From: Al Kidd (akidd@infoave.net)
Date: Sat Jan 03 1998 - 12:52:00 EST
I believe readers of that thread which has treated us to a
discussion both 1) of a certain use of the Greek article
(John 1:1b) and 2) of its absence (1:1c) will find something
provocative (at least) in the following addition to it. I
offer a few comments on _title phrases_. The
appropriateness of this bit of semantics in the context of
our exegeting John 1:1 will, I trust, become apparent.
Surely the matter of title phrases gives us something for
the thread that we ought not to overlook. Rien Op Den Brouw,
"The Problem of the Missing Article in the Use of 'God',"
_Religious Studies_ 30 No. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, March 1994) 22 on "title phrases":
Nelson Pike (1970) has acknowledged the
plausibility of both the proper name
analysis and the definite description
analysis and somehow attempts to combine
them. He assumes that 'God' is a
descriptive term rather than a proper
name. However, in order to take account
of the intuitive plausibility of the
proper name analysis of this term, he
suggests that 'God' is a special kind of
descriptive expression, which he proposes
to term as a 'title-phrase'.
'Grammatically, title-phrases are
descriptive expressions that often do the
work of proper names [i.e. function like
a proper name] and that often appear in
linguistic environments similar to those
associated with proper names.'
One of Brouw's concerns is that he explain why English
does not make use of the article in definite description
references to the God of the Bible, the God of the "Judaeo-
Christian heritage." Of course, both in classical Greek and
in Hellenistic Greek the nonvocative but articulated QEOS
(_theos_) is largely codified for just such a use (namely,
the definite description reference to a particular divinity
whose identity is indicated by context). I believe that we
should agree with Brouw that English suffers the loss and
confusion that might have been avoided had Christendom's
English-using writers used the English definite article for
those instances where 'God' does not function as a title
phrase, but functions only as a definite description
reference to the God of the Bible. Brouw (pp. 21, 26) puts
it this way:
In the context of Judaeo-Christian
discourse speakers use 'God'
referentially or as a predicate to make
it clear to the reader that they consider
JHWH as the one and only being deserving
to be referred to or described as 'God'.
We have observed that Christian believers
use the term 'God' without the definite
article. Given the interpretation of
'God' as a definite descriptive noun and
given the observation that in Christian
discourse 'God' is used without the
article, we have to say that Christians
fail grammatically, and accordingly
semantically, in fixing a definite
reference. In sum, then, on a definite
description analysis of 'God' there is
grammatically a problem because of the
absence of the article in the use of the
term 'God' in, for example, . . . 'God
spoke to Moses'. Rather, this
grammatical phenomenon would mark the
term 'God' out, again, as a proper name.
This interpretation, however, poses for
us another problem, since the proper name
analysis of this term yields a meaning
problem in 'JHWH is God'. We can
conclude that neither the proper name
analysis nor the definite description
analysis can fully account for the
[English] term 'God'[--note the capital
"G"--] as it is used by believers in the
context of the Judaeo-Christian religion.
As has been argued above, semantically
'God' is best analysed as a common noun,
whereas grammatically, the best analysis
of this term is that of a proper noun....
On the title-phrase analysis it can be
accounted for that 'God' is correctly
used by Christians as a predicate way to
say something of JHWH, and to refer to
or address JHWH uniquely in the context
of the Judaeo-Christian religion. What
is more, one of the weak points of the
definite description analysis is that it
cannot cope with the absence of the
definite article in, for example, 'God
spoke to Moses'. The title-phrase
analysis has remedied this failure. On
this analysis it can be argued that
although the term 'God' does not take
the definite article [in English], it
concerns here a definite descriptive
noun phrase. As a title phrase, 'God'
typically behaves like a proper noun.
(The words in brackets in the quote given immediately above
are interpolations I inserted.)
I emphasize "typically" in the last line of the quote just
given, because sometimes we have atypical uses--uses that do
not show forth a title-phrase meaning. Also, it does not
seem to me that either apostolic Christianity or ancient
Israelite monotheism owned a denial that there were "gods" in
the sense that such were spirit sons of God, angels. Ancient
Israel did not restrict nonpejorative use of _elohim_ as a
designation for only Jehovah (cf. references to "the gods"
with the meaning of "angels" in even certain (the
nonsectarian) ones of the Dead Sea Scrolls); also, apostolic
Christianity did _not_ restrict nonpejorative use of
QEOS/_elohim_ as a designation for the God of the Bible
(Jehovah) (e.g., Psalm 8:5 _elohim_ with the meaning
'angelic sons of God'; cf. _beneh' elohim_ at Job 38:7; cf.
Psalm 8:5 LXX and the quote of that LXX verse at Heb. 2:7;
also, we may argue that John 1:1c, 18 are verses where their
context (the Prologue) and epistemological/metaphysical
arguments (from a Christian perspective) give us a
nonpejorative use of QEOS for designating one who is other
than Jehovah, the Supreme Being). (I am open to offline
discussion of such issues.)
Now, for more citations of the Scriptures where semological
problems would result if we were to make use of "Jehovah" as
the semantical equivalent of the definite descriptive noun
HO THEOS in certain passages, see Ro 1:8; 3:29; 15:6;
Php 1:3; Phm 4. In this connection (namely, a comparison of
the Hebrew Bible's uses of an articulated _elohim_ and its
uses of the true God's personal name YHWH (= Jehovah/Yahweh),
we have something from _The Imperial Bible Dictionary_, ed.
P. Fairbairn (London: 1874, p. 856):
It [(i.e., YHWH)] is everywhere a proper
name, denoting the personal God and him
only; whereas Elohim partakes more of the
character of a common noun, denoting
usually, indeed, but not necessarily nor
uniformly, the Supreme. . . . The Hebrew
may say the Elohim, the true God, in
opposition to all false gods; but he
never says the Jehovah, for Jehovah is
the name of the true God only. He says
again and again my God . . . ; but never
my Jehovah, for when he says my God, he
means Jehovah. He speaks of the God of
Israel, but never of the Jehovah of
Israel, for there is no other Jehovah.
He speaks of the living God, but never
of the living Jehovah, for he cannot
conceive of Jehovah as other than
living.
So, in view of the material above, is the following
statement not a logical summation--a real rule? namely:
If a Greek writer wanted to make use of
the common noun appellative QEOS as a
definite descriptive reference to the God
of the Bible, _and_ if he wanted it to
function as a _title phrase_ having
semantical equivalence to the divine name
(YHWH), then he had first of all to
articulate QEOS, and then to use it in a
context that truly allows place for it as
a grammatical (semologically justified)
equivalent of the divine name
(Jehovah/Yahweh).
Now, it seems to me that the apostle John's use of QEOS in
John 1:1b meets the rule, so that the apostle might just as
well have written ". . . and the Logos was with Jehovah" for
1:1b. His next use of QEOS, however, does not meet the rule,
and cannot function as a personal-name reference either to
the Logos or, as trinitarians would have it, to a Logos-
incorporating, (triune) Godhead/Divinity. Consequently,
is there not error in those English translations of John
1:1c that give us "God" for John's predicative use of QEOS?
Does not the logic in such translation (wrongfully) suggest
to us readers of English that John 1:1c gives us a personal,
proper name _equivalent_ for the Logos?
I submit that QEOS, whether used by Homer, Origen, or by a
monotheistic Jew, 'covers a range of meaning that is not, for
every meaning (in that range), natural to the English word
"God." '
Al Kidd
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:44 EDT