Does the Bible really say Jesus was God?

That depends entirely on where you draw the lines of orthodoxy. If you draw them along North American evangelical contours, that’s certainly going to exclude a lot of people. I assume you drawn them at least a little more broadly than that.

I don’t think you have a method of differentiating between “orthodoxy” and “non-orthodoxy” which you can definitely say is used by every other Christian. Is it orthodoxy to say that you don’t need to believe Jesus is God in order to be a Christian" Is it orthodoxy to say that Jesus didn’t believe himself to be God or present himself as God? Is it orthodoxy to say that you don’t go to heaven or hell when you die?

I am certainly not implying that everyone on that list shares the beliefs which define “orthodoxy” where “orthodoxy” comprises a set of beliefs which every Christian holds. If you think that “orthodoxy” means believing the same things that you do, or that you consider “orthodox”, then I certainly can’t refer to them as “orthodox”. But as I have said, remove them and the point remains.

Well you can see it correctly translated in various commentaries, and in translations cited by various commentaries.

Because we don’t need a special version of the Bible just for ourselves. We can manage perfectly well with translations by other people, and it’s certainly best this way.

Yes they both produced texts which were designed specifically to suit their theological bias. We have deliberately not done that. I can’t think of anyone (Christadelphian or non-Christadelphian), who would think we should do that.

Because it’s already in standard commentaries and lexicons, as I’ve demonstrated. I wouldn’t be saying anything which scholars don’t already know.

1 Like

Sorry, I’m going to have to leave it for another day. I’ve spent a great deal of time searching various Greek corpora (TLG E, Perseus, Duke Databank of Documentary Papyri, etc), but re-reading what you wrote I think I didn’t really need to since we’ve come to an agreement on the key issue which prompted my search anyway. So hopefully tomorrow’s post to you will be shorter, since I’ll simply cut to the points of disagreement instead of rehearsing everything.

Sounds good.

1 Like

I didn’t ask why you didn’t produce a special version just for yourselves. Since most Christians are supposedly wrong, an accurate translation should be for everybody, right? Is there no need for an accurate translation of the Bible itself ?

(And then I asked about producing an article on the correct translation of the Prologue for the Journal of Biblical Literature…)

In the Harper Collins Study Bible for the NRSV, “He” is used by the NRSV for the word in question. The commentary for this word is “He, him, or possibly it.” So they are fine with “He,” although “it” is a possibility. This Study Bible is from the Society of Biblical Literature.

(It’s amazing how much light the Bible sheds on the commentaries.)

[quote=“Jonathan_Burke, post:81, topic:37535”]

Just lurking here, but for fun I just checked into David Bentley Hart’s new translation. For anyone who doesn’t know, Hart is Orthodox (capital O) but his translation is intended to be a fresh, non-doctrinaire reading. He translates it (as discussed in this review) thus:

In the origin there was the Logos, and the Logos was present with God, and the Logos was god; (p. 168)

The reviewer goes on to explain,

Note carefully the capitalization. At first, I thought it was a typo, but that actually is what Hart intended. While he puts the first instance of “God” in small caps, he deliberately leaves uncapitalized the reference to the Logos as “god.” The only other version I’ve seen do something similar here is the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation. What then? Is Hart siding with Arianism? Not at all! He is simply acknowledging that the Greek text is less precise in this verse than we orthodox Christians might like to admit. He then devotes a massive footnote to defending this rendering, and he additionally spans five pages of his postscript (pp. 533–537) examining the complexities of this passage in detail.

Seems like this is similar to what’s being discussed here.

I hew to Evangelical orthodoxy on such matters, so by posting this I’m not taking sides in the discussion. Just putting this out there because it seemed relevant.

Merry 6th day of Christmas to all!

2 Likes

Thank you.  

1 Like

Mind you, I don’t necessarily agree with Hart’s translation. I don’t even own a copy of it! (…which is why I had to quote an online review of it.) But I felt it was directly relevant to your question to Jonathan, about finding a translation that matches how he thinks it should be translated.

You noodled around on the internet, and this agrees with him, so it’s automatically correct. And I didn’t ask about finding a translation that matches what he thinks.

Turns out I didn’t take Abraham Lincoln’s advice, did I? :smiley:

I apologize, as I didn’t mean to misrepresent what you were talking about. I understood what you were looking for but paraphrased it carelessly. Sorry about that.

I didn’t say Jonathan was correct! I actually agree with your definition of orthodoxy as excluding the likes of Borg (who doesn’t believe in a literal virgin birth or resurrection), and I like to stay within those lines, tyvm. I’m just reading and learning different points of view, and in this case I felt my comment would be of general interest to readers of the thread. I probably shouldn’t have tied it to your comment, in retrospect.

Have a great last 1.5 days of 2017.

1 Like

Actually I can read Greek(I am not a scholar) and I have read lexicons many times.
It says,“III. as Adj. in Comp. θεώτερος” which means the root is used as an adjective in the Comparative (adjective) θεώτερος.

Then it says, “[In Ep. (twice in Hom.) and Trag…” which means that in Epic poetry and then goes on to list the uses in epic poetry (Homer) and Tragedy …:

Then it says “as monosyll, by synizesis” which means it reduces from a polysyllabic word to a monosyllabic word by synizesis."

Then it gives examples of how θεώτερος is reduced to a monosyllabic word in the different cases by different authors, the last of which example is that even in the nominative it reduces to the monosyllabic word θεός before a vowel. Thus it is saying that theos in this case is not the noun, but a contracted form of the adjective theoteros.
You just misunderstood the lexicon.

Actually, I think you are right. I think that I misunderstood the section where it says, “as monosyll, by synizesis”. I agree that what you are saying about synizesis is correct. I thought that this entry was using synizesis in a way I had not seen before. I would have to see the whole entry since as you said, I have only seen the third entry and I don’t have that lexicon myself. However, it includes the comment about ‘even in nom. theos before a vowel’ in the section about synizesis so I need to see the entire entry. I don’t see where in mentions the lack of an article. It doesn’t have the article in the example, but I don’t see that described as having any import in this entry

1 Like

No problem. As for orthodoxy, maybe we can’t draw a thick black line around orthodoxy, but we can certainly draw a fuzzy line around it. I’ve read several reviews of the new translation you mention and it seems interesting. I could probably get a copy as an interlibrary loan, but I don’t know if I will. It sounds a bit like a shock-jock approach to me!

Anyway, I’m looking at commentaries/study Bibles now, starting with the HarperCollins Study Bible. While there is some ambiguity about the translation of that word in question, it certainly isn’t as clear-cut as we’re asked to believe–“He” is perfectly acceptable, while “it” is a possibility. I have the Oxford Bible Commentary on hold at the library, and will investigate even more commentaries as time permits.

btw, let me know if I can email you any articles from Academic Search Premier.

1 Like

I know you didn’t. I am asking if you think it would be a good idea for us to produce a Bible translation which is specifically biased towards our beliefs, the way the JWs and the LDS did (your two examples). I think that’s a terrible idea. And if we produced a Bible which we really did think was “perfectly” accurate (which I don’t think is possible), then we would certainly be accused of producing a Bible which was specifically biased towards our own beliefs. The great news is that we don’t need such a translation.

Yes there is a need for an accurate translation of the Bible. I find the New English Translation more than adequate in this regard. Most of the committee are from the Dallas Theological Seminary, which may or may not be orthodox (depending on what you think, the NET’s critics may right to say the NET is “right out of the pits of Hell”).

The NET’s text is a huge improvement on other English translations. There’s no translation of “hell” or “soul” anywhere in the Old Testament (a significant departure with traditional translations). The footnotes in the NET explain the correct meaning of several passages which have traditionally been viewed as support for the Trinity. The note on ‘Let us make man’ in Genesis 1:26 says ‘Many Christian theologians interpret it as an early hint of plurality within the Godhead, but this view imposes later Trinitarian concepts on the ancient text’, the note on the ‘Holy, holy, holy’ in Isaiah 6:3 says the Trinitarian reading ‘has no linguistic or contextual basis’, and the note on ‘Everlasting Father’ in Isaiah 9:6 says ‘This title must not be taken in an anachronistic Trinitarian sense’. In 1 Timothy 3:16 it has “He was revealed in the flesh” instead of the traditional “God was revealed in the flesh”. It does not use the anachronistic neologism “Godhead” at all. This is most refreshing.

Every English translation has its weaknesses, but I don’t see the need for us to make a translation when other people have done a very good job themselves.

