From: gjordan (gjordan@southeast.net)
Date: Wed Sep 03 1997 - 17:04:50 EDT
On Wed, 3 Sep 1997, Dale M. Wheeler wrote:
> I'd like you to define "proper noun" because you are using it in
> a way that I'm not familiar with; proper noun is normally used to
> refer to someone's, some place's, or something's *name*, Bob, Jim,
> Detroit, Post Office, April (month), Dallas Cowboys. QEOS is, as far
> as I can tell, not the *name*, either first or last, of the Creator
> of the universe...YHWH *may* be His name, but not QEOS.
I think there's been a misunderstanding. I was saying that the _English_
word "God" is usually used as a proper noun, not that Greek "QEOS" was.
So an English translation "God" would not really be possible, as far as I
can see, to render any indefinite or qualitative meaning in Greek
"QEOS." English "God" (with capital "G") is usually definite & proper,
even without the article.
> that purpose), but Biblical Theology. There is an *internal*
> theological perspective of the text (which for me extends to the
> whole of the NT and OT; for some of you it would only extend to
> the one document under analysis...I can't see that it makes that
> much difference for this discussion), and it is that internal
I think it would - Johannine Christology, if not theology, is quite
distinct from that of other New Testament writers even, for those of us
who make that distinction. The evidence for usage of "theos" etc. would
need to be drawn from GJohn, maybe other Johannine texts, with some
allowance for the possibility of multiple authors/redactors. Then there
also has to be allowance for robust literary practice - where semantic
construal can be very difficult to pin down the way some theologians would
like.
Greg Jordan
gjordan@southeast.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:27 EDT