>So what exactly do we mean by "the subject"? I'm afraid I need a formalism
>here, because my intuition is failing me...if I write it like this, QEOS
>feels like the subject:
>
>QEOS GAR ESTIN hO ENERGWN EN hUMIN KAI TO QELEIN KAI O ENERGEIN hUPER THS
>EUDOKIAS
>
>But if I just change the word order a little, hO ENERGWN feels like the
>subject:
>
>hO ENERGWN GAR EN hUMIN KAI TO QELEIN KAI O ENERGEIN hUPER THS EUDOKIAS QEOS
>ESTIN
>
>Now I'm pretty sure that there is a formal definition for subject that might
>give us some clarity here...and that one of the many linguist types out
>there can bail us out of this!
There are formal definitions of 'subject' which would help in many cases,
but I don't think I can 'bail us out' here with one of those definitions.
Because the verb is an equative verb (sometimes called a 'linking' verb in
traditional grammar) the semantics don't work exactly the same way as with
other verbs.
It might help, though, if we focussed the discussion slightly differently.
What is relevant to exegesis is not necessarily the *grammatical* role of
subject, but the logical role of predicate. For example, in the English
sentence "John is tall", John is the subject, and tallness is predicated of
him. In the sentence "Long is the day on which the the grapes must be
picked," what is the subject? Whether we consider 'long' or 'the day on
which. . ." to be the subject, the logic is clear. It is predicated of the
day that it is long. So, whatever the grammatical roles may be, in terms of
the logical structure of the assertion 'long' is a predicate.
Now back to the Greek. . .
The context of Philippians 2 is a discussion of humility. Paul writes in 2:3
MHDEN KAT' ERIQEIAN MHDE KATA KENODOXIAN ALLA THi TAPEINOFROSUNHi ALLHLOUS
HGOUMENOI UPERECONTAS EAUTWN
[Do] nothing out of selfish ambition or conceit, but with humility regard
others as better than yourselves.
He then gives the example of Christ's own attitude, who though being equal
with God gave himself up for crucifixion, and of God's reaction--exalting
him (2:5-11).
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).
Personally, I think the whole matter of which noun is the grammatical
subject is of little relevance to the translation issue. What is much more
important is that the the article seems to show which noun should NOT be
taken as the logical predicate.
This approach is consistent with the view that the ABSENCE of the article
is often a marker of salience--a discourse issue rather than a strictly
syntactic one.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Micheal W. Palmer mwpalmer@earthlink.net
Religion & Philosophy
Meredith College
Visit the Greek Language and Linguistics Gateway at
http://home.earthlink.net/~mwpalmer/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------