Hello, Derek and Ely and Rick_C,
A few comments below...
Ely: Well, if you can recognise Greek letters and words, there is apparently some kind of stem or something which determines the case. Same with tenses. I've resolved to making an effort to get familiar with Greek. I've sent off for a Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar to make a start on this.
Definitely worthwhile. The NT has enough delicate theological material in it to make the linguistic factor imperative. Mounce's grammar is a pretty fine piece of work. We use it in the Greek home study I teach.
Rick_C: In the late and early to mid second centuries the newly re-organized Judaism condemned heretics for believing in "two powers in heaven." Some scholars say that among these these heretics were, in fact, the very first Christians who held to these ancient Hebrew beliefs you are posting about, Emmet!
"Two powers" traditions seem potentially relevant to the study of the NT and the early church. I will assert, though, that they are not so relevant to understanding the meaning of Genesis 1. Genesis was not written for a first-/second-century audience, and sensitive interpretation of a document correlates to its intended audience.
I also hedge at lumping early Christians together with ancient Hebrew beliefs. Early Christianity developed out of late Second Temple Judaism, which is a different animal from both Israelite religion and the early Jewish religion of the post-exilic/pre-Hellenistic era.
So I would affirm the relevance of "two powers" traditions to exploring Christian origins, but I would distinguish them from ancient Hebrew beliefs
(though they may be an outgrowth of earlier beliefs), and I would balk at interpreting Genesis through their lens.
Rick_C: The ancient Hebrews did see the angels as gods, "sons of God" and "the hosts of heaven". I believe this "old school" of Hebrew thought continued up to the first century -- with Jesus and the very first Christians --- and beyond. It wasn't until the Church became predominantly Gentile, and this didn't take very long, that these ancient Hebrew beliefs either dwindled away or were eventually completely stamped out.
I would take a more nuanced approach. Although I am not expert in this department, I would imagine the "old school" view to have attenuated some time before the first-century. During the prophetic era, a stronger monotheistic vector appears to have emerged, and the congregation of "gods" concept likely fell out of favor. In the Persian period, however, it seems that Zoroastrian influence may have encouraged the development of speculative angelology and theoretical constructs of multiple powers in heaven; furthermore, the latter may have interfaced with conceptualizations drawn from Hellenistic philosophy. So the post-exilic concepts of hosts or powers are somewhat removed from the ancient congregation of gods, due to the emergence of monotheistic emphasis, and the subsequent
(or parallel, depending upon one's paradigm of dating) wash of Persian and Greek thought.
Derek: They say that since there's no definite article there, then they can put "a" before God. However, there is aparently a greek grammer rule that makes the use of the definite article after "was" impossible.
Heres a an article by James White (who's a Greek scholar) on John 1:1 .
White's article cites a grammatical principle that was formulated by Colwell in 1933; the article also mentions that the principle is not without exception.
Although I am far from an expert in Greek grammar, I am a bit skeptical toward "rules" that have only lately been proposed (cf. Granville Sharp's rule), and not by speakers native to the time or place of the documents in question.
Shlamaa,
Emmet
