Converting a noun into an adjective ?

Are you learning Koine Greek, the Greek of the New Testament and most other post-classical Greek texts? Whatever your level, use this forum to discuss all things Koine, Biblical or otherwise, including grammar, textbook talk, difficult passages, and more.
Isaac Newton
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 999
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Converting a noun into an adjective ?

Post by Isaac Newton »

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
The anarthrous θεὸς at John 1:1c is a noun, not an adjective. So it can either be used as an identity (definite sense) or as a categorization (indefinite sense) of the thing / individual to which it is applied, but not with a purely qualitative semantic function, such as Trinitarians do at John 1:1c. If that were the case, the apostle would have used the adjective θεῖος instead.

As a side note, when Unitarians use the English word "divine" (small d) for translating θεὸς in John 1:1c we mean "a divine thing" ( categorization) . Contrast this with the Trinitarian usage of θεὸς here which has the meaning "homoousious with God", "fully Divine," "Divine", which is neither an identity nor a categorization.
Οὐαὶ οἱ λέγοντες τὸ πονηρὸν καλὸν καὶ τὸ καλὸν πονηρόν, οἱ τιθέντες τὸ σκότος φῶς καὶ τὸ φῶς σκότος, οἱ τιθέντες τὸ πικρὸν γλυκὺ καὶ τὸ γλυκὺ πικρόν

anphph
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 593
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:35 am

Re: Converting a noun into an adjective ?

Post by anphph »

I don't understand your point. (Is there one?) Are you saying there are instances of nouns becoming adjectives in Greek? I may be making them up, but I think I have a few on the tip of my tongue that I can't remember right now, but I image it being possible — would very much appreciate if you could turn up some examples. The alternative, adjectives becoming nouns, is so common as to be trivial.

(Also I'm discounting as far as hermeneutically possible theological interpretations like the one you mentioned that renders "θεός" as "divine.)

The vast majority of this sort would be of the pattern X is Z, so 'Soldiers are humans', which is not by any means the same as saying that 'Soldiers are human', so what is usually in grammar called a predicate.

Isaac Newton
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 999
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Converting a noun into an adjective ?

Post by Isaac Newton »

Hi Miguel,
MiguelM wrote:I don't understand your point. (Is there one?) Are you saying there are instances of nouns becoming adjectives in Greek? I may be making them up, but I think I have a few on the tip of my tongue that I can't remember right now, but I image it being possible — would very much appreciate if you could turn up some examples. The alternative, adjectives becoming nouns, is so common as to be trivial.

(Also I'm discounting as far as hermeneutically possible theological interpretations like the one you mentioned that renders "θεός" as "divine.)

The vast majority of this sort would be of the pattern X is Z, so 'Soldiers are humans', which is not by any means the same as saying that 'Soldiers are human', so what is usually in grammar called a predicate.

I'm doubting the existence of a "purely qualitative" anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb , to the exclusion of a definite or indefinite sense, such as Trinitarians postulate at John 1:1c with θεός.

Here's http://digilander.libero.it/domingo7/Harner2.htm Harner's seminal study (“Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,”), but unfortunately he doesn't offer us a single clear example .
Οὐαὶ οἱ λέγοντες τὸ πονηρὸν καλὸν καὶ τὸ καλὸν πονηρόν, οἱ τιθέντες τὸ σκότος φῶς καὶ τὸ φῶς σκότος, οἱ τιθέντες τὸ πικρὸν γλυκὺ καὶ τὸ γλυκὺ πικρόν

Isaac Newton
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 999
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Converting a noun into an adjective ?

Post by Isaac Newton »

I find the trinitarian clim that θεός in John 1:1c is a "purely qualitative noun" to be truly bizarre. See the following by Robert Hommel : http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Theos_CountNoun.htm

Harner says that qualitativeness may coexist with either a definite or indefinite semantic force. Though not explicitly stated, a close reading also indicates that he believed qualitativeness may exist by itself. When considering Mark 12:35, Harner says, "the predicate noun could be interpreted as defininte, indefinite, or qualitative, depending on the particular meaning or emphasis which we understand the passage to have" (p. 79).

When this principle is applied to John 1:1c, Harner offers this as a possible translation that properly conveys John's thought: "The Word had the same nature as God" (p. 87).3...

Harner's study has been accepted and expanded upon by a number of Greek scholars, grammarians, and lexicographers.4 While English grammars do not generally classify nouns as "qualitative," and thus English speakers are not used to this term, several languages including Japanese and Coptic have qualitative nouns. Thus, while there may be some difficulty in expressing the true meaning of a qualitative noun in English without some level of paraphrase, the existence of qualitative nouns in Koine Greek is well established as is their meaning.


The Case for a Purely Qualitative Noun

The existence of qualitative nouns in Koine Greek has long been noted by Greek grammarians (see note 2, below). The issue Witness apologists have questioned is whether a noun can be only qualitative, to the exclusion of a definite or indefinite sense. These apologists have offered no grammarian (Greek or English) who agrees with them; however, a number of grammarians and linguists support the existence of purely qualitative nouns, both in Greek and English.16 Witness apologists have often demanded that Trinitarians provide "a clear example of a Q-only count noun." I have already demonstrated that the presupposition that theos in John 1:1c is a count noun, based on the Witness's preferred contextual definition of a count noun, cannot be substantiated. Further, if we accept the contextual definition of a count noun, qualitative theos is not a count noun at all. A noun signifying qualities or characteristics is not countable in its context.
Οὐαὶ οἱ λέγοντες τὸ πονηρὸν καλὸν καὶ τὸ καλὸν πονηρόν, οἱ τιθέντες τὸ σκότος φῶς καὶ τὸ φῶς σκότος, οἱ τιθέντες τὸ πικρὸν γλυκὺ καὶ τὸ γλυκὺ πικρόν

Markos
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2966
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: Converting a noun into an adjective ?

Post by Markos »

Hi, Isaac.

I think it is better to abandon the distinction between noun and adjective and to view both θεός as θεῖος as substantives which pretty much mean the same thing. "And Jesus was a Divine Thing."

Isaac Newton
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 999
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Converting a noun into an adjective ?

Post by Isaac Newton »

Markos wrote:Hi, Isaac.

