From: Alan M Feuerbacher (alanf@mdhost.cse.tek.com)
Date: Mon Aug 21 1995 - 21:05:28 EDT
Ken Pulliam wrote:
> >>1) The Word was the God (THEOS is inherently definite).
>Alan, I don't think it is possible contextually but I believe it
>is possible grammatically. The noun THEOS is sometimes definite
>even without the article since it is a title.
I see what you're saying. However, according to the references
I've read, the grammatical construct -- "theos" appearing ahead
of "ho logos" in the sentence -- means that "theos" cannot be a
noun but must be an adjective. It would be like saying in English,
"human am i." (Note that I've used all lower case to parallel the
Greek.) Now, "human" can be a noun or adjective, depending on
context, so a parallel might be to list some possibilities of
exactly what this could mean:
1) I am the human. (noun.; poses a question as to which "human"
I'm talking about.
1) I am the Human. (noun.; as if there were one special Human
out of many humans, designated by use of "the"
and by capitalizing "Human")
2) I am a human. (noun.; one of many humans)
2) I am a Human. (noun.; one of many Humans(?); meaning is not
clear)
3) I am human. (adj.; one of many humans)
4) I am Human. (the fuzziest case; this is where capitalization
in English can cause confusion)
English itself is fuzzy in cases like this, so that based on
grammatical considerations alone we cannot say for certain what
"human am i" means. How, then, can we be certain what similar Greek
constructions mean when we no longer even have the full cultural
context of a native Greek speaker? Also note that Greek has no
equivalent of clarifying (or obscuring) meaning by use of
capitalization.
> >>2) The Word was a god (THEOS is indefinite).
> >As for 2), we also have variation "deity," "divine," "nature
> >of ..." and so on. Correct?
>
>I think what you are suggesting with the variations "deity,"
>"divine," etc. fits better under number #3.
I'm not sure I agree. This assumes that "divine," etc., can only refer
to God himself, i.e., the Old Testament YHWH.
This brings up an interesting point. The English words "god," "divine"
and "deity" are all defined somewhat in terms of each other. From
Merriam-Webster's _New Collegiate Dictionary_:
god: 1 cap: the supreme or ultimate reality: as a: the Being
perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness whom men worship as creator
and ruler of the universe ... 2: a being or object believed to
have more than natural attributes and powers and to require man's
worship; specif: one controlling a particular aspect or part of
reality 3: a person or thing of supreme value 4: a powerful
ruler
divine: 1 a: of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or
a god <the ~ right of kings> b: being a deity <the ~ Savior>
deity: 1 a: the rank or essential nature of a god: DIVINITY
b cap: SUPREME BEING, GOD 2: a god or goddess <the deities
of ancient Greece> 3: one exalted or revered as supremely good
or powerful
These definitions are not very "absolute," in that they rely on what
native speakers think of when hearing the words. Different cultures,
even within the English speaking community, will have somewhat different
ideas on what each word means, although most speakers would agree on
how the words are related.
In terms of absoluteness, the definition of "theos" does not seem
any better. From Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich (paraphrased):
theos: 1. of divine beings generally 2. with reference to Christ
3. quite predominantly of the true God, somtimes with, sometimes
without the article
Similarly, _The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised_ by Harold Moulton
gives these definitions for "theos" and related words: a deity; an
idol; God, the true God; God, possessed of true godhead; a goddess;
divine, pertaining to God; the divine nature, divinity; divinity,
deity, godhead, divine majesty.
The essential point is that native speakers develop a certain "feel"
for what these words mean in the context of their literature and their
culture. This is as true of 1st-century Greek as it is of modern
English.
However, we today have only a partial handle on all of the unspoken
connotations of various Greek words. In the case of "theos" and
related words, we know that "theos" means "divine being" or something
like that, but what is a divine being? What did it mean to a Greek
speaker? Unless one clearly establishes what it means, one can't
really say much about a precise meaning of "theos." The best one
can sometimes do is establish some possible meanings.
In the case of "theos en ho logos," as has been discussed and as some
of the quotations in my previous post said, "theos" seems to say
something about the nature of "logos," i.e., the "logos" had the
nature of "theos." But what is the nature of "theos"? Well, it
describes gods, divine beings, the true God or a variety of other
things. From my studies I conclude that "theos" has even a richer
connotation than does "god" in English. As _TDNT_ says, under
"theos" (p. 67): "Its use is as broad and varied as the religious
interpretation of the world and of life by the Gks."
My point is that we're dealing with an inherently fuzzy problem
that is complicated by our cultural and religious biases.
> >In certain cases, though, as I described in my previous
> >post, worship was rendered to a "god" that is a real, live
> >entity --Satan. By all Greek cultural practices that I'm
> >aware of, Satan was a god -- not THE GOD, of course, but a
> >god that really exists. Jesus believed that Satan existed,
> >and would have called him a god. Yet Jesus certainly cannot
> >be described as polytheistic, nor did he ever think that
> >this god was God.
>
>This is also true, but I fail to see your point. The fact is that
>both ELOHIM and THEOS could be used of men, angels, idols, and
>the true God. Obviously, then the term has two different senses.
>In one sense, it refers to anything that is worshipped as if it
>were God and the other sense is the Almighty One who is truly
>deserving of worship.
I agree with your statements. My point was that many people use an
argument about John 1:1c that fails to take this into account. In
English, because of our use of capitalization, we can say that "God
is by definition the only true god." However, if we say "God is the
only true God," we are being redundant, and sort of trying to settle
the argument "by definition" rather than by logic.
I hope this provokes more discussion, since I've seen a wide variety
of usually poorly informed opinion on this topic, and would like to
see some scholarly opinions.
Alan Feuerbacher
alanf@mdhost.cse.tek.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:25 EDT