>>QEOS GAR ESTIN hO ENERGWN EN hUMIN KAI TO QELEIN KAI O ENERGEIN hUPER
THS EUDOKIAS
>
>Now (2:12-13) Paul assures the readers that they can show similar
>humility while 'working out their own salvation' because the force
working in
>them is not their own strength, but God. That is, he predicates of the
>force working in them that it is God. This reading is consistent with
the
>wording regularity which the 'rule' we are discussing attempts to
capture: in
>constructions with equative verbs and two nominative case nouns, if
>one noun has the article and the other does not, then the anarthrous
noun
>is the predicate (and the articular noun is, therefore, usually assumed
>to be the grammatical subject). Here, given the larger context, QEOS
seems
>to function as a predicate, regardless of which noun is grammatically
the
>subject (though clearly, translating O ENERGWN EN UMIN as the subject
>in English makes this function clearer).
I agree with Carl and Micheal. This verse is hardly an exception to the
rule under discussion. Whether O ENERGWN EN hUMIN is the subject (for He
who works in you ... is God), or "it" (ESTIN) is the subject (for it is
God who is at work in you ...), it is clear there is no compelling reason
to go against the rule.
I am still interested to see if a legitimate exception to the rule does
exist, or if the rule is 100%.
At any rate, is QEOS definitie, qualitative, or indefinite? Does anybody
dare posit indefiniteness here? Surely, the options are only two:
qualitative or definite. My vote is definiteness. Is not Paul pointing
to and stressing a particular identity here? It is interesting that
textual variants here have the inclusion of the definite article on QEOS
(Byzantine and the majority of manuscripts). It is probable the scribes
felt QEOS was definite and so included the article in order to make it
the subject, or at least make it interchangeable with the articular
predicate.
Paul Dixon