I think it is better to abandon the distinction between noun and adjective and to view both θεός as θεῖος as substantives which pretty much mean the same thing. "And Jesus was a Divine Thing."
I like the gist of your translation though we should be careful to not confuse "Logos" with "Jesus" at John 1:1c . I also have a slight problem with the capital "D" (Divine), and "T" (Thing) because capitals in English connote proper names , though your use of the indefinite article alleviates this problem somewhat.
Οὐαὶ οἱ λέγοντες τὸ πονηρὸν καλὸν καὶ τὸ καλὸν πονηρόν, οἱ τιθέντες τὸ σκότος φῶς καὶ τὸ φῶς σκότος, οἱ τιθέντες τὸ πικρὸν γλυκὺ καὶ τὸ γλυκὺ πικρόν

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4790
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Converting a noun into an adjective ?

Post by mwh »

I hesitate to set foot in these waters again, but for what it’s worth, take it or leave it:

θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος means “the word” (or whatever is to be understood by logos here) “was god” (or “a god,” but that’s contextually impossible here). θεός is a noun, only and always a noun, and unlike λόγος has only the one meaning. Its corresponding adjective is θεῖος. We can’t go “abandoning” the distinction between them, for the distinction is real, inherent in the language itself and never effaced. Homer or Plato may be divine, your exegesis may be divine, but cannot be god. God is god, and so (according to John) was the logos.

What John understood by “god” is up for theological dispute, but that’s what he said, and I imagine he’d be bemused by all these doctrinally driven attempts to delimit the meaning of the word and back it into a corner. If he’d wanted to say “a divine thing” (or “a Divine Thing”—now there’s an unreal distinction for you), or "homoousious with God," he could have done so. What he actually says is simply “god” (“God” if you prefer).

I should probably leave it there, but let me propose a reorientation. The statement, like all statements, needs to be taken in context. The sentence is artfully contrived, with double chiasmus in its trio of clauses. It makes a stylistically imposing and rhetorically powerful opening, and (as is often the case with rhetoric) does not readily submit to logical analysis (for if the logos was itself θεος how can it have also been προς τον θεον?) The early exegetes struggled with this. We should recognize that the sentence is a progression, with this the third and final clause being the climax, going a step beyond the previous one. It has more than a touch of the mystic about it, in keeping with the inexplicit use of ὁ λογος.

Hope this helps.

Isaac Newton
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 999
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Converting a noun into an adjective ?

Post by Isaac Newton »

mwh wrote:I hesitate to set foot in these waters again, but for what it’s worth, take it or leave it:

θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος means “the word” (or whatever is to be understood by logos here) “was god” (or “a god,” but that’s contextually impossible here). θεός is a noun, only and always a noun, and unlike λόγος has only the one meaning. Its corresponding adjective is θεῖος. We can’t go “abandoning” the distinction between them, for the distinction is real, inherent in the language itself and never effaced. Homer or Plato may be divine, your exegesis may be divine, but cannot be god. God is god, and so (according to John) was the logos.

What John understood by “god” is up for theological dispute, but that’s what he said, and I imagine he’d be bemused by all these doctrinally driven attempts to delimit the meaning of the word and back it into a corner. If he’d wanted to say “a divine thing” (or “a Divine Thing”—now there’s an unreal distinction for you), or "homoousious with God," he could have done so. What he actually says is simply “god” (“God” if you prefer).

I should probably leave it there, but let me propose a reorientation. The statement, like all statements, needs to be taken in context. The sentence is artfully contrived, with double chiasmus in its trio of clauses. It makes a stylistically imposing and rhetorically powerful opening, and (as is often the case with rhetoric) does not readily submit to logical analysis (for if the logos was itself θεος how can it have also been προς τον θεον?) The early exegetes struggled with this. We should recognize that the sentence is a progression, with this the third and final clause being the climax, going a step beyond the previous one. It has more than a touch of the mystic about it, in keeping with the inexplicit use of ὁ λογος.

Hope this helps.
What can "god" (with a small "G") possibly mean if not "a god" or "a divine thing" ?
Οὐαὶ οἱ λέγοντες τὸ πονηρὸν καλὸν καὶ τὸ καλὸν πονηρόν, οἱ τιθέντες τὸ σκότος φῶς καὶ τὸ φῶς σκότος, οἱ τιθέντες τὸ πικρὸν γλυκὺ καὶ τὸ γλυκὺ πικρόν

Victor
Textkit Fan
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:19 am

Re: Converting a noun into an adjective ?

Post by Victor »

Isaac Newton wrote: What can "god" (with a small "G") possibly mean if not "a god" or "a divine thing" ?
"God", as already stated:
mwh wrote:What he actually says is simply “god” (“God” if you prefer).

Isaac Newton
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 999
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Converting a noun into an adjective ?

Post by Isaac Newton »

Victor wrote:
Isaac Newton wrote: What can "god" (with a small "G") possibly mean if not "a god" or "a divine thing" ?
"God", as already stated:
mwh wrote:What he actually says is simply “god” (“God” if you prefer).
But this leads either to linguistic nonsense or else to Modalism. Certainly, Trinitarianism is discounted by such an understanding, and such a translation. You don't have to take it from me of course. Here's Daniel Wallace;
3tn Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.
Οὐαὶ οἱ λέγοντες τὸ πονηρὸν καλὸν καὶ τὸ καλὸν πονηρόν, οἱ τιθέντες τὸ σκότος φῶς καὶ τὸ φῶς σκότος, οἱ τιθέντες τὸ πικρὸν γλυκὺ καὶ τὸ γλυκὺ πικρόν

Victor
Textkit Fan
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:19 am

Re: Converting a noun into an adjective ?

Post by Victor »

Isaac Newton wrote: But this leads either to linguistic nonsense or else to Modalism. Certainly, Trinitarianism is discounted by such an understanding, and such a translation. You don't have to take it from me of course.
I'm afraid its tendency to nonesense is entirely a product of the collective failure of theists to agree on a coherent definition of "God". Without a coherent definition of "God" there is no proposition to either verify or falsify, and therefore your objection to the casual interchange by others of "God" and "god" has no ground to stand on but that of your own arbitrary theological constructs, or those borrowed from others.

When all's said and done, it's futile trying to counter an ignostic (sic) viewpoint by pointing out that "God" and "god" should not be used interchangeably or that doing so smacks of Modalism or conflicts with Trinitarianism. Doubtless you'll see an equal futility in others' efforts to counter a theistic viewpoint with an igtheistic one. Experience tells me that all too often this is indeed an exercise in futility.

