Does the Bible really say Jesus was God?

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@ManiacalVesalius

My reading isn’t problematic at all. John later tells us “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us”. So, who is this Word/Logos? Obviously, we don’t have to speculate at all, it’s Jesus. If it wasn’t more than obvious by verse 14 who is being spoken of in the Johannine Prologue, the next few verses give it away:

Again, you are reading the text completely backwards. You’re starting with your conclusion and then reading the verses back to verse 1, in order to make the Greek word “logos” mean “Jesus”, instead of what it actually means. The way you’re reading it, we end up with “In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with Jesus, and Jesus was Jesus”.

@ManiacalVesalius

In your later comment, you make a rather pedantic claim: that Jesus is not the Logos, Jesus is only the “Logos become flesh”. That sounds so pedantic and, in my opinion, rather evasive of the obvious meaning of the text.

If you look in the Old Testament and the Second Temple Period literature, you’ll find that “the word” does not refer to a pre-existent being called “Jesus”. It refers to God’s actual speech or thoughts.

@ManiacalVesalius

What are the names of these translators? Are these the translators of the NRSV, NASB, or NIV you’re talking about, or are you referring to the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses that specifically translates the text as “and the Word was a god” for religious purposes? F.F. Bruce easily refuted this Jehovah Witness translation.

No I am not referring to the JWs, and I don’t believe the correct translation is “and the Word was a God”. I am talking about standard translations such as the New English Translation, which says this in a footnote.

A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266–69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father).

Moffat and the NEB give “the Word was divine”. That’s the qualitative translation of theos here. This is not a novelty. In fact it’s found in early conservative commentaries such as Albert Barnes.

“The evangelist in the first four verses stated that “the Word” was divine; he now proceeds to state the proof that he was a man, and was the Messiah.”, Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament: Luke & John (ed. Robert Frew; London: Blackie & Son, 1884–1885), 177.

It’s also found in modern commentaries and dictionaries.

“So the theological inclusio that frames John’s Gospel (1:1 and 20:28) is especially important, even though the phrase in 1:1c lacks a definite article in the predicate, kai theos ēn ho logos (καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος) and is therefore sometimes translated “the Word was divine” rather than “the Word was God.””, Neil G. Richardson, “God, NT View Of,” ed. Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2006–2009), 599.

---

“In other words, John is saying, “The Word was divine.””, Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Rev. and expanded, 2nd ed.; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 75.

---

R. E. Brown considers the NEB rendering more accurate than saying simply that the Word was “divine” [The Gospel according to John, I, 1966, 5].", J. Schneider et al., “God, Gods, Emmanuel,” ed. Lothar Coenen, Erich Beyreuther, and Hans Bietenhard, New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), 81.

Some commentators make it totally clear that their motivation for avoiding the translation “the word was divine”, is theological; they need this verse to conform to their doctrine.

“We could translate this verse “the Word was divine,” but that would be misleading in English. We use the word divine to indicate something which has godlike qualities but is less than God.”, Emmaus Journal 12, no. 1 (2003): 35.

So much for the idea that the phrase cannot be translated “and the word was divine”.

@ManiacalVesalius

And this verse does not create any binitarianism either, since it both says Jesus “was with God” and “was God”, as in, not a separate deity.

As I have pointed out, reading it this way is a contradiction. If the word is with X, then the word cannot be X in the same way that X is meant in the phrase “the word was with X”. So you either live with a logical contradiction (Trinitarians), or you take a binitarian view (JWs and others). Remember that Yahweh, in Second Temple Period Judaism, was one person. If you can find evidence that the Jews actually believed Yahweh was three persons, you would have more of an argument. When a first century Jew referred to God, they meant Yahweh, and they meant one person. Not three.

@ManiacalVesalius

Hurtado himself has commented on the scholars who have misunderstood the use of his words “binitarian mutation”.

Yes. What do you think he is saying here? Do you think he’s arguing against binitarianism? Because you go on to quote Fletcher-Louis reading Hurtado’s view as binitarian. Fletcher-Louis even describes the early post-ascension church’s belief as a binitarian modification of Judaism.

@ManiacalVesalius

However, Fletcher-Louis fully accepts the main contention itself based on the evidence that the earliest Christology was the high Christology, and he agrees with the great majority of the arguments made by the founders. He only has nuanced disagreements.

I think you need to read more closely what these scholars are saying, and where the agreement actually is, because right now you’re taking a number of different scholars’ views and sort of smearing them together into a consensus which isn’t the actual consensus described in Fletcher-Louis. For example, please list all the places in which Hurtado says that Jesus believed he was God, or that his disciples believed he was God, or that the first century Christians believed he was God.

I will save you some time by quoting from Fletcher-Louis.

“Hurtado shares the view of the overwhelming majority of modern scholars that Jesus did not think of, or present, himself in divine terms.” (27)

Do you share that view?

Hurtado shares the view of the overwhelming majority of modern scholars that Jesus did not think of, or present, himself in divine terms. Here again.

“For many modern Gospel interpreters the Synoptics have a low Christology. Indeed, for Hurtado the Synoptic Gospels are clear that Jesus did not claim a divine identity during his earthly life (even though the Gospels are, in their own way, a testimony to the wider pattern of Christ devotion).” (29)

Do you agree with that?