I wonder how exactly people arrive at this conclusion?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Philippians 2 is the second chapter of the Epistle to the Philippians in the New Testament of the Christian Bible.
The original text is written in Koine Greek.
Some most ancient manuscripts containing this chapter are:
Codex Vaticanus (AD 325-350)
Codex Sinaiticus (AD 330-360)
Codex Alexandrinus (ca. AD 400-440)
Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (ca. AD 450; complete)
Codex Freerianus (ca. AD 450; extant: verses 1-3, 12-14, 25-27)
Codex Claromontanus (ca. AD 550)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
@fmiddel: It strikes me as most odd that something that is supposed to be the most ancient doesn’t appear to be known earlier than 325 CE!
I realise that last post was a long one, but it’s very clear you only skim read it. This time I am going to insert some firebreaks at various points, to make you stop and pause, and to test if you are actually reading what I write. Please answer the questions in the firebreaks, so I know you are reading what I wrote.
I can also see two immediate problems. One is that you’ve learned just enough Greek to make typical rookie mistakes. I realise you might find that offensive, so let me ask this. When nominative anarthrous theos precedes a word with a vowel, what function does the noun “theos” take? This is a really easy Greek question. If you have the answer please tell me, please tell me how you worked out the answer, and please quote (in Greek), three Greek texts in which this usage is found.
Another is that you’re using Strong’s Concordance (!), which is an idiosyncratic nineteenth century sectarian work with no standing in the academy today. Surely you can’t be relying on Strong’s Concordance for Greek word meanings, if you’re actually studying Greek at a university or seminary? Didn’t your Greek teacher tell you to use a standard professional Greek lexicon? I’ll return to this point later. Let’s get to your claims.
Point one.
You claim that I have only allowed for “the mere conceptual possibility that theos can mean ‘divine’ through the appeal to a few examples from the entire ancient Mediterranean world where ‘theos’ is translated as something besides ‘God’”. This is false on several counts.
Firstly, I cited three lexicions stating explicitly that “divine” is part of the standard lexical range of the word theos. [1] This is not a “mere conceptual possibility” it is found repeatedly in standard professional lexicons.
Firebreak: Do you understand that BDAG, ANLEX, and LSJ (three standard professional lexicons), state explicitly that “divine” is part of the standard lexical range of “theos”?
Secondly, I did not appear to “a few examples from the entire ancient Mediterranean world where ‘theos’ is translated as something besides ‘God’”. I demonstrated (again, from standard professional lexicons), that “theos” has a range of meanings well beyond “God”, and that this is attested consistently, not only in ethnic Greek literature but also throughout the Old Testament (LXX), and the Second Temple Period literature, and in the New Testament. [2]
Firebreak: Do you understand BDAG, TDNT, LSJ, and other standard professional Greek lexicons describe “theos” as having a range of meanings other than “God”, that these meanings are within the standard lexical range of the word, and that these standard, mainstream meanings are attested in a host of literature including the Old Testament (LXX), Second Temple Period literature, and the New Testament itself?
Thirdly, I also demonstrated that Jesus himself uses “theos” to refer to non-divine humans. [3]
Firebreak: Do you understand that Jesus himself used “theos” to refer to non-divine humans, quoting the Old Testament usage, and that his usage is cited in standard professional lexicons as an example of “theos” being applied to non-divine humans? Do you think Jesus understood the meaning of this word?
Point two.
Yous said “The claim that the original Greek says “and theos was the logos”, although technically correct, is misleading”. It isn’t misleading. That is literally the word order in the text. That was my point, and that was my only point. The fact that you claimed to be quoting exactly what the Greek text contains, and then wrote something which isn’t what the Greek text contains, prompted my conclusion that you were not reading the actual Greek text.
You also said “In koine Greek, word order/syntax doesn’t matter at all”. When I corrected your claim about what the Greek actually says, I wasn’t saying anything about Greek syntax. It is true that Greek syntax is more flexible than English (which has strict word order), but that wasn’t even in dispute.
Firebreak: Do you understand that when I made the comment correcting your description of the contents of the Greek text, I was saying absolutely nothing about Greek syntax?
But since you’ve raised the subject, then you need to understand that it is not true that word order (syntax), “doesn’t matter at all” in Greek.This is a common misunderstanding held by beginners in Greek. The usual progression of understanding goes something like this.
Beginner: Word meaning is totally irrelevant in Greek!
Intermediate: Actually now I understand word meaning isn’t totally irrelevant in Greek, there are certain syntactical constructions with specific meanings
Advanced: Although even professionals sometimes argue over those constructions, so now it sounds like a mess
Senior: However, there are various general rules which are almost universally agreed on, so it’s not a complete mess after all
If you’ve only just started learning Greek, then you probably haven’t learned about apposition, Colwell’s Rule, Sharpe’s Rule, and TSKS constructions. You are obviously unaware of how syntax actually really does matter in a range of Greek constructions, because when I quoted an actual professional Greek lexicon saying this, you completely denied it. That’s right, you completely contradicted a professional Greek lexicon and said it was “an outright misundestanding [sic] of the Greek language”.
Firebreak: Do you understand that there are a range of constructions in Greek syntax in which word order defines meaning, and that when I cited one example from a professional Greek lexicon, you rejected the lexicon saying it was "an outright misundestanding [sic] of the Greek language?
You said “[Greek] Syntax doesn’t actually reflect the proper word order in English, since Greek is an inflected language”. I agree. I have no idea why you said this, because it wasn’t even being debated. We both agree on this. However, you also said that “divine was the logos/word” would “make no sense” in English. That was really weird, because that phrase makes perfect sense in English, since in English the adjective can precede or follow the noun.
Point 3.
You claim (citing Boyarin and Sommer), that it has been established that in pre-Christian Judaic circles, God could have been considered to be multi-personal". This was a particularly desperate attempt at an ad hoc argument. Do you actually know anything about their arguments? Do you understand, for example, that Sommer argues for an understanding of God which includes not just multiple selves but multiple bodies? Do you understand that he argues for these different selves being manifestations of the one self? The very title of his book is “The Bodies Of God and the World of Ancient Israel”.
Firebreak: Have you actually read Boyarin and Sommer yourself?
You talk about “the established and widespread tradition of a multi-personal God, where you have a single God (the Word was God) that has two different persons (and the Word was with God)”. Please provide all the Second Temple Period literature which demonstrates this supposed “established and widespread tradition”.
Firebreak: Can you list all the Second Temple Period sources which Sommer cites in his book as evidence for an “established and widespread tradition of a multi-personal God” with a single god which has two different person?
Point 4.
You keep completely misquoting me on Hurtado, even changing the words I write (every time I write “bi-theism”, you say I wrote “di-theism”, for example). I started by pointing out that from Hurtado, you can only get as far as binitarianism or bi-theism. You claimed that when Hurtado used the term “binitarianism” he didn’t mean “binitarianism”, and claimed he had abandoned this term due to people misunderstanding him as referring to bi-theism. I pointed out that Hurtdao continues to use the term, and that he actually really does mean “binitarianism” when he uses it. He does not mean “bi-theism”, and I never said he meant “bi-theism” (or “di-theism”). I pointed out that all Hurtdao does is provide a basis from which either binitarianism or bi-theism can be argued (even though, as I pointed out, he doesn’t argue for bi-theism).
Firebreak: Do you understand that when Hurtado speaks of his conclusions as binitarianism, he really does mean binitarianism?
Point 5.
You claim that "in a tiny number of texts, ‘theos’ is translated in ways besides ‘God’. That is completely false; see point one. You also try to make an argument from frequency (!), claiming that “Literally every time theos is used in the entire Gospel of John to my familiarity, it translates as ‘God’”. And what did you use to reach this conclusion? You used Strong’s Concordance. Can I ask why you did not search a critical text like Nestle-Aland? Why are you using Strong’s Concordance, as if this is what it’s for?
Firebreak: Do you understand that the frequency with which a Greek word is translated in an English Bible has absolutely no relevance to whether or not the word has a particular meaning in a specific verse?
Previously I already showed you that John’s gospel contains another use of “theos” which is applied to non-divine humans. In this case it most definitely does not mean “God” or “gods”. Do you remember that? I showed you in a professional Greek lexicon.
Firebreak: Do you understand that Jesus himself uses “theos” in John’s gospel to refer to non-divine humans, quoting the Old Testament usage, and that his usage is cited in standard professional lexicons as an example of “theos” being applied to non-divine humans? Do you think Jesus understood the meaning of this word?
Point 6.
I have to quote this in full since the entire paragraph is so misguided.
I realise you’re still a beginner at Greek, so I have to ask these questions.
Are you reading from a critical Greek text? If so, which one?
If you can read this, do you understand the grammatical reason why “theos” cannot be translated “divine” in both places? If you do, please provide the grammatical explanation.
Do you understand why translating “theos” as “God” the first time, and “divine” the second time, is based on the actual Greek grammar? If you do, please provide the grammatical explanation.
Firebreak: Do you understand that I explained this to you previously and quoted a professional Greek lexicon explaining this to you in painstaking detail?
Point 7.
You told me the NEB doesn’t use “divine” here as if it was something I didn’t know. You even offered to send me a picture of it. Clearly you have completely forgotten that I already told you it doesn’t use “divine” here.
Firebreak: Do you remember that I actually told you the NEB doesn’t use “divine” here? Do you remember that I told you it says “what God was, the Word was”? Do you remember the question I asked you about the NEB’s translation, and can you tell me why you haven’t answered that question?
Again, I’m going to quite you directly here.
This is a complete falsehood. I linked you directly to the NET’s reference for John 1:1, complete with the footnote. The idea that I was concealing this is simply untrue. Additionally, you totally avoid the whole reason why I cited the NET’s reference to Moffat; you were claiming that “theos” here cannot be qualitative. The NET footnote says explicitly that it is, and that Moffat’s translation captures that sense. As I have already pointed out, the only reason why the NET doesn’t render it “divine” is theological (as the footnote says clearly). They say nothing about it not capturing “the original Greek meaning”. Not only that, but they don’t translate it simply “God”, they translate it “and the word was fully God”, which they say captures the qualitative sense of Moffat and the NEB.
Point 8.
You say “Theos, in John 1:1, is a noun, not an adjective”. It is incomprehensible to me that you even wrote this. We both agree it is a noun. Why did you even write this?
You seem to be confused about the fact that even though it is a noun, it is being used here as an adjective. Once again I have to test your knowledge of Greek.
Do you understand how nouns can be used as adjectives in Greek?
Do you understand that the noun “theos” can be used as an adjective in two of its cases? Do you know which cases they are?
Do you know the syntactical construction in which “theos” in the nominative is used as an adjective?
Firebreak: Do you understand that I already showed you that even though “theos” is a noun here, it is being used in an adjectival sense? Do you remember that I cited half a dozen commentaries and two lexicons saying this?
You claim “‘Divine’ is not anywhere in the mainstream, it’s simply been long noted as a grammatically consistent possibility with John 1:1”. You provide absolutely no evidence for this at all. I already quoted half a dozen commentaries and several lexicons showing is not only mainstream, it is understood as the grammatical reading of the text, which is only swapped out when people prefer a different translation for reasons other than the grammar.
Point eight.
You ask “If John wanted to say ‘divine’ in John 1:1, why didn’t he use the Greek word θεϊκός (theikos) instead?”. If you understood the grammar and the socio-historical context involved, you would probably understand this as well. John was using a way of saying “divine” which was a standard method of differentiating between “God” and “divine” when using “theos” for both words. This method is recorded in Philo.
You go on to say this.
[quote=“ManiacalVesalius, post:277, topic:36748”]
Why did he instead use the the standard Greek word for God, and why did John use theos six other times in his prologue where every other time it meant God, including one other time in John 1:1?[/quote]
See my previous comment.
He didn’t trick anyone. We have clear textual evidence from the first century that this construction would have been understood as “And the Word was with God and the Word was divine”. Not only that, but later in the third century Origen explicitly quotes John as saying “And the Word was with God and the Word was divine” [4]
As I have already pointed out, using half a dozen commentaries and three lexicons, “the most erudite” have not been fooled at all. Even 100 years ago an orthodox commentator such as Albert Barnes could happily translate this “and the Word was divine”, and I have also shown you half a dozen commentators and two lexicons demonstrating that “and the Word was divine” is the natural grammatical reading of the text.
Point nine.
You claim “Voorvinde is not saying that the grammatical reading is divine, Voorvinde is simply saying that divine is an equally possible grammatical reading to God”. This is nothing like what he says. Here are his words.
“On the basis of grammar alone v. 1 can be read as stating at the very least that the Word was divine. The further step of identifying the Word with God depends on contextual considerations. Evidence in this direction firstly comes from the expression μονογενὴς θεός, which is the most probable of the variant readings in vs. 18. Secondly, the identity of Jesus as God appears to be the presupposition of the Gospel as a whole.”
