TO TELOS APWLEIA
hWN hO QEOS hH KOILIA
KAI hH DOZA EN THi AISCUNHi AUTWN

Normally the process for determining which word is the subject and which is
the predicate nominative is that the subject will be the KNOWN entity. So,
generally speaking, pronouns will take priority, then proper names, then the
articular noun. But when there are two articular nouns and one is not a
proper name, it often becomes difficult if not impossible to distinguish the
S from the PN. I think this is why Carl said either one could be the subject
in the above case. I think a couple of things about the articles in the
clause in question need to be pointed out before we attach too much
significance to them.

(1) When a pronoun in the genitive case modifies a noun (as in hWN hO QEOS
above), it is customary for the noun to be articular, as in hWN TO TELOS in
the previous clause, hHMWN TO POLITEUMA in v. 20, and TO SWMA THS
TAPEINWSEWS hHMWN in v. 21. So I'm not sure we can read too much into the
article in the case of hO QEOS.

(2) As Carl pointed out, in the case of hH KOILIA "their" is implicit in the
article (as in hH DOXA in the third of the above clauses), and I think all
the more so since the idea of possession carries over from hWN. In other
words, the idea of possession is already established with hWN and the
article with KOILIA recognizes that. Note how in the third of the above
clauses AUTWN is explicit because there was no hWN modifying DOXA.

In light of the above I think it is questionable to read too much into the
significance of the articles.

I think that there may be a way to distinguish the subject from the
predicate nominative here, however. In light of the fact that there is a
certain "rhythm" in the above three clauses, perhaps the second follows
after the analogy of the first and the third. In these cases the subject
comes at the beginning of the clause. This, however, is somewhat subjective,
so I would have to agree with Carl that either hO QEOS or hH KOILIA may be
the subject.

Steve Lo Vullo,
Madison, WI

 


---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu




This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:46 EDT