[B-Greek] QEOS and KURIOS : a strange choice of words?
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Sep 15 15:10:46 EDT 2003
At 1:21 PM -0400 9/15/03, Doug Hoxworth wrote:
>
>><Ted: Ted Shoemaker <shoemakerted at yahoo.com>:
>>I find this strange. The word QEOS seems generic -- and this for a God
>>who demands exclusivity. The Greeks had used QEOS for centuries without
>>referring to Yahweh. And KURIOS doesn't even require the concept of
>>Deity: it's also used where our own English would use "boss" or "mister".
>
><doug>
>again, what would you expect to find here since it seems
>strange to you? what translation do you think we should
>look for from "a God who demands exclusivity"? in that
>case, should the term ADONAI or even ELOHIM be applied to
>God in the OT? were these terms also not used for the
>other gods of other nations? i guess i'm not really seeing
>your dilemma here since it seems that the Hebrew words can
>also have a broader reference base that just to the
>exclusive God of Abraham. perhaps you could elaborate on
>your difficulty here or be more specific about what seems
>strange here to you.
It seems to me that the question almost ranges beyond the parameters of
B-Greek because it concerns broader cultural issues including translation
philosophy rather than interpretation of the Biblical Greek text; perhaps
the question is appropriate in terms of lexicology in Biblical Greek usage.
At any rate, I think it's not insignificant that hO QEOS was used in
earlier classical Greek more than once in a monotheistic sense, certainly
by Xenophanes in his critique of anthorpomorphic polytheism and by the
Platonic Socrates who, it can pretty easily be argued, used hO QEOS of a
deity not to be thought of in terms of plurality or self-inconsistency, and
Aeschylus in the AGAMEMNON has a chorus praying to Zeus, wanting earnestly
to address him by a name that he will accept and so listen to them, in
words (160-166) that seem to anticipate the meditation attributed to Paul
in Acts on the AGNWSTOS QEOS of Athens:
ZEUS, hOSTIS POT' ESTIN, EI TOD'(E ONOMA) AUTWi FILON KELHMENWi,
TOUTO NIN PROSENNEPW. OUK ECW PROSEIKASAI PANT' EPISTAQMWMENOS,
PLHN DIOS, EI TO MATAN APO FRONTIDOS ACQOS CRH BALEIN ETHTUMWS.
Freely: "Zeus, whoever he (really) may be, if it pleases him when I call
upon him with this name, thus do I address him. When I weigh everything in
the balance, I cannot imagine any (name) comparable to Zeus, if (as is the
case) we have to jettison the hopeless burden of anxiety from our heart in
any real sense."
These passages in earlier Greek literature do not really constitute an
answer to the specific question originally raised by Ted Shoemaker, but
they suggest that, whether or not use of the word QEOS with a definite
article was ever intended as a substitute for any NOMEN SACRUM, human
beings can earnestly and anxiously want to address "the deity" without
knowing whether there's any single name that adequately represents that
deity's "authentic" name, and in those circumstances they may turn, if
speaking/writing Greek to use of hO QEOS in genuine reverence that is
something more than or different from pious avoidance of the tetragram.
--
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list