I think Jonathan is making a good point about translation. These questions about the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus are interpretation issues, not translation issues. Good translations, as much as is possible, leave open the various interpretation options that are available in the original text. It’s up to a particular faith community to catechize their members in the interpretation they think is correct. As much as Bible-loving Protestants like to think it is the case, I don’t really think it is true that orthodox Christianity will just organically spring up from people reading an awesome translation of the Bible. Orthodox Christianity is something people are discipled into by other Christians, and the interpretations that have been handed down are going to shape their frame of reference for understanding the Bible.

2 Likes

Thank you for a gracious concession. I have placed the entire lexicon entry for θεός at the end of this post… As I pointed out previously, synizesis is a vowel contraction which occurs in pronunciation, not in the spelling of the word.

“Synizesis is the term used when the two coalescing vowels are written in full, but ‘sink together’ (συνιζάνω) into one syllable in pronunciation.”, D. B. Monro, Homeric Grammar (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1891), 351.

It does not reduce a pollysyllabic word to a monosyllabic word. I’m going to return to what you said earlier to walk you through why your claim didn’t make sense to me. The entry was very clearly providing examples of the noun form of θεός, yet you kept reading them as contractions of θεώτερος.

As I showed previously, the example it uses for θεός before a vowel is a use of θεός as a noun, not a verb. Here it is again.

δεινὴ γὰρ ἡ θεός, ἀλλʼ ὅμως ἰάσιμος.

Here, θεός is a nominative singular noun, not an adjective, and certainly not a contraction of θεώτερος. If you look at the examples the entry provides from Homer, it’s clear they are not contractions of θεώτερος either. The entry cites “θεούς h.Cer.325”. That’s Homer’s Hymn to Demeter. Here it is.

αὖτις ἔπειτα πατὴρ μάκαρας θεοὺς αἰὲν ἐόντας
πάντας ἐπιπροΐαλλεν:

Homer, Hymn to Demeter, 2,325–329.

Here θεοὺς is a genitive plural noun. This is clearly not a case of synizesis, since θεοὺς is not a monosyllable, and applying synizesis would not make it a monosyllable (even in pronouncation). This is definitely not a contraction of θεώτερος, whether by synizesis or anything else.

The entry also cites “θεοῖσιν Od.14.251”. That’s Homer’s Odyssey. Here it is.

αὐτὰρ ἐγὼν ἱερήϊα πολλὰ παρεῖχον
θεοῖσίν τε ῥέζειν αὐτοῖσί τε δαῖτα πένεσθαι.

Homer, Odyssey, 14.250-251.

Here θεοῖσίν is a dative plural noun (epic Ionic and Aeolics spelling). This is clearly not a case of synizesis, since θεοῖσίν is not a monosyllable, and applying synizesis would not make it a monosyllable (even in pronouncation). This is definitely not a contraction of θεώτερος, whether by synizesis or anything else.

This is why I thought it was likely that you couldn’t read Greek, because I did not understand how anyone who could read Greek could look at those words in context (θεός, θεοὺς, θεοῖσίν), and come to the conclusion that they are not nouns, and that they are actually contracted forms of θεώτερος.

Now to this point.

Actually that is not in a section about synizesis, it’s in a different section, separated by a semi-colon. Here are the sections, divided by semi-colons.

  • 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.

As you can see, the entries for θεῶν, θεοῖς, θεούς, and “θεός before a vowel” are not in the section on synizesis. Each of them is in its own section. This makes perfect sense since none of these are instances of synizesis. Just looking at them, you can see that θεοῖς and θεοῖσιν are not examples of contraction to monosyllablic words (even in pronunciation), so these instances are obviously not being cited as examples of synizesis.

It doesn’t. I was combining the information in the lexicon with the text of John 1:1, and making the point that when we see an anarthrous θεός before a vowel, “divine” is a natural reading; it’s a natural reading on the basis of the position of the anarthrous θεός, and the fact that it’s before a vowel (and in the nominative), makes the case stronger since we have lexical precedent for this. I realize on re-reading that it looked like I was saying the lexicon mentioned the anathrous θεός, so I apologize for that.

Actually it does have the article in the example. Here it is again.

δεινὴ γὰρ ἡ θεός, ἀλλʼ ὅμως ἰάσιμος.

You can see the definite article ἡ before θεός.


