The Theology of Heraclitus: a Presocratic Pantheism

22I'rords is the solutlon to the problen he raises. For it istrue that the polnt of the slr1ile 1s that god does not changeio essence, but this is no! rrhat a cotrlparison to wine wouldsay. It is true that thete 1s a ceriain range of tastes evenin unspiced wile, but thLs does not neart that all these unsplcedversions do not €hare the salde essence, 1.e. belng wine.The polnt of the analogy 1s tha! the one thlng, wlne, iscal1ed by dlfferent names accordlng to lts speclal addedflavors. It nakes no dlfference that the one-!hing-nLne isanalyzable lnto various categorles of o!1gina1 tastes anynolethat lt ls also alta1yzabIe lnto nuDe!Ica11y differen! portlons,They are all still "rine" ard that is all tha! 1s rleedeal tonake the analogy l'ork. The salient point of the inage Ls thatboth wine afid god are nameal as they change. Nothiog noreneed be true of boih of !heo. FroF a serna[!ic polot of view,then, olnos is acceptable,There 1s one drawback to oinos, however, tha! canoot beoverconei lt is ln the wrong place; it should be after &!UqEgp.Io! Renehan has conveyed to rne that in his opinlon it woul-d bevery unusuaf Gteek prose to have fiqg1gp no! followed by anoun. lloreove!, ll. uses .figp1gp seven other tlmes and ineach it is follo\red by a noun (frr.1, 29, 51, 79, 90, 103, &ll4). So oinos iB not free from drawbacks either. onesolutlon would be to add olnos lmDedlately after &!O@though this abandons the securlt)- of a paleogiaphic rationale.Nonetheless, I5til1 belleve that oinos is the bestenendation to date, even though ii is not Perfect. Yet ithas gaired f eir 6upporters (reff. in zll' I29-30) conPated to