He says very clearly that on the basis of the grammar alone, “divine” is as far as you can get. He then says explicitly that identifying the Word with God is dependent on other considerations. From this point he makes the standard theological arguments (not grammatical).
Point ten.
Finally you acknowledge what I have been saying all along.
So from originally claiming that “divine” was a completely impossible rendering of the text, you now acknowledge it cannot be invalidated by the grammar, and you acknowledge that interpreting the Word as God is actually dependent on a theological interpretation of the rest of John’s gospel. Thank you, I agree.
Yes. Like others, he says it’s inferior for theological reasons; he says that using “divine” in English is possible, but shouldn’t be used because it wouldn’t identify the Word as God the son.
As I’ve shown you from a range of lexicons, it means exactly the same thing in English, which is why Wallace doesn’t want to use it.
[1] “δ. Almost as a substitute for the adj. divine IMg 6:1f; 15 (cp. Ath. 21, 4 οὐδὲν ἔχων θεοῦ [of Zeus]).”, William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 451.; “θεός, οῦ, ὁ and ἡ (1) as the supreme divine being, the true, living, and personal God (MT 1.23; possibly JN 1.1b); (2) as an idol god (AC 14.11); feminine goddess (AC 19.37); (3) of the devil as the ruling spirit of this age god (2C 4.4a); (4) as an adjective divine (probably JN 1.1b); (5) figuratively; (a) of persons worthy of reverence and respect as magistrates and judges gods (JN 10.34); (b) of the belly when the appetite is in control god (PH 3.19).”, Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg, and Neva F. Miller, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Baker’s Greek New Testament Library; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 196.; “III. as Adj. in Comp. θεώτερος, divine, θύραι θ., opp. καταιβαταὶ ἀνθρώποισιν, Od.13.111; χορὸς θ. Call.Ap.93, cf. Dian.249, D.P.257. (Derived by Hdt.2.52 fr. τίθημι (κόσμῳ θέντες τὰ πρήγματα), by Pl.Cra.397d fr. θεῖν. Etym. dub.) [In Ep. (twice in Hom.) and Trag. (E.Ba.47, 1347, al., not in Com. exc. Men.Pk.397), as monosyll, by synizesis, θεοί Il.1.18, Thgn.142; θεῶν h.Cer.55, 259; θεοῖς Thgn.171; θεοῖσιν Od.14.251; θεούς h.Cer.325: even in nom. θεός before a vowel, E.Or.399 (cf. Pors. ad loc.), HF347; in Pi.P.1.56 apptly. a short monosyll.], Myc. te-o.”, Henry George Liddell et al., A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 791.
[2] “d. ὁ. θ., of natural phenomena, ὁ θ. ὕει (sc. Ζεύς) Hdt.2.13; ὁ θ. ἐνέσκηψε βέλος Id.4.79; ἔσεισεν ὁ θ. (sc. Ποσειδῶν) X.HG4.7.4; of the sun, Hdt.2.24, A.Pers.502, E.Alc.722; δύνοντος τοῦ θ. App.BC4.79; the weather, τί δοκεῖ τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ; Thphr.Char.25.2.”, Henry George Liddell et al., A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 791; “3. as title of rulers, θεῶν ἀδελφῶν (sc. Ptolemy II and Arsinoe), Herod.1.30, etc.; Πτολεμαῖος ὑπάρχων θεὸς ἐκ θεοῦ καὶ θεᾶς OGI90.10 (Rosetta, ii B.C.); Ἀντίοχος ὅτῳ θεὸς ἐπώνυμον γίγνεται App.Syr.65; θεὸς ἐκ θεοῦ, of Augustus, OGI655.2 (Egypt, 24 B.C.); θ. ἡμῶν καὶ δεσπότης IPE4.71 (Cherson., ii A.D.)”, Henry George Liddell et al., A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 791; “In the Hellenistic period an outstanding ruler may be called a θεός as the creator of a new political order: ὥσπερ γὰρ θεὸν ἐν ἀνθρώποις εἰκὸς εἶναι τὸν τοιοῦτον Aristot. Pol., III, 13, p. 1284a, 11; Plut. Lysander, 18 (I, 443b); Demetrius Poliorketes and his father Antigonos are celebrated as θεοὶ σωτῆπες in Athens (307 B.C.), cf. the hymn in Athen., VI, 63 (p. 253d): ὡς οἱ μέγιστοι τῶν θεῶν καὶ φίλτατοι ¦ τῇ πόλει πάρεισιν.”, Hermann Kleinknecht et al., “Θεός, Θεότης, Ἄθεος, Θεοδίδακτος, Θεῖος, Θειότης,” ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–), 68; “4. one set in authority, judge, τὸ κριτήριον τοῦ θ., ἐνώπιον τοῦ θ., LXXEx.21.6, 22.8; θεοὺς οὐ κακολογήσεις ib.22.28(27).”, Henry George Liddell et al., A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 791; “ⓐ of humans θεοί (as אֱלֹהִים) J 10:34f (Ps 81:6; humans are called θ. in the OT also Ex 7:1; 22:27; cp. Philo, Det. Pot. Insid. 161f, Somn. 1, 229, Mut. Nom. 128, Omn. Prob. Lib. 43, Mos. 1, 158, Decal. 120, Leg. All. 1, 40, Migr. Abr. 84).”, William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 451.
[3] “ⓐ of humans θεοί (as אֱלֹהִים) J 10:34f (Ps 81:6; humans are called θ. in the OT also Ex 7:1; 22:27; cp. Philo, Det. Pot. Insid. 161f, Somn. 1, 229, Mut. Nom. 128, Omn. Prob. Lib. 43, Mos. 1, 158, Decal. 120, Leg. All. 1, 40, Migr. Abr. 84).”, William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 451.
[4] “In a similar fashion, Origen, too, interprets: the Evangelist does not say that the logos is “God,” but only that the logos is “divine.”", Ernst Haenchen, Robert Walter Funk, and Ulrich Busse, John: A Commentary on the Gospel of John (Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 109.
Well, you’re simply restated your premise here. I’m saying that it was known and have provided evidence. There is more of course (e.g., Paul’s creative doctoring of the sh’ma), but the Philippian Hymn and John the Baptist’s pronouncements are the most obvious.
You’re not suggesting that Paul’s letter to the Philippians wasn’t written until 325, are you?
You’re not suggesting that you never heard that some of the letters in the New Testament might not have been written by the person people thought wrote it?
John 14:6 says Jesus is the only way to heaven. I John 2:23 says if you deny the son that you are also denying the father. Denying his deity is one way of denying him. The thief on the cross realized that Jesus was coming into his kingdom so probably thought he was the Messiah and possibly believed he was God as taught in the Old Testament, albeit not as clearly as in the New Testament. I don’t think that you have to have every theological concept correct to get into heaven. As Jesus said, “this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” What saves someone is knowing God. Someone who says they know God and believes unbiblical doctrines about him, does not really know him. It would be like someone who says they know my wife and then proceed to tell me she is 4 foot tall and has red hair. I doubt they really know my wife or they wouldn’t give that description of her. Someone who says they know God and yet say that Jesus is not God, really doesn’t know him. He is not just making a mistake, but disbelieving God for some reason. If they were truly making an honest mistake, as say a person with Downs Syndrome may make, then that is okay, it is an honest mistake and I am sure God understands the persons heart. Someone who refuses to believe the clear teaching of the Bible because they don’t want to is just refusing to submit to God. That is what the person being dicussed sounds like. When he is familiar with the Bible and still refuses to believe what it says on something as crucial as Jesus being God, it sounds to me like he is just rebelling against God for some reason.
[quote=“Bill_Smith, post:293, topic:36748”]
John 14:6 says Jesus is the only way to heaven.[/quote]
That doesn’t make belief in Jesus’ deity necessary.
That doesn’t make belief in Jesus’ deity necessary.
No, it’s not. Jesus is Messiah. Messiah isn’t necessarily deity. That was a novel concept to New Testament writers.
See above. Nobody expected God’s Messiah to be deity.
Correct.
Right. Knowing him. I know my wife. I hardly know everything about her.
All you’re doing is restating your case, not supporting it.
Now all you’re doing is exaggerating. Funny though that we used the same illustration for opposite purposes.
Did the disciples know Jesus? Did they know he was God? Or did they not really know him until they realized he was God?
So we’re back to the “clear teaching of the Bible”? Arguably, Jesus’ deity was somewhat veiled given the Jewish culture in which some of the texts were written.
Looks like I’ll be making some concessions here. I’ll divide this response into three separate parts; 1) Concessions, 2) Re-affirmations, and 3) Arguments. Although I’ve made a number of mistakes, I’ll demonstrate that they were mostly peripheral and that my arguments actually stand quite powerfully even taking into consideration all those mistakes. To note, you claim I only “skim read” your comment – by no means! I thought I responded, in detail, to most if not all your points. I think my last response was even slightly longer than your own.
Concessions
Here, I’ll be answering some of your firebreaks in specific. The concessions will be concessions no doubt, but they will be rather particular.
Firebreak: Do you understand that BDAG, ANLEX, and LSJ (three standard professional lexicons), state explicitly that “divine” is part of the standard lexical range of “theos”?
This one can be joined to your next firebreak:
Firebreak: Do you understand BDAG, TDNT, LSJ, and other standard professional Greek lexicons describe “theos” as having a range of meanings other than “God”, that these meanings are within the standard lexical range of the word, and that these standard, mainstream meanings are attested in a host of literature including the Old Testament (LXX), Second Temple Period literature, and the New Testament itself?
The answer is, now, “yes”. The primary meaning, as you yourself have said earlier, is ‘God’, but the semantic meaning can extend to various other definitions, including ‘divine’, and “A prince; a ruler; a magistrate or judge; an angel” etc according to Wesbter. They are attested in a number of mainstream sources.
Firebreak: Do you understand that Jesus himself used “theos” to refer to non-divine humans, quoting the Old Testament usage, and that his usage is cited in standard professional lexicons as an example of “theos” being applied to non-divine humans? Do you think Jesus understood the meaning of this word?
Here you refer to John 10:34. I will have something to say about this in the second part of response (Re-affirmations), but as far as concessions go, the word theos is used once in the Gospel of John to refer to, well, not God. You then give another firebreak that is mostly redundant to this one in your Point 5.
Firebreak: Do you understand that there are a range of constructions in Greek syntax in which word order defines meaning, and that when I cited one example from a professional Greek lexicon, you rejected the lexicon saying it was "an outright misundestanding [sic] of the Greek language?
Yes, there are.
Firebreak: Have you actually read Boyarin and Sommer yourself?
No, I’ve primarily relied on reviews for now. I’ve only begun reading academic monographs recently and so I’m still clearing out other parts of academia before I get to more nuanced books like those.
Firebreak: Can you list all the Second Temple Period sources which Sommer cites in his book as evidence for an “established and widespread tradition of a multi-personal God” with a single god which has two different person?
All? Even if I had the book I wouldn’t go through such trouble.
Do you understand how nouns can be used as adjectives in Greek?
Do you understand that the noun “theos” can be used as an adjective in two of its cases? Do you know which cases they are?
Do you know the syntactical construction in which “theos” in the nominative is used as an adjective?
Never heard of that before. Conceded. And perhaps I need a better lexicon, but the ones around right now are a hundred bucks, so I don’t know if Nestle Aland’s lexicon is getting into my possession any time soon. And I am in fact a rooky at Greek. I’d like to ask, what proficiency of Greek do you consider yourself to have?
Re-affirmations
Finally, I can start building up again. The majority of the concessions don’t actually bring down any of my main arguments, but I must say you did have a fun time shredding most of my rooky errors. I consider most of those mistakes peripheral, as we will soon see.
Firstly, the primary meaning of theos is, as we’ve mentioned earlier, God. This will be important later. Secondly, out of the 70 or so times theos is used in John, you have been able to point a single example where it is not translated as ‘God’ in the sense of the creator God, the Father or whatnot. That, in and of itself, should demonstrate the infrequency of the word theos being used in its non-primary form, even if this is within the range of meaning. If we laid out every single use of theos in the entire New Testament, are you confident that more than 10% of uses will have a preferrable translation other than God? If not, then we must understand that these non-primary uses of theos should only adopted when we have good reason from the context to support such a meaning.
Yous said “The claim that the original Greek says “and theos was the logos”, although technically correct, is misleading”. It isn’t misleading. That is literally the word order in the text.
I mean ‘misleading’ in the sense that you implied, or the way you wrote it seemed to imply some sort of gotcha! in regards to my view of the standard, scholarly translations produced by committees today. My point was that it is almost irrelevant that the word order is “theos was the logos” since that is as consistent with a translation of “God was the Word” as it is with a translation that runs “the Word was God”. My point was that this is a rather irrelevant point to make, there certainly is no grammatical problem with a translation that runs “the Word was God”. As for the syntax, I was exaggerating when I said that syntax has absolutely no use, of course it does, but the predominant importance has to do with inflection. Either way, such points aren’t very relevant to the point of contention and so I will try to only focus on points that are relevant here.
You claim (citing Boyarin and Sommer), that it has been established that in pre-Christian Judaic circles, God could have been considered to be multi-personal". This was a particularly desperate attempt at an ad hoc argument. Do you actually know anything about their arguments? Do you understand, for example, that Sommer argues for an understanding of God which includes not just multiple selves but multiple bodies?
None of this is at all desperate. The works of Segal, Boyarin and Sommer collectively demonstrate that Judaic monotheism wasn’t as simple “one God one person one everything” – and that the multiplicity of the persons of God, not just the bodies, was known and not at all heretical in pre-Christian Judaism. In that sense, there is no contradiction at all in John 1:1 since it can be understood as referring to the multiplicity of God’s person. And even if there was absolutely zero multiplicity of God’s person before Christianity, which there surely was, then this could be explained as a new Christian interpretation and we can still understand John 1:1 as referring to God’s multiplicity and thus not have to deal with a contradiction. In other words, the only way John 1:1 can be self-contradictory is if we posit that the author could not have accepted a multiplicity of God’s person. If this is accepted, there is no contradiction.
You keep completely misquoting me on Hurtado, even changing the words I write (every time I write “bi-theism”, you say I wrote “di-theism”, for example).
I never changed your words. I quoted you saying “bitheism”, but I simply continued using the word “ditheism” as Fletcher-Louis did. Both terms are basically synonymous, “two gods”. But Hurtado doesn’t at all allow for two gods as an interpretation from his work, everything he writes is solely in the context of monotheism. If we agree on this, then there’s no problem.
Firebreak: Do you understand that the frequency with which a Greek word is translated in an English Bible has absolutely no relevance to whether or not the word has a particular meaning in a specific verse?
Actually, it most certainly has relevance. If we know the standard usage of a word in a language, then we must further know that we should only abandon understanding it in its primary sense if there is reason to do so.
This is a complete falsehood. I linked you directly to the NET’s reference for John 1:1, complete with the footnote. The idea that I was concealing this is simply untrue. Additionally, you totally avoid the whole reason why I cited the NET’s reference to Moffat; you were claiming that “theos” here cannot be qualitative. The NET footnote says explicitly that it is, and that Moffat’s translation captures that sense. As I have already pointed out, the only reason why the NET doesn’t render it “divine” is theological (as the footnote says clearly). They say nothing about it not capturing “the original Greek meaning”. Not only that, but they don’t translate it simply “God”, they translate it “and the word was fully God”, which they say captures the qualitative sense of Moffat and the NEB.
I wasn’t accusing you of concealing anything. A more accurate characterization of my ‘accusation’ is that I was accusing you of either missing the point of the footnote, or only mentioning the part relevant to your argument. In fact, I never accused you of saying the NEB says “divine”, I simply re-iterated that. As I understood it, you were claiming both the REB and Moffatt use ‘divine’. You explicitly claimed that the NET mentions “two” translatons that use divine:
The NET footnote not only identifies this as grammatically possible (contradicting your first point), but says it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to theos here (also contradicting your first point), and then cites two translations which give this rendering (contradicting your second point). How could you say "I still have not found a translation that says “divine”" when the NET footnote cites two of them for you? Additionally, you didn’t comment on the NEB’s rendering, “what God was, the Word was”. Why not?
I was simply engaging in a process of elimination. The footnote mentions the NEB, the REB, and Moffatt. You claimed “two” of these translations use ‘divine’. Well, what are these ‘two’? Not the NEB, as we both have acknowledged earlier. I checked the REB, and it doesn’t use divine either – only the Moffatt does! So, in fact you claimed it cites two translations, when only one was present. The second point I noted is that the NET footnote actually criticizes Moffatt’s translation, as I demonstrated earlier, because again, it fails to capture the meaning of the text. When I say meaning of the text, I am of course referring to the collective whole of the context. You have repeatedly claimed that this is a “theological” translation, as if the scholars were reading their theology into John – in fact, every single scholar quoted so far has made the same point, over and over – ‘divine’ isn’t used because the context rules out a translation that may provide a meaning besides the Word being understood as fully God. This is, as we will see soon, why translations like the NRSV doesn’t even offer a footnote for the ‘divine’ option.
He says very clearly that on the basis of the grammar alone, “divine” is as far as you can get. He then says explicitly that identifying the Word with God is dependent on other considerations. From this point he makes the standard theological arguments (not grammatical).
I don’t know if I’m misunderstanding you, but Voorvinde is definitely not claiming that ‘divine’ is in fact the correct grammatical reading. Voorvinde does not deny at all that ‘God’ is a correct grammatical reading, he is only saying that the grammar, on its own, does not get you to ‘God’ and leaves room for ‘divine’. All three are grammatically valid. This is where we must move into the last section of my reply.
Arguments
**Indeed, I have demonstrated in my previous post that not only is ‘divine’ a valid reading as you propose, but ‘a god’ is also grammatically valid. There are, in fact undoubtedly, three grammatically valid translations; 1) God, 2) a god, and 3) divine. The question is, which one? This is not the only time in the NT where there is more then one grammatically valid reading, this happens repeatedly in practically every book. The only way where we can determine which meaning is being used, if the grammar allows for more then one possibility, is the context. That’s what every scholar has repeated so far – John Fish, Al Garza, Daniel Wallace, and many others – contextually, the correct translation is ‘God’. ‘Divine’ is a valid translation insofar as it means that the Word is, in essence, encapsulating the full aforementioned deity. Now, what does the context tell us about the Word?
The Word exists in the beginning. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with theos, and the Word was theos”. John 1:2 even says “He was in the beginning with God.”
In John 1:3, we’re told “All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being.” This is talking about the Word, the entire Johannine Prologue is talking about the Word (who is in fact Jesus, not only Jesus after the incarnation). According to John 1:3, EVERYTHING that came into being was through the Word, and if it were not for the Word, then nothing would have come into being.
In John 1:14, we are told the Word is the “father’s only son”. It’s clear that the Word possesses a relationship with God the Father that, not only does not exist with any other being to the Father, but cannot exist with any other being to the Father.
These contextual considerations rule out anything less than the Word being, literally, God. (This is not to say that the Word isn’t suborindate to God.) And I do not even need to mention the christology of John. The sayings of Jesus in John are unequivocally self-referentially divine statements, as is the consensus of the overwheling majority of scholars. This is the first argument, the fact that the context demands, as scholars recognize, a translation of ‘God’. At this point, you have not yet defined what you think “and the Word was divine” means. What do you think John would mean by such a statement? That the Word is eternal and the medium through which all creation happened?
The second argument, of course, is to point out that almost every scholar in the world agrees that John makes out Jesus to be God, and mainstream translations don’t even offer a footnote to the ‘divine’ possibility unless, in the case of the NET, to criticize such a translation. Indeed, I will re-quote the NET on why it does not adopt the ‘divine’ translation.
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). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too.
Indeed, the NET explicitly states that John meant that what God was, the Word was fully as well. In fact, unless I’m misreading it, it appears as though the NET takes this for granted. What is your explanation for this? That Christians run the academy and are trying to redefine John into a high christological text? Or perhaps the academy isn’t bright enough to just “get” what you know John is saying? Whatever explanation is adopted, it sounds conspiratorial to me. You note that Origen supposedly reads this as “divine”, but surely Origen thinks Jesus is God? Your citation goes to a decades old commentary on John by Robert Funk (and, the founder of the Jesus Seminar who was quite disattached from mainstream scholarship now, not to mention dead for a decade). The other author of that commentary died in 1975! Perhaps a bit more nuance can be brought by citing a much more recent commentary by FD Bruner (2012), where Bruner not only assumes the translation I am putting forth, but he makes it clear John understands the Word as God (pg. 9, see here).
The third argument must be that of consistency. It looks to me as throughout the Johannine Prologue, John uses certain themes, including ‘theos’ and ‘logos’ very consistently. It would be stunning to see a single divergence of ‘theos’ into ‘divine’ rather than ‘God’. It appears to me that the prologue, by function of its consistency, supports a translation of ‘God’ in verse 1 just like every other verse, including the very other use of theos in verse 1. **So, considering 1) The context of John 1:1, 2) The consensus of mainstream translations produced by committees, not century-old translations produced by one guy (cough, Moffatt) and 3) The consistency with which John uses the same word theos elsewhere in the Johannine Prologue and outside of it, it’s no wonder why the NRSV doesn’t even offer a footnote for the ‘divine’ possibility.
While I’m at it, I’ll throw a firebreak for you to make sure you clarify your position. In what sense do you think John thought Jesus was? How high was John’s christology in your view? You will need to explain this as you have been ambiguous by the word “divine” so far, since this word can also be taken to mean “literally God”. What does John mean when he calls Jesus “divine”?
I will second beagle’s points here. Hurtado, for example, thinks that Jesus actually proclaimed He is God during the resurrection. Although it is true that in the past scholars have, very generally, considered this a later development, in recent years more and more scholars have concluded Jesus actually claimed to be God. In my view, this is because in the last two decades, a consensus has suddenly emerged in scholarship claiming that the earliest christology of Jesus was a Godly christology. So, how do we explain this? A number of scholars now conclude, like Hurtado, it’s because Jesus actually claimed to be God, whether that’s during His ministry or resurrection.
An example of this very recent literature includes Andrew Loke’s The Origin of Divine Christology (Cambridge University Press 2017). Hurtado disagrees with this book that it claims that Jesus claimed to be God during the ministry rather than during the resurrection, nevertheless it suffices as an example for what I’m saying. In the most recent issue in Cambridge’s journal New Testament Studies, Jason Staples published a paper titled Lord, LORD’: Jesus as YHWH in Matthew and Luke (2018), where Staples argues to my satisfaction that the ‘Lord Lord’ passages in the Synoptic Gospels are Jesus referencing Himself with the divine name YHWH (the Tetragrammaton). I know from email correspondence that Staples thinks its plausible that Jesus actually referred to Himself with this formulaic phrase since the passages it occurs in are very close to the heart of Jesus’ historical teachings. So no doubt is scholarship taking a shift in recent years as the evidence piles up.
Isn’t this a bit unfair? You approach the subject in a totally neutral state, without any preconceptions at all. Nobody taught you about Christadelphian beliefs.
Providing reasons for your belief is one thing, providing evidence is quite another. Failing to address evidence contrary to your belief, is also a concern. I don’t know any mainstream scholars who believe that the writers of the New Testament believed in the Trinity. The overwhelming majority of them agree that Jesus didn’t even believe that he was God, or teach or present himself as God. I see no reason to believe in something about Jesus which Jesus didn’t even belief himself.
Most of them are orthodox Christians, including James Dunn, James McGrath, Raymond Brown, Marcus Borg, NT Wright, Larry Hurtado (I have had personal correspondence with him and he will not say that Jesus was believed to be God by the earliest Christians),
‘Jesus is never called God in the Synoptic Gospels, and a passage like Mark 10:18 would seem to exclude a preserved memory that Jesus used the title of himself. Even the Fourth Gospel never portrays Jesus as saying specifically that he is God. The sermons that Acts attributes to the beginning of the Christian mission do not speak of Jesus as God. Thus, there is no reason to think that Jesus was called God in the earliest layers of NT tradition. This negative conclusion is substantiated by the fact that Paul does not use the title in any epistle written before AD 58.’, Brown, ‘Introduction to the New Testament Christology’, p. 190 (1994).
‘Dunn finds that Jesus held to Jewish monotheism and that although he saw himself as a prophet empowered with God’s Spirit (see Holy Spirit) and as having a close relationship with God, he did not understand himself as a divine figure.’, Evans, ‘Christianity and Judaism: Partings of the Ways’, in Martin & Davids (eds.), ‘Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments’ (electronic ed. 2000).
‘In the LXX it frequently translated “Yahweh,” but nowhere in the letters did Paul call Jesus “God.” 1 Cor. 11:3 makes clear the line of origin that subordinates Jesus to God.’, Roetzel, ‘Paul’, in Freedman (ed.), Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, p. 1020 (2000).
‘Even as Lord, Jesus acknowledges his Father as his God. Here it becomes plain that kyrios is not so much a way of identifying Jesus with God, but if anything more a way of distinguishing Jesus from God.’, Dunn, ‘The Theology of Paul the Apostle’, p. 254 (1997).
The number of New Testament passages in which Jesus is supposedly explicitly identified as God has dwindled all the way down to half a dozen, almost all of which are disputed on textual or grammatical grounds, leaving only two which are widely agreed on.