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4790
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Converting a noun into an adjective ?

Post by mwh »

So here we go again. Before anyone else gets sucked (suckered?) into this discussion, I would recommend a look at Isaac Newton’s previous thread on this, “An inspection of John 1:1,” viewtopic.php?f=23&t=60130, or indeed at any of his previous threads. That will give a taste of what you’re in for, or you will be in for if you choose to engage, as I do not.

Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate. This is a public service announcement.
Last edited by mwh on Sun Aug 24, 2014 7:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

uberdwayne
Textkit Fan
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:29 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Converting a noun into an adjective ?

Post by uberdwayne »

So here we go again. Before anyone else gets sucked (suckered?) into this discussion, I would recommend a look at Isaac Newton’s previous thread on this, “An inspection of John 1:1,” viewtopic.php?f=23&t=60130, or indeed at any of his previous threads. That will give a taste of what you’re in for, or you will be in for if you choose to engage, as I do not.

This is a public service announcement.
I second Michael's post!
μείζων ἐστὶν ὁ ἐν ὑμῖν ἢ ὁ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ

Isaac Newton
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 999
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Converting a noun into an adjective ?

Post by Isaac Newton »

Thanks for your contributions to this thread, Uberdwane and mwh. Blessings to you both..

In peace,
Οὐαὶ οἱ λέγοντες τὸ πονηρὸν καλὸν καὶ τὸ καλὸν πονηρόν, οἱ τιθέντες τὸ σκότος φῶς καὶ τὸ φῶς σκότος, οἱ τιθέντες τὸ πικρὸν γλυκὺ καὶ τὸ γλυκὺ πικρόν

User avatar
jaihare
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 959
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:47 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Converting a noun into an adjective ?

Post by jaihare »

What about the following sentences:

I speak the truth.
I speak truly.
I speak true things.

Is there a distinction in Greek?

τὸ ἀληθὲς λέγω.
ἀληθῶς/ἀληθινῶς λέγω.
τὰ ἀληθῆ (or, τἀληθῆ) λέγω.

Is there really a conceptual difference here?

Markos
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2966
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: Converting a noun into an adjective ?

Post by Markos »

jaihare wrote:What about the following sentences:

I speak the truth.
I speak truly.
I speak true things.

Is there a distinction in Greek?

τὸ ἀληθὲς λέγω.
ἀληθῶς/ἀληθινῶς λέγω.
τὰ ἀληθῆ (or, τἀληθῆ) λέγω.

Is there really a conceptual difference here?
There is a difference in form. There is a difference in sound. There may be a difference in feel. I do not believe there is a difference in meaning.

Or, a better way to look at it, is to ask 100 fluent English speakers what the semantic difference is in your English sentences. 50 people will say there is no difference. The other 50 will explain the differences in 50 different ways. I think the same would apply to Ancient Greek, which is one reason I trend towards semantic minimalism.

Isaac Newton
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 999
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Converting a noun into an adjective ?

Post by Isaac Newton »

jaihare wrote:What about the following sentences:

I speak the truth.
I speak truly.
I speak true things.

Is there a distinction in Greek?

τὸ ἀληθὲς λέγω.
ἀληθῶς/ἀληθινῶς λέγω.
τὰ ἀληθῆ (or, τἀληθῆ) λέγω.

Is there really a conceptual difference here?
No, but then again this is a false analogy. ...Look at this :
ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν , καὶ ἀλήθεια ἦν ὁ λόγος
Now do your experiment again with this and see if there is not a difference in meaning, especially if you're approaching the text with an eternally existing "Divine person" in mind with ὁ λόγος... :)
Οὐαὶ οἱ λέγοντες τὸ πονηρὸν καλὸν καὶ τὸ καλὸν πονηρόν, οἱ τιθέντες τὸ σκότος φῶς καὶ τὸ φῶς σκότος, οἱ τιθέντες τὸ πικρὸν γλυκὺ καὶ τὸ γλυκὺ πικρόν

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4790
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Converting a noun into an adjective ?

Post by mwh »

ω φιλε Μαρκε,
Amicus Marcus sed magis amica veritas.

I’ve resisted many earlier opportunities to take issue with your “semantic minimalism,” but it can’t be allowed to go unchallenged any longer. We agree, of course, that meaning is contingent: the meaning of a given utterance will vary according to the circumstances under which it's issued and received. J.L. Austin taught us that. Context is all: we have both said that.

But not literally all. There are the words themselves. “Call me Ishmael” could carry quite a variety of meanings in various contexts, but what you might be content to call its “basic” meaning is stable and definable in grammatical terms. Try going around saying it to people and noone will misunderstand what you have said, though they might not know quite what you mean by it.

Try going around saying “I speak true things” and people will think you’re mad. In other words the English sentences jaihare offered will not all communicate the same thing, regardless of the locutionary context. And nor will the Greek. And we should stick with the Greek, since English translations can be no better than approximate, and English analogies will likely be false.

50 out of 100 ancient Athenians, having chastized your impertinence, might have told you there’s no difference between το αληθες λεγω and τα αληθη λεγω. But you could have proved them wrong, by pointing out that the circumstances under which they would say the one were not always identical with the circumstances under which they would say the other. If the difference can’t well be rendered in English, that’s not to say there is none. (I think that’s one of the traps you fall into.)

When it comes to θεος and θειος, no more than 1% of any ancient Greeks you polled would say they mean the same thing, and any who did would be wrong. The rest would tell you (if they had the patience: it would be wearing thin by now) that any number of things can be described as θειος, but nothing is a god but a god. And if you replied “Well, I’m a semantic minimalist, and I happen not to believe that. I think it is better to abandon the distinction between noun and adjective and to view both θεός as θεῖος as substantives which pretty much mean the same thing" they might (if they didn’t just box your ears) invite you to look at the tens of thousands of occurrences of θεος in their literature and challenge you to find one where θειος or θειον or το θειον could be substituted without affecting the meaning.

Adjectives can of course be “converted” into quasi-nouns by the article: ὁ χριστός, τὸ καλόν, “the poor.” But nouns can’t be converted into adjectives, or not without changing their morphology. (That's not true in English, but it is in Greek.)

In short, I submit that grammar and word choice make more semantic difference than you like to imagine. Examples previously touched on in other threads include aor.:impf. indicatives, aor.:pres. infinitives, and many more. Just because you can’t see a difference in any given instance doesn’t mean that there isn’t one. — You can of course retort that just because I can doesn’t mean there is. :D

Michael

Markos
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2966
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: Converting a noun into an adjective ?

Post by Markos »

Hi, Michael.
mwh wrote:I’ve resisted many earlier opportunities to take issue with your “semantic minimalism,” but it can’t be allowed to go unchallenged any longer...If the difference can’t well be rendered in English, that’s not to say there is none...
Actually, I think here we can agree. For example:
Romans 9:1: Ἀλήθειαν λέγω ἐν Χριστῷ, οὐ ψεύδομαι...
I would say that if Paul had instead written λέγω ἀληθῶς or ἀληθῆ λέγω, there would have been a difference, but that that difference cannot be rendered well in English. That in essence is semantic minimalism.

Markos
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2966
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: Converting a noun into an adjective ?

Post by Markos »

Isaac Newton wrote: No, but then again this is a false analogy. ...Look at this :
ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν , καὶ ἀλήθεια ἦν ὁ λόγος
Now do your experiment again with this and see if there is not a difference in meaning, especially if you're approaching the text with an eternally existing "Divine person" in mind with ὁ λόγος... :)
My sense is that anarthrous θεός, when the context supports it, can indeed function as a type of adjective. (What I mean is, that is one meta-language way to look at it.) I remain convinced that it does so in John 1:1c. ἀλήθεια doesn't work that way. I think only a few Greek nouns do.

Isaac Newton
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 999
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Converting a noun into an adjective ?

Post by Isaac Newton »

Hi Markos,
Markos wrote:
Isaac Newton wrote: No, but then again this is a false analogy. ...Look at this :
ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν , καὶ ἀλήθεια ἦν ὁ λόγος
Now do your experiment again with this and see if there is not a difference in meaning, especially if you're approaching the text with an eternally existing "Divine person" in mind with ὁ λόγος... :)
My sense is that anarthrous θεός, when the context supports it, can indeed function as a type of adjective. (What I mean is, that is one meta-language way to look at it.) I remain convinced that it does so in John 1:1c.
If it does, then it's the only place in the GNT where it (θεός) is "only qualitative, to the exclusion of a definite or indefinite sense", which seems to me to be a rather self-serving position -- Petitio Principii.
ἀλήθεια doesn't work that way. I think only a few Greek nouns do.
How do you determine this ?
Οὐαὶ οἱ λέγοντες τὸ πονηρὸν καλὸν καὶ τὸ καλὸν πονηρόν, οἱ τιθέντες τὸ σκότος φῶς καὶ τὸ φῶς σκότος, οἱ τιθέντες τὸ πικρὸν γλυκὺ καὶ τὸ γλυκὺ πικρόν

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Converting a noun into an adjective ?

Post by jeidsath »

mwh wrote: Mon Sep 15, 2014 12:23 am When it comes to θεος and θειος, no more than 1% of any ancient Greeks you polled would say they mean the same thing, and any who did would be wrong. The rest would tell you (if they had the patience: it would be wearing thin by now) that any number of things can be described as θειος, but nothing is a god but a god. And if you replied “Well, I’m a semantic minimalist, and I happen not to believe that. I think it is better to abandon the distinction between noun and adjective and to view both θεός as θεῖος as substantives which pretty much mean the same thing" they might (if they didn’t just box your ears) invite you to look at the tens of thousands of occurrences of θεος in their literature and challenge you to find one where θειος or θειον or το θειον could be substituted without affecting the meaning.
Sorry to raise this thread from the dead, but I was reading "Fresh light on Roman bureaucracy; an inaugural lecture, delivered before the University of Oxford, on March 11, 1920, by H. Stuart Jones", discussing the ἴδιος λόγος in a 2nd century papyrus from Theadelpheia, a term that has nothing to do with this thread, though the lecture made for very interesting reading.

But why I bring it up is that that papyrus refers to the very common title -- though new to me -- "ὁ θεὸς Σεβαστός". Apparently this is a translation of the Latin "divus". ὁ θεὸς Καῖσαρ is also common. There is discussion of it in the LSJ entry. It immediately reminded me of this thread.

A separate point is that Origen often uses the term "ὁ θεὸς λόγος", which I think he likely meant similarly.
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

Aetos
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1041
Joined: Sat May 19, 2018 6:04 pm

Re: Converting a noun into an adjective ?

Post by Aetos »

jeidsath wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 7:53 pm But why I bring it up is that that papyrus refers to the very common title -- though new to me -- "ὁ θεὸς Σεβαστός". Apparently this is a translation of the Latin "divus". ὁ θεὸς Καῖσαρ is also common. There is discussion of it in the LSJ entry. It immediately reminded me of this thread.

A separate point is that Origen often uses the term "ὁ θεὸς λόγος", which I think he likely meant similarly.
I think these are being used appositively (I think that's a word!)
ὁ θεὸς Σεβαστός = the god Augustus
ὁ θεὸς Καῖσαρ = the god Caesar
divus, although normally an adjective, is often used as a substantive in Latin.

I haven't read anything from Origen, so I wouldn't even venture a guess as to how he means "ὁ θεὸς λόγος"

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Converting a noun into an adjective ?

Post by jeidsath »

I don't believe that's the usage. Strabo, for example, contrasts ὁ Θεὸς Καῖσαρ (Julius) from ὁ Σεβαστὸς Καῖσαρ (Augustus) in the same sentence.
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

User avatar
Barry Hofstetter
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1739
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: Converting a noun into an adjective ?

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

jeidsath wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 9:22 pm I don't believe that's the usage. Strabo, for example, contrasts ὁ Θεὸς Καῖσαρ (Julius) from ὁ Σεβαστὸς Καῖσαρ (Augustus) in the same sentence.
So are you claiming that it is in fact used adjectively? I doubt it. Even if it is more idiomatic in English, and presumably Latin, to render with an adjective, it's still a noun in Greek, and our sense of English should not override that.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter

Cuncta mortalia incerta...

Aetos
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1041
Joined: Sat May 19, 2018 6:04 pm

Re: Converting a noun into an adjective ?

