Could "The flesh of the god" be an ambiguous title? Why?

Question

Is the phrase "Flesh of the god" grammatically and semantically acceptable, or should it be "Flesh of the gods"?

I am writing an article and I'd like to use it for the title. I am from Finland, so I really don't know if this is the correct way to say this.

I'm speaking about any god. In my article, I'm describing a man as if he were a god. He's a normal human being, but he's placed himself upon a pedestal so as to be worshipped as a god. The story then goes on to say that someone kills this man and cuts off a piece of his flesh.

If I used the definite article, "the" before god, would it imply a specific god? Should I use an uppercase letter for "God"? What do you think "Flesh of the god" means? I mean, how would this story go, if the title were "Flesh of the god"?

Answer 1

It sounds from the comments as though you mean literally meat (for eating) made from a dead god (or someone posing as a god).

If that's the case then "the flesh of the god" does make sense as a title. It is somewhat ambiguous, but it sounds as though the story itself resolves that ambiguity. So it's ambiguous in an interesting way.

It's (IMO) a better title without the leading "the", because it's briefer and slightly more ambiguous whether you're using 'flesh' figuratively or literally (which makes it more interesting IMO). But that's a matter of personal style/preference really.

The ambiguity will be between:

The soft substance consisting of muscle and fat that is found between the skin and bones of a human or an animal

versus

The human body and its physical needs and desires, especially as contrasted with the mind or the soul

ODO: flesh

versus

II. Extended and figurative uses (chiefly of Biblical origin).

7. one's (own) flesh : one's near kindred or descendants. Now rare exc. in flesh and blood n.

with a hint of

9 c. The body (of Christ) regarded as spiritually ‘eaten’ by believers; also applied mystically to the bread in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

OED: flesh

So a reader encountering it for the first time could be unsure whether you mean "kindred of the gods" or "meat made from a god" or "remarkably good meat", and there's also the slightly unsettling implication of a reference of transubstantiation. Which on the whole makes it a good title in my opinion, because (if I understand correctly) you intend both of those first two meanings.

Answer 2

"The flesh of the god" refers to the flesh of a specific god as you are using the definite article "the". "the god" means that there's a particular god the identity of which should be known to the reader/listener within this context.

To refer to the flesh of a non-specific god, you would use the indefinite article "a": "the flesh of a god". In this case, nothing is being said about the identity of the god.

You might also treat "god" as a modifier of "flesh" or create a compound to get "god flesh", "godflesh" respectively.