[B-Greek] Re: Gal 4:8: TOIS MH OUSIN QEOIS

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Tue Apr 27 12:38:26 EDT 2004


Note the corrected subject-header; this was sent as "Re: B-Greek Digest,
Vol 16, Issue 28." May I remind digest-receiving list-members please to
indicate the subject-header of the original message to which they are
responding rather than simply letting the digest # stand in the
subject-header.

At 9:51 AM +0900 4/27/04, moon at mail.sogang.ac.kr wrote:
>Dear Barry,
>
>Thanks for correcting me about QEIOS vs QEOIS.
>But still, we can consider significant the fact
> that Paul the monotheist considers all the other
>"gods" as hOI MH ONTES QEOIS (those who are not gods),
>and by implication only Yaweh as hO WN QEOS (the one who is god).
>
>Paul can say PANTA LEGOMENON QEON (all called god)
>(2 Thess 2.4), but not PANTA ONTES QEON, it seems.
>Let me talk about 2 Thess 2.4 a bit more; it is
>interesting.

Not "all called god" but rather "every so-called god": PAS in the singular
is generally Englished as "every" rather than "all"; I think you meant
PANTA ONTA QEON rather than PANTA ONTES QEON but that may have something to
do with confusion of number-forms.


>2 Thess 2.4: hO ANTIKEIMENOS KAI hUPERAIROMENOS
>              EPI PANTA LEGOMENON QEON hH SEBASMA,
					H
>              hWSTE AUTON EIS TON NAON TOU QEOU KAQISAI
>                  APODEIKNUNTAI hEAUTON hOTI ESTIN QEOS.
		   APODEIKNUNTA

Transliteration:
(a) the second line should read QEON H SEBASMA; one really ought to be
careful to distinguish the article hH with its rough breathing from the
conjunction H with its smooth breathing. Our convention marks only the
rough breathing; at any rate, it's "every so-called god OR object of
reverence."
(b) the fourth line should read APODEIKNUNTA hEAUTON hOTI ESTIN QEOS -- the
verb form is an accusative singular participle rather than a middle-passive
3d-pl indicative.

>Here the referent of QEON is different from that of QEOS.
>He is aginst all those called god. Here god refers to many gods
>who are considered so. He sits on the temple of the god claiming that
>he is god. Here god refers to one who sits on the temple of the god,
>the only true god. the different referents of QEOS seem to be
>indicated by the predicates associated with QEOS. In one case,
>they are CALLED (LEGOMENON) QEOS, and in the other case,
>he claims that he IS (ESTIN) QEOS.

The hWSTE clause should be understood rather, "so that he takes his seat
within God's temple, demonstrating that he himself is God." Here the
construction with hEAUTON hOTI ESTIN is a form of indirect
statement/discourse with APODEIKNUMI as an introductory verb.

>Can we assume that when a monotheist uses the expression ESTIN QEOS,
>does he or she always in mind the only true god, at least the quality
>equivalent to that of the only true god.

I think it would be preferable to examine textual instances in their own
context rather than seek to lay down a rule to cover all cases.

>Would it give some hint to the interpertation of QEOS HN hO LOGOS in
>John 1.1c?

We've probably well over a Megabyte of archives on John 1:1c; my own view
is that that verselet more or less attests the need to examine textual
instances in their own context rather than seek to lay down a rule to cover
every case. You know very well (a) that there's more than one way to
understand the text of John 1:1c and (b) that those holding alternative
understandings of this text are firmly convinced of the grammatical
correctness of their view. What complicates issues here is that QEOS is not
the subject but the predicate nominative of the clause; the recurrent
dispute has been with respect to whether QEOS here is a proper name or a
generic noun. Holders of alternative views on this question both appeal to
their understanding of the broader context to resolve a question that is
not simply a matter of grammar.

>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>About TON QEON vs QEON, see my further question below.

I'll leave that further question for anyone who wants to tackle it, noting
only that I have serious doubts whether you'll resolve the question simply
by appealing to grammatical principles and observations.
-- 

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