Post by Aetos »

jeidsath wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 9:22 pm I don't believe that's the usage. Strabo, for example, contrasts ὁ Θεὸς Καῖσαρ (Julius) from ὁ Σεβαστὸς Καῖσαρ (Augustus) in the same sentence.
Perhaps you could share the sentence? ὁ Θεὸς Καῖσαρ could mean "the god Caesar", while "ὁ Σεβαστὸς Καῖσαρ" would simply mean Augustus Caesar. Both were deified upon their deaths and Strabo would have lived to see Augustus' deification. If Strabo wrote his piece prior to Augustus' death, that is prior to his deification, then "ὁ Σεβαστὸς Καῖσαρ" would have been an appropriate title. Prior to his ascension to the Pantheon of Roman gods, his official Latin title was "Imperator Caesar Divi Filius Augustus" and was so referred to by later historians.

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4790
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Converting a noun into an adjective ?

Post by mwh »

Oh the hours I spent on the ιδιος λογος! Anyways, I think the earlier part of that old post of mine was more interesting, but yes, in the Greek-speaking parts of the Roman Empire θεός (rather than θεῖος) was applied to the emperor, who was officially a god. θεῖος correspondingly meant imperial, pertaining to the emperor. So the θεος/θειος distinction still held good.
ὁ θεὸς Καῖσαρ tout court would refer to Julius Caesar, retroactively divinized, Augustus being his (adoptive) son.
σεβαστός translates augustus(Augustus), used of all subsequent Roman emperors.

EDIT. Written before the previous two posts. I can't keep up with such a flurry! The bureaucratic formulae are well established.

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Converting a noun into an adjective ?

Post by jeidsath »

Strabo Geographica 4.1.1: οὕτω δὲ καὶ ὁ θεὸς Καῖσαρ ἐν τοῖς ὑπομνήμασιν εἴρηκεν. ὁ δὲ Σεβαστὸς Καῖσαρ τετραχῆ διελὼν τοὺς μὲν Κέλτας τῆς Ναρβωνίτιδος ἐπαρχίας ἀπέφηνεν...

This inscription is interesting too:

https://epigraphy.packhum.org/text/146384

It is from Αὐτοκράτωρ Καῖσαρ, θεοῦ Ἁδριανοῦ υἱός, θεοῦ Τραϊανοῦ Παρθικοῦ υἱωνός, θεοῦ Νέρουα ἔκγονος, Τίτος Αἴλιος Ἁδριανὸς Ἀντωνεῖνος Σεβαστός, which must be Antoninus Pius (where is the "Pius" in the Greek though?). A little later on he refers to ὁ θεὸς πατήρ μου. This would be impossible to read as "the God, my father" after that list. He's referring to his Divus Pater.

The fact that they are established bureaucratic formulas is the whole point: they are not real Greek, but translationese from Latin (similar to "κύριος ὁ θεός" in LXX and NT for the Hebrew Yahweh). They have meaning as the terms they translate, not through their Greek construction. θεός is a label here and picks up a formulaic usage as a title, indistinguishable from an adjective. Perhaps this influenced John or not. But this formulaic usage is clearly influencing Origen.
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

Aetos
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1041
Joined: Sat May 19, 2018 6:04 pm

Re: Converting a noun into an adjective ?

Post by Aetos »

jeidsath wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:02 pm οὕτω δὲ καὶ ὁ θεὸς Καῖσαρ ἐν τοῖς ὑπομνήμασιν εἴρηκεν. ὁ δὲ Σεβαστὸς Καῖσαρ τετραχῆ διελὼν τοὺς μὲν Κέλτας τῆς Ναρβωνίτιδος ἐπαρχίας ἀπέφηνεν...
The comparison here concerns how divus Caesar (Julius Caesar) and Augustus Caesar (Octavian) divided Gaul, J.C., famously dividing it into 3 parts, Augustus into 4.
jeidsath wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:02 pm It is from Αὐτοκράτωρ Καῖσαρ, θεοῦ Ἁδριανοῦ υἱός, θεοῦ Τραϊανοῦ Παρθικοῦ υἱωνός, θεοῦ Νέρουα ἔκγονος, Τίτος Αἴλιος Ἁδριανὸς Ἀντωνεῖνος Σεβαστός, which must be Antoninus Pius (where is the "Pius" in the Greek though?). A little later on he refers to ὁ θεὸς πατήρ μου. This would be impossible to read as "the God, my father" after that list. He's referring to his Divus Pater.
Pius is not part of his official title. Pius refers to the dutiful care he showed to his father-in-law (and other pious acts) and was a later addition to his name, much the same as "Africanus" was approved by the Senate to be added to Scipio's name, because of his victories over Carthage. His official title was Imperator Caesar Titus Aelius Hadrianus Antoninus Augustus Pontifex Maximus. His name was Titus Aurelius Fulvus Boionius Arrius Antoninus Pius.

As far as reading ὁ θεὸς πατήρ μου as "the god, my father", I would think that's exactly what he meant. It was due to his efforts that Hadrian was deified in the first place.

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4790
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Converting a noun into an adjective ?

Post by mwh »

So, 14,282 views und kein Ende. Whenever I think that textkit is gong to the dogs, I have only to remember Isaac and Markos—and to think of Aetos, who is diligently rescuing it.

Aetos
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1041
Joined: Sat May 19, 2018 6:04 pm

Re: Converting a noun into an adjective ?

Post by Aetos »

Thank you, Michael! I very much appreciate your kind words. When I first came to Textkit, I was immediately impressed with the level of knowledge that so many of you display and your willingness to share and help others. I am honoured to be welcome here.

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Converting a noun into an adjective ?

