Re: Logos

• To: gnat@metronet.com
• Subject: Re: Logos
• From: Pat Tiller <ptiller@husc.harvard.edu>
• Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 14:25:56 -0500 (EST)
• Cc: B-GREEK@virginia.edu
• In-Reply-To: <Pine.HPP.3.90.941121175946.6393B-100000@fohnix.metronet.com>

On Mon, 21 Nov 1994 gnat@metronet.com wrote:
  
> I am probably very MUCH oversimplifing this, but one reason theos does 
> not have the article is then there would be two subjects in the clause, 
> this would allow for polytheism.  If I have misunderstood this, please, 
> correct my thinking!!  :)
 
o theos En o logos would not have 2 subjects; it would have a subject and 
predicate that would probably be understood as identical in reference.  
There is no hint of polytheism.
theos En o logos means that the logos can be understood as being God, but 
not that logos and theos are necessarily equivalent expressions.

Pat Tiller
Harvard Divinity School

• Re: Logos
• From: gnat@metronet.com

• Prev: Word Order in John 1:1-2
• Next: John 1:1, Structure and Transl.
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread