Another thing I just thought of is that the word "theos" is not an
ordinary noun like "huios" or "phOs." What are the rules governing its
use with or without an article? As I remember it often, perhaps always,
appears without an article, and if that is so then it may make it harder
to see any significance in its being "anarthrous" in the phrase in
question. Of course this relates to the question of how to determine
whether this is a proper noun or a "descriptive/expressive"-functioning
noun. The idea of the latter seems utterly bizarre to me: Greek had
plenty of adjectives not to have to cross over into using nouns as
adjectival. But then Hebrew often did, and perhaps Aramaic did (I'm not
swift on my Aramaic enough to know). So maybe this could be a vestige of
a Semitic substrate in John's Greek idiolect. Anyway I will check out
that "Jesus as Theos" book, although I wish its main relevant insight had
been explained online.
PS: As a humorous aside, in case anyone's still thinking about John 1:18,
I noticed that the variant "monogenEs theos" which would seem to support
an Athanasian/Nicene reading, is supported by, of all people: Arius! And
it looks like some of the Athanasian/Nicene camp support the seemingly
more Arian variants like "monogenEs huios" etc. Endless ironies of history!
There must be a story behind that.
- Re: john 1
- From: "James K. Tauber" <firstname.lastname@example.org>