‘The list of passages which seem explicitly to identify Christ with God varies from scholar to scholar, but the number is almost never more than a half dozen or so. As is well known, almost all of the texts are disputed as to their affirmation—due to textual or grammatical glitches—John 1:1 and 20:28 being the only two which are usually conceded without discussion.’, Wallace, ‘Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin: Semantics and Significance’, p. 27 (2009). Wallace believes Jesus is called God in the New Testament.
This is a significant change from previous decades in which mainstream orthodox scholars confidently asserted dozens of passages of the Old and New Testament as clearly identifying Jesus as God. The “emerging consensus” is now a much less dramatic claim; that the earliest Christians believed Jesus was viewed as some kind of divine figure (the precise definition differs from scholar to scholar), who shared titles and worship with God in some sense, and was in some way identified with God. None of these scholars present this as the Trinity; at best they present it as binitarianism.
I have been arguing consistently against that reading on grammatical grounds.
All kinds. Lots of them use the KJV, but many use the RSV, ESV, NIV, or other translations. I use the NET for preference; I think it’s the best study Bible, reading Bible, and preaching Bible out there.
No it’s not unfair. The history of Bible interpretation has been dominated by centuries of biased, sectarian scholarship. It wasn’t until the twentieth century that this strangehold started being broken significantly. Whole books of previously orthodox scholarship have been abandoned as willfully biased, and there has been a real shakeup of mainstream Christian doctrine as a result.
Of course I am biased. I am incredibly biased. That’s why I deliberately read as widely as possible. The vast majority of my study resources were written by non-Christadelphians. I own about five Christadelphian journals, and over 30 non-Christadelphian journals. I own about half a dozen Christadelphian commentaries, and at least two dozen entire commentary sets by non-Christadelphians. All of my Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias were written by non-Christadelphians. This helps keep me intellectually honest, because nearly everything I read about the Bible from sources outside the Bible itself, was written by non-Christadelphians.
The fact is that I can find my core doctrinal beliefs supported by mainstream scholarship.
Jesus did not believe he was God or teach or present himself as God, and his earliest followers did not believe he was God.
The atonement was participatory.
The Bible teaches mortalism (conditional mortality), not an immortal soul.
Demons do not exist, satan is a personification of evil (not a supernatural evil being, demi-god, divine competitor with God, or fallen angel), and there are no “fallen angels”.
You’re throwing a straw man into the argument and you have successfully killed said straw man.
I didn’t say that the biblical authors believed in “the Trinity.”
“The Trinity” is: “one God in three Divine Persons”. The three Persons are distinct, yet are one “substance, essence or nature” (from wikipedia, because it’s easy).
I would describe that as a Greek-informed definition of what would be, in a Hebrew mindset, far more ambiguously defined.
The New Testament writers (to varying degrees) portrayed Jesus as God–certainly Paul and John (and we still have that attestation of John the Baptist in every Gospel). Paul includes some remarkably proto-trinitarian phrases in his letters.
And so, the Father is YHWH, the Son is YHWH, and the Spirit is YHWH–but that is not yet “the Trinity.”
I believe there is sufficient evidence within the text to see Jesus’ self-understanding as the embodiment of YHWH. Is it “hidden”? Yes, but it’s not invisible.
Edit, to add:
“The majority of scholars” does not determine what is correct. What is the starting point of “majority of scholars”? Skepticism? Are they carried along by the remnants of the Enlightenment wave that mandates the dismantling of orthodoxy?
What do the majority of scholars say about John the Baptist’s pronouncements from Isaiah? Or the Philippian Hymn? Do we respond by contesting their age or inclusion into these documents (note that John the Baptist’s pronouncement is in all the Gospels).
Even avoiding John 1, we start to have something that begins to walk and quack like a duck…
I am not asking you to argue that the biblical authors believed in the Trinity. I was addressing specifically your claim that Jesus is Yahweh, and pointing out that you didn’t address any of the Old and New Testament evidence that Yahweh is one person not three.
Yes I understand that is the argument. Christadelphians typically understand the doctrine of the Trinity and the arguments for it very well; many of us were originally Trinitarians, after all.
–Most Christadelphians probably have a better understanding of the Trinity than most mainstream Christians. They have to have, in order to refute it. They are quite right in saying that the Bible nowhere teaches the doctrine of the trinity; the Bible, as I have already said, is not a book of doctrine. The Trinity was formulated by the church fathers in an attempt to codify the god-man natures of Christ, and the relationship of the father, son and holy spirit. It is precisely because this is still a live issue today, with the Christadelphians, Unitarians, Jehovah’s Witnesses and others each having their own understanding of the problem, that I devoted so much space to early church ‘heresies.’, David V. Barrett, Sects, “cults” and Alternative Religions: A World Survey and Sourcebook (Blandford, 1998), 79.
The way I see it, when you reach a conclusion with contradictions such as “100% man and 100% God”, “Jesus the God-man”, and “the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, yet there are not three gods but one God”, then something has gone very badly wrong with both your interpretation and your basic logical reasoning.
It was so hidden, it was even hidden from Jesus. That’s pretty hidden.
Oh I agree. But it does show that this position of mine is not a sectarian fringe view, and is not simply a view I’ve made up due to my personal bias. Ironic isn’t it, that Trinitarians are perfectly happy waving the “majority of scholars” flag when it suits them, but not so happy when the majority of scholars don’t agree with them.
They are overwhelmingly orthodox Christians. Many of them are Anglicans or Catholics or scholars belonging to other mainstream believers. If you want to charge them of being “carried along by remnants of the Enlightenment wave that mandates the dismantling of orthodoxy”, or of “skepticism”, then you’ll need to do the hard work to substantiate these claims. Remember that Korvexius is perfectly comfortable appealing to Sommers’ argument that God has multiple physical bodies, that Jesus is an avatar of God in the same way that Hindu gods have avatars, and that the various persons in God are “manifestations” of His one identity. I’m not sure what you’d call that, but I wouldn’t call it orthodox.
[quote=“fmiddel, post:56, topic:37535”]
What do the majority of scholars say about John the Baptist’s pronouncements from Isaiah? Or the Philippian Hymn?[/quote]
The majority of scholars say that the Synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), do not present Jesus as God at all. Views on the Philippian Hymn are more mixed. I find it reads this way in the Bible.
Philippians 2:
6 who though he existed in the form of God
did not regard equality with God
as something to be grasped,
7 but emptied himself
by taking on the form of a slave,
by looking like other men,
and by sharing in human nature.