✪ θεός, ὁ, Boeot. θιός, Lacon. σιός (v. infr.), and s.v. σιός, Cypr., Cret. θιός, Arg. θιιο͂ι (dat.) SEG36.341 (c.550 B.C.), ICS217.27, 219 (both fem.), 267.2, al., Leg.Gort.1.1, Dor. also θεύς Call.Cer.58; acc. θεῦν v.l. ib.130; voc. (only late) θεός, also θεέ LXXDe.3.24, Ev.Matt.27.46, PMag.Lond.121.529, etc.; but classical in compd. names, Ἀμφίθεε, Τιμόθεε, ep. gen. and dat. sg. and pl. θεόφιν Il.17.101, 14.318, al.:—God, the Deity, in general sense, both sg. and pl. (εἰ καὶ ἐπὶ θεοὺς καὶ ἔτι μᾶλλον ἐπὶ θεὸν ἁρμόζει μεταφέρειν Plot.6.8.1), θ. δὲ τὸ μὲν δώσει τὸ δʼ ἐάσει God will grant …, Od.14.444; οὐδέ κεν ἄλλως οὐδὲ θ. τεύξειε 8.177, cf. 3.231, Il.13.730 (also θεὸς Ζεύς Od.4.236, 14.327); θ. καὶ ἀγαθὴ τύχη Pl.Lg.757e, cf. Timocl.3 D.; σὺν θεῷ Il.9.49, S.Aj.765, etc. (less freq. ξὺν τῷ θ. ib.383); σὺν θ. εἰρημένον Hdt.1.86, cf. 3.153; σὺν θ. εἰπεῖν Pl.Prt.317b: so in pl., σύν γε θεοῖσιν Il.24.430; οὔ τοι ἄνευ θεοῦ Od.2.372; οὐ θεῶν ἄτερ Pi.P.5.76; ἐκ θεόφι Il.17.101; ὑπὲρ θεόν against his will, 17.327; ἂν θ. θέλῃ Alex.231; θ. θέλοντος Men.Mon.671: in pl., ἂν θεοὶ θέλωσιν Alex.247; θεῶν συνεθελόντων, βουλομένων, X.Eq.Mag.9.8, Luc.Macr.29; εἰ ὀρθῶς ἢ μή, θ. οἶδε Pl.Phdr.266b, cf. R.517b, etc.; in oaths, θ. ἴστω S.OC522 (lyr.), etc.; πρὸς θεῶν Hdt.5.49, D.1.15, etc.: τοὺς θεούς σοι bless you! good heavens! for heaven’s sake! M.Ant.7.17, Arr.Epict.2.19.15, al.; τὸν θ. σοι ib.3.7.19, al.: qualified by τις, Od.9.142, etc.; οὐκ ἄνευ θεῶν τινος A.Pers.164 (troch.), E.Ba.764; κατὰ θεόν τινα Id.IA411, Pl.Euthd.272e; κατὰ θεόν πως εἰρημένα Id.Lg.682a: doubled in poets, θεὸν θεόν τις ἀγλαϊζέτω B.3.21, cf. Diagor.1; θεοὶ θεοὶ τῶν ἀδίκων μέλουσι E.HF772, cf. Paus.Gr.Fr.203; θεοί (Cret. θιοί) as an opening formula in Inscrr. (sc. τύχην ἀγαθὴν διδοῖεν), Leg.Gort.1.1, IG12.52, etc.: sg., θ. τύχη ib.5(2).1, etc.: in Prose also with the Art., ὁ θ. πάντων ἂν εἴη αἴτιος Pl.R.379c, cf. Lg.716c, etc.; τὰ πρὸς τοὺς θ., τὰ παρὰ τῶν θ., X.Mem.1.3.1, 2.6.8; κατὰ πρόσταγμα σὺν θεοῖς πᾶσι SEG35.989 (Cnossus), in dedications, etc., θεοῖς πᾶσιν ib. 25.867 (Telos, both ii/ii B.C.), etc. (cf. Myc. pa-si-te-o-i).
b. θεοί, opp. ἄνδρες, πατὴρ ἀνδρῶν τε θεῶν τε Il.1.544; ὃν Ξάνθον καλέουσι θ., ἄνδρες δὲ Σκάμανδρον 20.74: in Comparisons, θεοῖσιν ἶσʼ ἔθελε φρονἐειν 5.440; θεοῖς ἐναλίγκια μήδεα Od.13.89; also in sg., θεῷ ἐναλίγκιος αὐδήν Il.19.250; θεὸς ὥς 5.78; ὥς τε θεός 3.381: prov., θεὸς πρὸς ἀνθρώπους, of an ‘angel’s visit’, Herod.1.9.
c. of special divinities, νέρτεροι θ. A.Pers.622, S.Ant.602 (lyr.); ἐνέρτεροι θ. Il.15.225; αἱ κάτωθεν θ. S.Ant.1070; θ. αὐράνιοι h.Cer.55, A.Ag.90 (anap.); αἱ δώδεκα θ. Ar.Eq.235. X.Eq.Mag.3.2, IG22.30, etc.; μὰ τοὺς δώδεκα θ. Men.Sam.91; in dual, τὼ σιώ (Lacon.), of Castor and Pollux, ναὶ τώ σ. X.An.6.6.34, HG4.4.10, Ar.Lys.81: so in Boeot., of Amphion and Zethus, νεὶ τὼ σιώ (leg. θιώ) Id.Ach.905.
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.
e. Astrol., θεοί, = ἀστέρες, Jul.Laod. in Cat.Cod.Astr.8(4).252.
f. θεός (sc. Ἥλιος), name of the 9th τόπος, Rhetor.ib.163, etc.
g. as a statue, τὸν θεὸν … ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων ἀνέσ(σ)τησε TAM4(1).70.