Post by jeidsath »

Aetos wrote: Wed Aug 12, 2020 12:25 am
jeidsath wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:02 pm οὕτω δὲ καὶ ὁ θεὸς Καῖσαρ ἐν τοῖς ὑπομνήμασιν εἴρηκεν. ὁ δὲ Σεβαστὸς Καῖσαρ τετραχῆ διελὼν τοὺς μὲν Κέλτας τῆς Ναρβωνίτιδος ἐπαρχίας ἀπέφηνεν...
The comparison here concerns...
I have to say that this is obviously the sentence, and I would have hoped that we could all read it without translation, but it has nothing to do with my argument. When you see the following in Greek: ὁ <x1> Καῖσαρ...ὁ δὲ <x2> Καῖσαρ, what part of speech would you assume for <x1> and <x2>? Nouns with an appositive reading would very naturally drop the second Καῖσαρ. Instead, θεός is here functioning as a title, as the Latin it replaces, and is contrasted to Σεβαστός, a different title.
As far as reading ὁ θεὸς πατήρ μου as "the god, my father", I would think that's exactly what he meant. It was due to his efforts that Hadrian was deified in the first place.
He is referring to his Divus Pater (as I pointed out) and his father was "deified" due to his efforts, and that is also how he got the Pius cognomen. But if these were normal Greek words, it would be strange to see a long listing of other θεοί followed by an articular ὁ θεός without some contrast. What you are seeing is a word-for-word replacement of a Latin title, not a translation of a Latin title. Similarly, it would be very strange English to see "son of a God, Hadrian, grandson of a God, Parthian Trajan....The God, my father...". "ὁ θεός" would be translated as a title into English, not a noun.
So, 14,281 posts und kein Ende. Whenever I think that textkit is gong to the dogs, I have only to remember Isaac and Markos—and to think of Aetos, who is diligently rescuing it.
Sayre was obviously wrong. It's internet board politics that are vicious.
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

Aetos
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1041
Joined: Sat May 19, 2018 6:04 pm

Re: Converting a noun into an adjective ?

Post by Aetos »

jeidsath wrote: Wed Aug 12, 2020 1:40 am Nouns with an appositive reading would very naturally drop the second Καῖσαρ. Instead, θεός is here functioning as a title, as the Latin it replaces, and is contrasted to Σεβαστός, a different title.
I see what you mean about contrasting θεός with σεβαστός, but I don't see how you can drop the second Καῖσαρ. The sense is, Caesar the god did it this way, Augustus Caesar did it that way. They're two different people, not two different titles for one person, but that's evident.
jeidsath wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:02 pm A little later on he refers to ὁ θεὸς πατήρ μου. This would be impossible to read as "the God, my father" after that list. He's referring to his Divus Pater.
I think you'll need to clarify the difference between "the god, my father" and divus pater. To me, they can mean the same thing.
jeidsath wrote: Wed Aug 12, 2020 1:40 am But if these were normal Greek words, it would be strange to see a long listing of other θεοί followed by an articular ὁ θεός without some contrast. What you are seeing is a word-for-word replacement of a Latin title, not a translation of a Latin title.
The long list of θεοί are simply the praenomina that make up Antoninus' official name. The one particular god he refers to later on is his father. πατήρ provides the contrast. Maybe this does sound strange in English, but the true test is whether the "translationese" would have made sense to the Greeks and Romans reading Strabo.

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Converting a noun into an adjective ?

Post by jeidsath »

Aetos, it can sometimes be frustrating for me to express myself when people are going in different directions, and I hope I didn't let that show through too much last night.

As background, I recommend that you read the LSJ entry on θεός as a title, Ι.3.a and Ι.3.b.

Further, I recommend that you look at Mason's Greek Terms for Roman Institutions, a Lexicon and Analysis, for the entry concerning this. I'll reproduce it here.
Spoiler
Show
Image
Image
Now, Aetos, what has made it especially frustrating to me here, is that I don't think that you have attended the chain of the argument. My point is that your appositive theory is impossible, but you have confused that statement with the idea that these are not transcriptions of the Latin titles (which they are). Your various points in support of them being titles are all correct, but also enormously beside the point, and I think that this is what has confused Michael.

For example, your "don't see how you can drop the second Καῖσαρ". If you go back and look, you will see that the point was not that Καῖσαρ should have been dropped. But that one wouldn't expect to see a repeated apposition like that, and that therefore we can conclude that these are not simple nouns in apposition.

These are more or less word-for-word tranformations of the Latin titles, not translations of them, as evidenced by the many alternatives attempts that Mason records the Greeks using to try to express the '"idea of divus" by means of periphrases'. Which do include the adjective θεῖος, of course.

There are various other misunderstandings and non sequiturs in your post that I don't have the time to go into, but if you'd like to jump on a Zoom call at some point, we can go through them more quickly.

***

Michael jumped in, I assume, after merely skimming. I can't bring myself to believe that he looked carefully at your apposition argument.

I will remind Michael that over the years Isaac Newton's Greek improved a great deal here, and if he would often express himself in an angry way, he was also often interlocuting with others who did the same.

Markos, who I hope comes back some day, brought an untiring enthusiasm to the board, and helped a lot of people new to Greek with that enthusiasm. Michael in particular learn a lot from this. I am very sorry that Markos felt harassed here and had to leave. If Textkit is "going to the dogs", I think that we might want to look to issues like that.
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4790
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Converting a noun into an adjective ?

Post by mwh »

Joel is right in supposing that I did not read with any great care all the posts that followed the one I wrote in the wake of his quoting me in his resurrection of the thread—the one in which I said
I think the earlier part of that old post of mine was more interesting, but yes, in the Greek-speaking parts of the Roman Empire θεός (rather than θεῖος) was applied to the emperor, who was officially a god. θεῖος correspondingly meant imperial, pertaining to the emperor. So the θεος/θειος distinction still held good.
ὁ θεὸς Καῖσαρ tout court would refer to Julius Caesar, retroactively divinized, Augustus being his (adoptive) son.
σεβαστός translates augustus(Augustus), used of all subsequent Roman emperors.
I didn’t see need for more than that, but evidently Joel did. So I’ll add this.
Yes in the “ο θεος Χ” titulature θεος is effectively part of the title rather than being simply appositive. I really can’t get worked up about this, since the emperor was indeed worshiped as a god. And yes of course it’s translationese, in a sense, but it wouldn’t have been felt that way by its readers, who would simply have registered it as the proper form (it’s most often found in dating formulae—very convenient). And the fact remains that θεος not θειος is the standard term used. Incidentally I’m glad Joel 's posted that extract from Mason’s book, a book that was invaluable to me in confronting hundreds of Greek documents written under the Empire.

Aetos
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1041
Joined: Sat May 19, 2018 6:04 pm

Re: Converting a noun into an adjective ?

Post by Aetos »

Joel, let me preface my response with the sincere appreciation for your taking the time to correct my understanding and perhaps fallacious reasoning. I also appreciate the enormous frustration you must feel in knowing you're right and confronted with someone who can't understand your point and no matter what line of reasoning you take, your message just doesn't get through. This present discussion reminds me of when I thought epsilon could be lengthened and you insisted that it is always short, that there is no such thing as a long epsilon and although I had seen many references to books and papers on vowel lengthening, the pure and simple fact is there is no such thing as a long epsilon. You were right, of course, and when I accepted that, it made a profound difference in my ability to scan Homer and for that I'm grateful. I'm sorry if that's a little long-winded, but I want you to know how much I appreciate your patience and effort.

