tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post66765873478899123..comments2024-03-28T00:08:14.247-07:00Comments on Foster's Theological Reflections: Robert Bowman, Philippians 2:13 and QEOS as SubjectEdgar Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-52291486566555758212012-04-30T20:12:57.600-07:002012-04-30T20:12:57.600-07:00FWIW, the ancient Sahidic Coptic translation of th...FWIW, the ancient Sahidic Coptic translation of this verse clearly makes "God" the subject and uses the <i>definite</i> article along with it. So those Greek-speaking translators didn't see this as a parallel to John 1:1c (where they translated "god" as an indefinite predicate).TJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09026162065212920554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-82491750477536613602012-04-16T04:22:44.022-07:002012-04-16T04:22:44.022-07:00Hi Edgar,
I said:
"In this case, I don'...Hi Edgar,<br /><br />I said:<br /><br />"In this case, I don't think it's relevant whether QEOS is the subject or the predicate; the important question, IMO, is whether QEOS is definite or indefinite."<br /><br />I thought I should clarify that by "In this case..." I meant vis a vis this verse's potential bearing on John 1:1c. I didn't mean to suggest that it's not important to accurately determine the subject and predicate when doing translation.<br /><br />~KazAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-87945105894515770212012-04-15T10:46:14.628-07:002012-04-15T10:46:14.628-07:00Ah, it's about John 1:1c. Now that I see the ...Ah, it's about John 1:1c. Now that I see the context, I think I participated in that dialogue, though it could be another that touched on the same verse. <br /><br />First, I note that he's offering a disputed text as a supposed syntactical parallel. There's nothing wrong with that, necessarily, as long as one provides a compelling case for the interpretation one favors, but I would think that it would add more force to the argument if the verse were clearly in harmony with his interpretation. <br /><br />In this case, I don't think it's relevant whether QEOS is the subject or the predicate; the important question, IMO, is whether QEOS is definite or indefinite. Jason BeDuhn has offered a plausible case for the rendering "a god" here (Truth in Translation, p. 127), but, in this context I take QEOS as a proper noun (i.e. definite). <br /><br />It seems that Bowman's only point is to show that QEOS can be an anarthrous predicate nominative that occurs before the verb and properly rendered "God". Well, o.k., but so what? <br /><br />~KazAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-64646651819658389882012-04-12T19:08:27.971-07:002012-04-12T19:08:27.971-07:00Kaz,
Here is what Bowman wrote in full:
Barry,
...Kaz,<br /><br />Here is what Bowman wrote in full:<br /><br />Barry,<br /><br />Yes, in my 1989 book _Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John_ I pointed out Philippians 2:13 as one of several<br />grammatical/syntactical parallels using QEOS:<br /><br />QEOS GAR ESTIN hO ENERGWN...<br />For the one working in you is God...<br /><br />Now, some commentators argue that QEOS is the subject (contrary to the usual practice of QEOS as the subject being articular) on the grounds that the articular ENERGWN is a participle rather than a noun. I think this is a mistake, though. In verse 12, Paul has just said that his Christian readers<br />should "work" out their salvation in fear and trembling. He then notes that the one who is working in them is God. So, in light of verse 12, I take hO ENERGWN as the subject and the anarthrous QEOS as the predicate, just as we<br />would normally expect.Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-13686125741722747442012-04-12T04:10:22.873-07:002012-04-12T04:10:22.873-07:00Hey Edgar,
What was the point of Bowman's obj...Hey Edgar,<br /><br />What was the point of Bowman's objection to the NWT's rendering? <br /><br />~KazAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com