From: Wes Williams (WesWilliams@usa.net)
Date: Thu Jan 01 1998 - 00:11:14 EST
Dale M. Wheeler wrote:
> This
> is why "indefinite", a god, doesn't work for John 1:1c, since Jesus/the
> Word would have to represent a class; but there is no class to represent
> in Judeo-Christian theology, since there is only 1 member. In this
> sense, the Christian use of QEOS to refer to their God is monadic; it
> is my observation that when other factors are not involved (eg., Apollonius'
> Canon, etc.) there is a propensity to use the article with QEOS to make
> it clear within a polytheist cultural world-view that they were referring
> to the singular true God (if I go any further, this will become
> theology... ;-)
>
Dale,
Thank you for outlining why the indefinite translation is not an appropriate
choice for you. The statement you supplied deserves further exploration however.
You stated:
"... since Jesus/the
Word would have to represent a class; but there is no class to represent
in Judeo-Christian theology, since there is only 1 member. "
Since both humans and angels are referred to as QEOI in Judeo-Christian theology,
how can I reconcile this fact with that statement?
To stay brief, I will cite three examples in support:
(1) At John 10:34, Jesus cites Psalm 82:6 when he says QEOI ESTE. They were gods
in their capacity as representatives of and spokesmen for ha-elohim (hO QEOS),
regardless of who one believes the QEOI were in Psalm 82:6. [Although my
preference is for the unrighteous judges of the nation.]
(2) Similarly, at Ex. 7:1 Moses was told that he was to serve as "a god" to
Pharaoh (Rahlf's - DEDWKA SE QEON FARAW)
(3) At Psalm 8:5, the angels are also referred to as elohim, as is confirmed by
Paul's quotation of the LXX passage at Hebrews 2:6-8.
These examples suffice to say that a class QEOS exists in Judeo-Christian theology
(but not modern), for which there is one archetype. This is also well within the
bounds of Judeo-Christian monotheism.
If, therefore, such a class existed in the scriptures, why would one reasonably
object to the LOGOS being a member of that class (representative of and spokesman
for the archetype hO QEOS), the One with whom he is said to be EN ARCH and sent
him to the earth?
Sincerely,
Wes Williams
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:44 EDT