Perhaps it would help to retrace the argument.

Here is the statement I saw and thought about:
jeidsath wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 7:53 pm "...ὁ θεὸς Σεβαστός". Apparently this is a translation of the Latin "divus". ὁ θεὸς Καῖσαρ is also common. There is discussion of it in the LSJ entry.
At this point I did look up the LSJ entry and found 1.3.a and 1.3.b., which confirmed that ὁ θεός=divus. Considering that the topic of the thread is "converting a noun into an adjective", I understood the statement here to be that θεός was being used as an adjective having the meaning of θεῖος, which it does not. In Latin however, divus can be used this way, i.e., either as a substantive or adjective. As far as I know, in Greek there is a separate word for each function. However, AFAIK, it is possible in Greek to have two nouns applied to the same person or thing. This lead to my suggesting that θεός and Σεβαστός are being applied appositionally to Octavian and θεός and Καῖσαρ to Julius Caesar. I did not mean to imply that ὁ Σεβαστός Καῖσαρ and ὁ θεὸς Καῖσαρ are equivalent expressions that could be used interchangeably.
At this point, the reply was:
jeidsath wrote: Tue Aug 11, 2020 9:22 pm I don't believe that's the usage. Strabo, for example, contrasts ὁ Θεὸς Καῖσαρ (Julius) from ὁ Σεβαστὸς Καῖσαρ (Augustus) in the same sentence.
I asked to see the whole sentence because I still didn't see any problem with the appositional use of θεός. The contrast as I perceived it, was in what two individuals did, as opposed to the different elements in their titles and in this I agree with your next statement:
jeidsath wrote: Wed Aug 12, 2020 1:40 am I have to say that this is obviously the sentence, and I would have hoped that we could all read it without translation, but it has nothing to do with my argument.
jeidsath wrote: Wed Aug 12, 2020 1:40 am "ὁ θεός" would be translated as a title into English, not a noun.
I think this is where we started to go in different directions. Titles are nouns (not adjectives, unless being used as substantives), so in my reasoning, if you apply two nouns to one person, you are using them in apposition. As to the question of what parts of speech are represented by <x1> and <x2>, my answer would have been noun or noun phrase or adjective at least in this context.
jeidsath wrote: Wed Aug 12, 2020 3:08 pm My point is that your appositive theory is impossible, but you have confused that statement with the idea that these are not transcriptions of the Latin titles (which they are).
When I see the word "transcription", I think of representing a word from one language using the alphabet of another language, thus Καῖσαρ is a transcription of Caesar. θεός is a noun and one of several possible translations for divus.
jeidsath wrote: Wed Aug 12, 2020 3:08 pm If you go back and look, you will see that the point was not that Καῖσαρ should have been dropped. But that one wouldn't expect to see a repeated apposition like that, and that therefore we can conclude that these are not simple nouns in apposition.
I obviously misunderstood and I'm afraid I still don't understand. Yes, there's repetition of Καῖσαρ, but there has to be: there are two individuals that happen to have that noun as part of their titles. How we go from there to the conclusion that the two nouns that make up each title are not being used in apposition is where I lose you.

Having proceeded through what I think are the key points of the discussion, I believe:
1. We do not agree on what part of speech the word "title" represents. You say adjective, I say noun.
2. It's quite possible that there is a misunderstanding as to what is in apposition to what; to be clear, I'm referring to the pair of nouns within each title. You could get rid of ὁ Σεβαστὸς Καῖσαρ altogether; just consider θεός and Καῖσαρ, both nouns, both referring to Julius Caesar.
3. Much of the historical information does appear to be extraneous. My reason for supplying it was to support the idea that deified Roman emperors were more than just divine (adjective). They were gods (noun).


Joel, I'm sorry but I don't do Zoom. Call me camera shy, but the truth is I'm not very good at quick comebacks. I'm the kind of person that always discovers his brilliant answers long after everyone else has left the building. Case in point, I started typing this 4 hours ago. You deserve the best answer I can give and this is it.

EDIT: I just saw mwh's post. To me the only word I have to describe the relationship of a string of nouns in a title is apposition. Obviously I've got a lot more to learn about titular construction. Consider me told. Joel, I also thank you for the information from Mason. At some point, I'll have to find a copy of it.

User avatar
Barry Hofstetter
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1739
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: Converting a noun into an adjective ?

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

Aetos wrote: Wed Aug 12, 2020 8:58 pm
EDIT: I just saw mwh's post. To me the only word I have to describe the relationship of a string of nouns in a title is apposition. Obviously I've got a lot more to learn about titular construction. Consider me told. Joel, I also thank you for the information from Mason. At some point, I'll have to find a copy of it.
Highly interesting discussion. I'm not sure either how the noun used as a title really changes anything. To use an English example, if I say President Obama (remember the days?) is "president" a noun or an adjective? In a sense, it doesn't matter, though I think it's really a noun used as a title to identify the office once held by Obama. I rather think that for Greek speakers, θεός in ὁ θεὸς Καῖσαρ would have the same feel, clearly not an adjective, but a noun identifying Καῖσαρ in a particular way.

In Latin divus is almost always felt as a noun. The OLD:
dīuus ~i m. [deiuos, cf. deus] FORMS: deu- CIL 1.4, 1.375, 1.798, etc.; deu- CIL 7.140; spelt with the ‘littera Claudiana’ CIL 6.921. b.5, 6.8554.3, 14.2995; abbreviated to d CIL 6.1020. The forms ~orum and ~um are both used for the genitive pl. A god.
To me that's sufficient to explain why the title translated into Greek uses the noun.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter

Cuncta mortalia incerta...

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Converting a noun into an adjective ?

Post by jeidsath »

That's English. English has a lot of titles, pre-fix and post-fix, and they are not adjectives (perhaps derived from the Latin usage? but I don't know). Greek doesn't in the same way, so far as I know. You would not put ἄναξ or βασιλεύς here in Greek. You never see ὁ θεὸς Ζεύς or ὁ βασιλεὺς Ζεύς (but rather ὁ Ζεὺς ὁ βασιλεύς, etc.). The only other thing you would normally put in a sentence slot in Greek between <article> <x> <name> would be an adjective or some sort of phrase, or something in the genitive. So, if you look at Mason, other documents use ἐν θεοῖς, and Josephus θεῖος or θειότατος to translate these same titles into more natural Greek.

