Qnoma?...definition

[Andrew Gabriel Roth]

Akha Andrew and Paul,

I perceive that this is a theologically and emotionally loaded question with you both. I think we should approach it linguistically and entymologically.

Akhi Dave, when dealing with Elohim-breathed sacred text, theology is the key to everything, and it arises from linguistic and etymological grounds. It is those original meanings that draw us to this text to begin with. As for emotion, I do not think either myself or Akhi Paul has exhibited one bit of that. The word means what it means.

As I recall, the lexicons give "self" as one of the major definitions; again , "self" need not refer to a person. Often it is neuter in meaning and impersonal:
[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]lpn glptm hmwnq l9d 0tybw brxt h$pn l9 glpttd wklm lk Nwhl rm0 Nwhtb$xm 0wh 9dyd Nyd 9w$y[/font]Lu 11:17
Lu 11:17 autov de eidwv autwn ta dianohmata eipen autoiv pasa basileia ef eauthn diamerisyeisa erhmoutai kai oikov epi oikon piptei

This is the first NT occurrence of Qnoma; it refers to a house falling in on itself. It also appears to be synonymous
to "napsa" in the same verse, "kingdom divided against itself". Are you both saying that this word can never have that meaning ?

With all due respect Akhi Dave, you need to see this through Eastern eyes. Have you never heard houses metaphorically described as having a personality? More fundamentally, KYANNA speaks to a total abstraction, a theoretical construct, and so you could have a house nature. Then, when you have an occurrence, an actual house, it is the qnoma, or occurrence of a house.

NAPHSHA, meaning soul, also can mean LIFE, and by that understanding a LIFE and an occurrence of a human nature--QNOMA--is also a LIFE. That is why they appear synonymous--not because you can ipso facto switch it for "self". That substituttion to "self" is a western attempt to process the word. It is not found in the eastern original rendering.

How is it that Luke, knowing Aramaic and Greek(who I believe wrote and translated his books and translated Hebrews) has "oikov" for "qnoma" in that verse (Luke 11:17) , meaning "house" is renamed in "qnoma" ? He also uses "eautos" (himself) in Hebrews 1:3 for "qnoma".

It does not matter Akhi Dave. We are dealing with terminology that has NO COGNATE IN GREEK. The only way to deal with QNOMA is to describe it at length. Or you can do what Paul did with MILTHA--list a bunch of terms and descriptions but leave it UNTRANSLATED.

In both cases, there is nothing that substitutes totally for it in any other language. And so, by your example, you are looking at the difficult and incomplete choices that Luke had to make to get his Gospel into Greek, and now, from the view of how that Greek was itself brought into English, are imposing a flexibility on the meaning that does not exist in Aramaic that began it.

I take it that this Zorba knew what he was about ! Remember, all Zorbas had to know Aramaic as well as Greek to translate the NT into Greek.This is a common usage among the 15 places qnoma occurs in the NT.

As far as the theology of the various sects of the Aramaic speaking Christians regarding this word, I think the lexicons should decide how a word is used and make the proper application for each occurrence accordingly; there is no one set usage for the word, in my humble opinion. It may or may not refer to a self or a person , or an "individuated nature", depending on the context.

Does not Aramaic employ synonyms ? I see napsa used as a synonym for qnoma at times; if not so, how is qnoma used in Luke 11:17 ?
The idea of a nature seems to apply at times, and others,not.
Romans 9:3-not.
1 Cor 6:7-not.

Akhi Dave, NAPSHA (soul, life) and QNOMA can be synonyms in the sense that they refer to the same thing but from a different perspective. If I have a soul, I have a life. If I have a life then, by definition of it being alive, I have a QNOMA, an occurrence of a nature.

Then you write:

The nature of the Spirit born cannot be condemned or accursed. It does not fit. A person can be condemned if he does evil.

I wish I could see this the way you do. I will continue to study and consider it. Much thanks for the the input.

Akhi Dave, we are not talking about nature or KYANNA. There is only one divine nature and only one human nature, as well as one nature of birds, reptiles, etc. They are pure abstractions, classifications looking for a concrete example.

But leave that aside and focus on QNOMA.

QNOMA is not abstract but an actual occurrence of a nature. It is not theory, but real living fact. By western standards that can mean "person", but from the viewpoint of the word QNOMA it does not.

What concerns me is a kind of linguistic slippery slope. We take a word that means X and translate into another language, and the new language has a word that means both X and Y. Now, of the two meanings, only X is right, but the receiving language has no word that only means X, and this leaves the door open for people to think either X or Y is a valid choice.

Now, take that receiving language, and translate X/Y into a third language, where it also has a word that matches one meaning, but half a dozen other words are also possible meanings.

You see my point I trust. By the time the NT goes from Aramaic, into Greek, possibly influenced by Latin, into Shakespearean English (KJV) and finally into modern English, what we have is a whisper down the lane effect, where an avalanche of lexical meanings are picked up along the way. I would argue, quite strongly, that this type of linguistic accretion has happened to QNOMA, as it went in to HYPOSTASIS, and then as HYPOSTASIS changed its meaning and became the same as PROSOPON, making some people now think that SELF is the correct meaning as a result.

Therefore, it is not for anyone to look at how the Greek handled the word and think that is fine for English too. Instead, we need to look at the original Aramaic and translate IT AND ONLY IT DIRECTLY INTO THE BEST ENGLISH WORD OR DEFINTION. If there is no matching equivalent, which is true a lot of the time, then the task is define it, explain it, and do whatever is necessary for however long it takes, until the concept matches the original.

Hope this helps.