Polysemy, Homonymy, Synchronism and Theos

It's no secret that theos ("God" or "god") meant different things to various folks in the ancient Greco-Roman world. This principle seems true for the ancient signification of terms in general, but polysemy (i.e., the fact that words have diverse and sundry meanings) and homonymy (which applies to examples like "bank" and "bank") are common features for most words. However, neither the former nor the latter (homonymy) threaten the synchronic approach to language. For instance, the English word "God/god" doesn't bear the same denotation for all English speakers either, yet I don't see how the polysemous nature of "God/god" prevents us from learning what the word now means some two-thousand years later (i.e., what its synchronic denotation currently is). After all, analyzing logos synchronically teaches us that the word had at least ten established senses by or after the Hellenistic era: synchronism and polysemy/homonymy can work hand in hand.

Linguists also differentiate sense from reference (Sinn und Bedeutung). There's a difference between what theos means/meant and what the word references in varying contexts. Philo of Alexandria uses the word theos to reference parents, but the word doesn't mean "parent." The Hebrew term Elohim likely refers to judges and angel at times, but it doesn't mean "judge/judges or angels."

Furthermore, I would respectfully submit that morphe ("form") is not that straightforward if you examine the word diachronically and synchronically. Aristotle equates morphe with ousia; Paul the Apostle apparently does not in Philippians 2:6-7. In Homer, the word can reference someone's beauty, but I don't find that use for morphe in the GNT. Hence, one needs to keep in mind the essential distinction between diachrony and synchrony while recognizing the distinction between polysemy and homonymy.