Michael's original question was for a single use of θεός that could be substituted by θεῖος. Apparently this one? Is it relevant to what John meant? I have no idea. But Origen evidently took something like that from it, with his ὁ θεὸς λόγος and ὁ θεὸς Ἰησοῦς. Origen perhaps read John 1:1 as (though I'm being far too crude): "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was entitled God."
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4790
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Converting a noun into an adjective ?

Post by mwh »

Two points, and I’m done.
Joel writes
Michael’s original question was for a single use of θεός that could be substituted by θεῖος. Apparently this one?
1. My original post was addressed to Markos, and ran as follows:
ω φιλε Μαρκε,
Amicus Marcus sed magis amica veritas.

I’ve resisted many earlier opportunities to take issue with your “semantic minimalism,” but it can’t be allowed to go unchallenged any longer. We agree, of course, that meaning is contingent: the meaning of a given utterance will vary according to the circumstances under which it's issued and received. J.L. Austin taught us that. Context is all: we have both said that.

But not literally all. There are the words themselves. “Call me Ishmael” could carry quite a variety of meanings in various contexts, but what you might be content to call its “basic” meaning is stable and definable in grammatical terms. Try going around saying it to people and noone will misunderstand what you have said, though they might not know quite what you mean by it.

Try going around saying “I speak true things” and people will think you’re mad. In other words the English sentences jaihare offered will not all communicate the same thing, regardless of the locutionary context. And nor will the Greek. And we should stick with the Greek, since English translations can be no better than approximate, and English analogies will likely be false.

50 out of 100 ancient Athenians, having chastized your impertinence, might have told you there’s no difference between το αληθες λεγω and τα αληθη λεγω. But you could have proved them wrong, by pointing out that the circumstances under which they would say the one were not always identical with the circumstances under which they would say the other. If the difference can’t well be rendered in English, that’s not to say there is none. (I think that’s one of the traps you fall into.)

When it comes to θεος and θειος, no more than 1% of any ancient Greeks you polled would say they mean the same thing, and any who did would be wrong. The rest would tell you (if they had the patience: it would be wearing thin by now) that any number of things can be described as θειος, but nothing is a god but a god. And if you replied “Well, I’m a semantic minimalist, and I happen not to believe that. I think it is better to abandon the distinction between noun and adjective and to view both θεός as θεῖος as substantives which pretty much mean the same thing" they might (if they didn’t just box your ears) invite you to look at the tens of thousands of occurrences of θεος in their literature and challenge you to find one where θειος or θειον or το θειον could be substituted without affecting the meaning.

Adjectives can of course be “converted” into quasi-nouns by the article: ὁ χριστός, τὸ καλόν, “the poor.” But nouns can’t be converted into adjectives, or not without changing their morphology. (That's not true in English, but it is in Greek.)

In short, I submit that grammar and word choice make more semantic difference than you like to imagine. Examples previously touched on in other threads include aor.:impf. indicatives, aor.:pres. infinitives, and many more. Just because you can’t see a difference in any given instance doesn’t mean that there isn’t one. — You can of course retort that just because I can doesn’t mean there is.

Michael
(And I added a smiley at the end.) This courteous epistle is apparently the “harassment” of Markos alleged by Joel in his previous post, suggesting (on what basis I do not know) that Markos left textkit because of such harassment and darkly saying "Michael in particular <could?> learn a lot from this.” No comment.

2. Joel is clearly intent, suo more, on faulting me, and tries to undermine the distinction I drew six years ago in disagreement with poor Markos between θεός and θεῖος in ancient Greek. We should bear in mind that the discussion concerned usage in ancient Greek, not eccentric translation of Latin juristical legalese under the later Roman Empire, which is what the grecization of Justinian’s Digest represents. θεός and not θεῖος is “the standard formulation” (as Mason correctly said) in Roman-era documentary dating formulae (displacing Ptolemaic-era βσσιλευς, and representing Latin divus), and the evidence has multiplied since then. Not that that's at all what Markos and I were talking about. Anyway, I will grant that one or two people perhaps unfamiliar with the regular terminology may now and again in imperial times have used θειος or θειοτατος of the Roman emperor, and why not? He was, after all, divine, and most divine at that.

I refuse to discuss for the umpteenth time Jn.1.1, which has been done to death on these boards as well as elsewhere. (Indeed, it inaugurated this very thread, and sometimes it seems as if it’s the only bit of the John gospel that anyone knows.) I have even written about it myself. And I refrain from commenting on Joel’s amusing fantasy about Origen’s reading of that verse, which I hope he meant as a joke.

Sorry about the length of this, but Joel is so very persistent ….

User avatar
Barry Hofstetter
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1739
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: Converting a noun into an adjective ?

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

jeidsath wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 12:24 pm That's English. English has a lot of titles, pre-fix and post-fix, and they are not adjectives (perhaps derived from the Latin usage? but I don't know). Greek doesn't in the same way, so far as I know. You would not put ἄναξ or βασιλεύς here in Greek. You never see ὁ θεὸς Ζεύς or ὁ βασιλεὺς Ζεύς (but rather ὁ Ζεὺς ὁ βασιλεύς, etc.). The only other thing you would normally put in a sentence slot in Greek between <article> <x> <name> would be an adjective or some sort of phrase, or something in the genitive. So, if you look at Mason, other documents use ἐν θεοῖς, and Josephus θεῖος or θειότατος to translate these same titles into more natural Greek.

Michael's original question was for a single use of θεός that could be substituted by θεῖος. Apparently this one? Is it relevant to what John meant? I have no idea. But Origen evidently took something like that from it, with his ὁ θεὸς λόγος and ὁ θεὸς Ἰησοῦς. Origen perhaps read John 1:1 as (though I'm being far too crude): "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was entitled God."
It's English, but it illustrates the point. On this level, Greek and English have a cognate usage. And might I ask what a few outliers have to do with the the standard formula? As for Origen, I'm unfamiliar with that text you quoted without citation. Could you post the original? And I have no idea what you mean by "far too crude" or what the means for what Origen actually wrote.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter

Cuncta mortalia incerta...

Post Reply