04-03-2004, 11:04 PM
Shlama Dave and all,
Obviously Akhan Paul is the true expert, but I would also like to weigh in here a bit. In my opinion, the use of "self" by any stretch linguistically as an equivalent of QNOMA would be disastrous.
In fact, such an equivalence invites a flexibility on the English side that leads to more confusion. In Hebrew and Aramaic thought, it is possible to have what we call the "abstract face", i.e., the use of PANIM to indicate the presence of purely spiritual entities, such as YHWH Himself. YHWH says "Seek My face" and the blessing of the kohenim is "May YHWH lift up his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you and give you peace."
The problem is, when we say FACE in English, most often there is a physcial connotation Now Dave, I am sure you will counter by suggesting that FACE as a verb approaches your point, so that, if we "face the truth" we are in the presence of the truth, are dealing with the truth, etc. But, the normative usage of FACE in English is a physical one, and physical characteristics that define differences between two members of the same species are PARSOPA, not QNOMA.
I resist the SELF defintion because the references in Scripture do not support it, and it makes a huge difference to me doctrinally and personally. For example:
"And in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desires to one another, men with men committing indecent acts, and receiving in their QNOMEH the due penalty for their error."
Romans 1:27
Now Greek based translations read "themselves" or "persons", but to my mind this creates a false impression. The Aramaic is telling us instead that the sexual sins go straight to the heart of one's essence and substance, to the core of their being. In fact, there can be no stronger indication of this than to say that such sins eat at the heart of the occurrence of our human nature!
Furthermore:
"For just as the Father has life in His QNOMA so does the Son have life in his QNOMA. Even so He gave to the Son also to have life in his QNOMA."
John 5:26
Here we see Y'shua claiming that his life is bound up in the Father's, and that he has an occurrence of the divine nature, which is QNOMA. He also teaches on the divine QNOMA in John 4 as living water. These are important concepts, but the use of SELF and the concept of SELF is Hellenistic, and we need to leave such masks behind us when looking at this original text.
In fact, the greatest problem with QNOMA as SELF, is that we could also say the PARSOPA is SELF. In other words, those characteristics that make me different from you, my individuality, is my SELF. PARSOPA's cognate in Greek is PROSOPON (person) and that is where the west got this whole gig wrong in the first place. And, if you read the history of how the West got this wrong, you will see how they first changed the meaning of the Greek word HYPOSTASIS (originally having a closer meaning to QNOMA) and then declared that HYPOSTASIS (and QNOMA by implication) was the same as PROSOPON/PERSON, leading to divine persons, and in my view, idolatry.
It may then seem hard to fit a word like QNOMA into our western frameworks, but we have to. We have to make a space and a distinction for it that our previous understandiings did not have available previously. We should not make the word fit us. Rather, we should have our minds and understanding fit the word.
And so I stand with QNOMA as an occurrence of a nature, and individuated instance of a nature, but that there is no distinction between like QNOMEH except that of number. In other words, the only difference between your QNOMA and mine is that yours is occurrence #5 and mine is occurrence #6 of the same nature.
Therefore, QNOMA must remain something that is differentiated from personality or other factors that indicate a way to discern between two members of the same species.
Hope this helps, and of course I defer to Akhan Paul and his answer should mine be insufficient.
Obviously Akhan Paul is the true expert, but I would also like to weigh in here a bit. In my opinion, the use of "self" by any stretch linguistically as an equivalent of QNOMA would be disastrous.
In fact, such an equivalence invites a flexibility on the English side that leads to more confusion. In Hebrew and Aramaic thought, it is possible to have what we call the "abstract face", i.e., the use of PANIM to indicate the presence of purely spiritual entities, such as YHWH Himself. YHWH says "Seek My face" and the blessing of the kohenim is "May YHWH lift up his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you and give you peace."
The problem is, when we say FACE in English, most often there is a physcial connotation Now Dave, I am sure you will counter by suggesting that FACE as a verb approaches your point, so that, if we "face the truth" we are in the presence of the truth, are dealing with the truth, etc. But, the normative usage of FACE in English is a physical one, and physical characteristics that define differences between two members of the same species are PARSOPA, not QNOMA.
I resist the SELF defintion because the references in Scripture do not support it, and it makes a huge difference to me doctrinally and personally. For example:
"And in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desires to one another, men with men committing indecent acts, and receiving in their QNOMEH the due penalty for their error."
Romans 1:27
Now Greek based translations read "themselves" or "persons", but to my mind this creates a false impression. The Aramaic is telling us instead that the sexual sins go straight to the heart of one's essence and substance, to the core of their being. In fact, there can be no stronger indication of this than to say that such sins eat at the heart of the occurrence of our human nature!
Furthermore:
"For just as the Father has life in His QNOMA so does the Son have life in his QNOMA. Even so He gave to the Son also to have life in his QNOMA."
John 5:26
Here we see Y'shua claiming that his life is bound up in the Father's, and that he has an occurrence of the divine nature, which is QNOMA. He also teaches on the divine QNOMA in John 4 as living water. These are important concepts, but the use of SELF and the concept of SELF is Hellenistic, and we need to leave such masks behind us when looking at this original text.
In fact, the greatest problem with QNOMA as SELF, is that we could also say the PARSOPA is SELF. In other words, those characteristics that make me different from you, my individuality, is my SELF. PARSOPA's cognate in Greek is PROSOPON (person) and that is where the west got this whole gig wrong in the first place. And, if you read the history of how the West got this wrong, you will see how they first changed the meaning of the Greek word HYPOSTASIS (originally having a closer meaning to QNOMA) and then declared that HYPOSTASIS (and QNOMA by implication) was the same as PROSOPON/PERSON, leading to divine persons, and in my view, idolatry.
It may then seem hard to fit a word like QNOMA into our western frameworks, but we have to. We have to make a space and a distinction for it that our previous understandiings did not have available previously. We should not make the word fit us. Rather, we should have our minds and understanding fit the word.
And so I stand with QNOMA as an occurrence of a nature, and individuated instance of a nature, but that there is no distinction between like QNOMEH except that of number. In other words, the only difference between your QNOMA and mine is that yours is occurrence #5 and mine is occurrence #6 of the same nature.
Therefore, QNOMA must remain something that is differentiated from personality or other factors that indicate a way to discern between two members of the same species.
Hope this helps, and of course I defer to Akhan Paul and his answer should mine be insufficient.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Andrew Gabriel Roth