From: Dale M. Wheeler (dalemw@teleport.com)
Date: Fri Jan 02 1998 - 02:13:06 EST
At 10:11 PM 12/31/97 -0700, Wes Williams wrote:
>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?
Wes,
I didn't say that QEOS was some sort of terminus technicus that only and
always
meant one thing...which it clearly doesn't, as you show (though I get nervous
about trying to posit some issue in Koine from translation Greek in the LXX; I
don't think that YHWH was ever used of humans, and since ELOHIM is plural, we
run into translation problems, especially when Barnabas [I follow the Western
fathers, and you follow the Eastern ones] quotes the passage, upon the basis
of which some critical OT scholars have posited the concept of a Divine
Counsel of "gods".). My point is that John is referring to God, not a
figurative use of the word God, and for him there is just one in that class.
I think the context of the verse is quite clear that he is using the term
in that "literal" way, and not in some figurative extension. That is how I
see it...beyond that, I fear we enter into theology...and we certainly don't
want to do that... ;-)
XAIREIN...
***********************************************************************
Dale M. Wheeler, Ph.D.
Research Professor in Biblical Languages Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220
Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com
***********************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:48 EDT