1 (1) Pythagoras of Samos instructed the region of Italy once called ...

(5) No one, however, either Latin or Greek, has ever said ‘deity,’ or in Greek theotês – at
least none of those whom we call ‘the ancients.’ For neither ‘God’ nor theos signifies a
quality. Our people said ‘divinity’ from ‘divine,’ therefore, and the Greeks theiotês from
theios. In any case, it would also have been pointless to adopt another word with the
same meaning. And yet we read it in Paul’s Letter to the Colossians, though I do not
know if it is found in every text or was corrupted by copyists and then followed by the
Church Fathers. Those who translated it into our language have ‘divinity’ rather than
‘deity’ either because the reading they had was theiotêtos rather than theotêtos or because
they had seen ‘deity’ rather than ‘divinity’ in none of the Latin authors. But as I said, the
Church Fathers, both the Greeks and our own, used ‘deity,’ doing so when it was clearly
unnecessary, lacking ancient authority and with no basis in analogy. 88
(7) In the seventh book of the City of God, Augustine had only this to say: ‘it does not
offend writers of our language to use this word “deity” to translate more distinctly from
Greek what they call theotês.’ 89 But I see that you were offended, Augustine, since in a
work so vast I never find you using that word. 90 Why does one read nothing about the
other word, which exists in the ancient authors – theiotêtos, I mean – and agrees with the
theory of grammar? Why did you not mention it? Because you were not an excellent
Hellenist?
Yet you were an excellent Latinist. Why did you not talk about rules for these words?
Do they differ at all? (8) Thomas Aquinas, who was no better at Latin than you were at
Greek, ventured to do so after you, writing in his Commentary on the Epistle to the
Romans: ‘Because of this he said “divinity,” which signifies participation, rather than
“deity,” which signify’s God’s essence.’ 91 Where else in Paul did you read ‘deity,’
Thomas, since you say that he used the word ‘divinity’ here. I will not mention how
absurd a reading ‘deity’ would be in the passage, ‘Everlasting his power and divinity.’ 92
What author, what book, what method taught you this distinction? Why did you not
listen to Boethius, who proposed a general theory on this topic? 93
(9) I would say the same about ‘identity,’ plainly a word as absurd as ‘itness’ would be if
based on ‘it,’ and about tautotês, a word whose strangeness I might perhaps endure if – as
88
Valla’s point is that abstract nouns of quality must derive from adjectives of quality, not from nouns that
do not signify quality; hence, ‘divinity’ must come from the adjective ‘divine,’ divinus or theios, not from
the noun ‘God,’ deus or theos; this rules out ‘deity’ but allows ‘divinity’ in both Latin and Greek. Zippel
notes that the reading at Col. 2:9 in modern editions of the New Testament is the theotêtos to which Valla
objects but that the Vulgate has divinitatis. Modern dictionaries list both theotês and theiotês as classical
usage, thus contradicting Valla. Zippel cites Occam, Sum. log. 1.6; Paul. Ven. Log. ma. 2.13 (Ven., 1499,
175v, 176r), but Valla seems to be talking about the Fathers as next after the ancients. Deitas appears in
Christian writers as early as Tertullian, Arnobius and Lactantius and then becomes very common.
89
Zippel cites Aug. DCD 7.1; the quotation is not exact.
90
Augustine also uses deitas in DCD 10.1 and 11.29 and often in other works.
91
Zippel cites Aquinas, In omn. S. Pauli Apost. epistolas comment. 1.6.
92
Zippel cites Rom. 1:20.
93
Zippel refers to the Boethius passage below ???
24
2/21/05 9:35 PM 24/44