8 He humbled himself,
by becoming obedient to the point of death
- even death on a cross!
9 As a result God exalted him
and gave him the name
that is above every name,
10 so that at the name of Jesus
every knee will bow
- in heaven and on earth and under the earth -
11 and every tongue confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord
to the glory of God the Father.
Note how Jesus is consistently differentiated from God. God is spoken of as one person, the Father, and Jesus is spoken of as the recipient of actions by God. Now here’s the Trinitarian version.
Philippians 2:
6 who though God the Son existed in the form of God
did not regard equality with God
as something to be grasped,
7 but emptied God the Son
by taking on the form of a slave,
by looking like other men,
and by sharing in human nature.
8 God the Son humbled himself,
by becoming obedient to the point of death
- even death on a cross!
9 As a result God the Father exalted God the Son
and gave God the Son the name
that is above every name,
10 so that at the name of God the Son
every knee will bow
- in heaven and on earth and under the earth -
11 and every tongue confess
that Jesus Christ is God the Son
to the glory of God the Father.
I don’t find that a convincing read of this passage. Perhaps you do.
I think you missed my earlier argument. Both the Philippian Hymn and John’s pronouncement attribute to Jesus what is reserved for YHWH in Isaiah (whom they quote).
I will say it. Jesus is Yahweh. Who wrestled with Jacob? Who was Melchizedek? Who walked in the Garden? All of those anthropomorphic instances where it seems like He is not all-knowing (it repenteth me that I have made the man) are pre-incarnate appearances of Christ. Not that the LOGOS was hopping in and out of human form throughout the Old Testament. Rather, Genesis 1:27 is talking about something happening in heaven, and on earth. In heaven, the LOGOS is fusing with humanity to become The Man in heaven.
Not that the Father isn’t also “Yahweh”- that is the family name of God. But for example in the flood account Elohim and Yahweh can be read as two different characters and it makes sense. There are some passages of scripture where it seems like God is saying that He will have God do something. The trinity is in scripture from the beginning.
I am really pushed for time this evening, so I am not going to be able to make a substantial post. I’d like to thank you first for your intellectual honesty and concessions. Thanks also for answering my firebreak questions. A few of my key questions were missed. Since there was some overlap between a few of them I’m happy letting a couple of them go, but other questions were important so I’ll repeat them here.
Question: Do you understand that Jesus himself uses “theos” in John’s gospel to refer to non-divine humans, quoting the Old Testament usage, and that his usage is cited in standard professional lexicons as an example of “theos” being applied to non-divine humans? Do you think Jesus understood the meaning of this word?
If you can read this, do you understand the grammatical reason why “theos” cannot be translated “divine” in both places? If you do, please provide the grammatical explanation.
Question: Do you understand why translating “theos” as “God” the first time, and “divine” the second time, is based on the actual Greek grammar? If you do, please provide the grammatical explanation.
I asked you if you could list all the Second Temple Period sources which Sommer cites in his book as evidence for an “established and widespread tradition of a multi-personal God” with a single god which has two different person. You said “No, I’ve primarily relied on reviews for now”. I will save you the time, and provide the full list of Second Temple Period sources which Sommer cites on this point.
…
That’s it. Yes, that’s it. He doesn’t cite any Second Temple Period sources on this point at all. His earliest source (as best as I can date it, taking the earliest suggested date), is in the fourth century of the Christian era. I’ll also comment on this.
Actually Sommers argues that it was considered heretical, and that such beliefs were actively wiped out before the Second Temple Period (he has a whole chapter on this entitled “The Rejection of the Fluidity Model in Ancient Israel”). He argues that they were revived by Jewish commentators in the early Christian era, citing texts from the fourth century, and he argues that Christian commentators applied this interpretation in the post-New Testament period (not the first century).
He does not argue that this view of “divine fluidity” was extant in the first century. He certainly does not argue that there was a “established and widespread tradition of a multi-personal God”, certainly nothing like “a single God” that “has two different person”. He does not argue this at all. In fact in the entire New Testament he sees only two passages in which “divine fluidity” may be present; the baptism of Jesus, and the transfiguration. In both cases he reads them as representing a God who has more than one physical body, expressing Himself with multiple avatars. He acknowledges that this is not the “divine fluidity” which he finds in the Old Testament, and it not even the “divine fluidity” which he finds in the later Jewish literature from the fourth century onwards. I need hardly mention that these two passages are not read as indicating his idea of “divine fluidity” by other scholars.
I need to quote you here because we really need to straighten out your terminology.
Nestle-Aland is not a lexicon, it is a critical text. Here are some useful definitions.
Lexicon. A book describing the lexical range of original source language words, typically citing historical examples; BDAG and LSJ are lexicons.
Critical text. A scholarly edition of a historical text, assembled from a range of sources, representing what the editors consider to be the most accurate reconstruction of the original form of the text; Nestle-Aland is a critical text of the New Testament.
Check your messages, I have sent you links to two lexicons you can use for free, and a link to Nestle-Aland which you can also use for free. This will help you out a lot (please stop using Strong’s).
It used to be intermediate, but frankly I don’t use it sufficiently regularly at a sufficiently high level to maintain it at intermediate standard. This means I’m really slow at reading, and I rely a lot on a parsed interlinear. However, I can still use a critical text, a lexicon, and original source language texts to check (I am very familiar with the LXX and New Testament, so my reading of them is a lot better than my reading of the classical and medieval literature). The good thing about this is that it keeps me humble; I don’t rely on my own understanding of the text (this is why I don’t appeal to my own knowledge in this discussion), and I’m able to use advanced tools to check the meaning. Thankfully I still remember a lot of the grammar. I spent years on the professional B-Greek and B-Trans email lists, which helped preserve a lot of my knowledge.
The commentary was actually by Ernst Haenchen (he’s the one who died in 1975), and translated by Funk. But the date of the commentary does not matter since the only reason why I was quoting it was to provide you with an English translation of Origen’s comment on “theos” in John 1:1 (I could have translated it myself but that wouldn’t have been reliable given the argument I am making), and to demonstrate that Origen argued specifically for the translation “and the Word was divine”, on grammatical grounds.
Origen says “the Evangelist does not say that the logos is “God,” but only that the logos is “divine"”. This is one of the reasons why Origen believed that Jesus was subordinate to the Father, and was not divine in the same sense as the Father. He believed the Father was “the only true God”. This shows how natural the reading “and the Word was divine” actually is.
That’s as much of your post as I have time for today. I’ll reply to the rest tomorrow.