  1. metaph., of abstract things, τὸ δʼ εὐτυχεῖν τόδʼ ἐν βροτοῖς θεός τε καὶ θεοῦ πλέον A.Ch.60; ἡ φρόνησις ἁγαθὴ θ. μέγας S.Fr.922; θ. γὰρ καὶ τὸ γιγνώσκειν φίλους E.Hel.†60; ὁ πλοῦτος τοῖς σοφοῖς θ. Id.Cyc.316; φθόνος κάκιστος θ. Hippothoon 2.

  2. 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.).
    b. = Lat. Divus, Mon.Anc.Gr.10.4, Str.4.1.1, etc.; οἱ ἐν θεοῖς αὐτοκράτορες,= divi imperatores, IG12(1).786 (Rhodes).
    c. generally of the dead, καὶ ζῶντός σου καὶ εἰς θεοὺς ἀπελθόντος PPetr.2p.45 (iii B.C.); θεοῖς χθονίοις, = Lat. Dis Manibus, IG14.30, al.

  3. one set in authority, judge, τὸ κριτήριον τοῦ θ., ἐνώπιον τοῦ θ., LXXEx.21.6, 22.8; θεοὺς οὐ κακολογήσεις ib.22.28(27).
    II. θεός fem., goddess, μήτε θήλεια θεός, μήτε τις ἄρσην Il.8.7, cf. Hdt.2.35, al.; τοῖς θεοῖς εὔχομαι πᾶσι καὶ πάσαις D.18.1, cf. 141, Orac.ib.21.52; esp. at Athens, of Athena, Decr.ap.And.1.77, Pl.Ti.21a, etc.; ἁ Διὸς θεός, Ζηνὸς ἡ θ., S.Aj.401 (lyr.), 952 (ἡ διὸς θεά ib.450); of other goddesses, ποντία θεός Pi.I.8(7).36; ἡ νερτέρα θ., = Περσεφόνη, S.OC1548, etc.; of Thetis, Pl.Ap.28c; of Niobe, S.El.150 (lyr.), Ant.834 (anap.): in dual, of Demeter and Persephone, τὰ τοῖν θεοῖν ψηφίσματα Ar.V.378 (lyr.); αὐδʼ ἔδεισε τὼ θεώ And.1.125; freq. in oaths, νὴ τὼ θεώ Ar.Lys.112; μὰ τὼ θεώ Id.Ec.155, 532.

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.

Yes. That’s why scholars attempt to resolve the translation issues by appealing to their interpretation of the broader context; and of course that interpretation is naturally influenced by other concerns as well.

This is a very good point. In fact increasingly I have been coming to an understanding of the fact that the uniquely Christian teachings of the first century were dependent as much on the teaching of the community as they were on simply reading the Bible. Given the fact that the vast majority of early Christian converts were not literate, the text had to be read to them in any case, and was certainly mediated and curated in various forms, including in the New Testament documents themselves. Paul’s letters for example described specifically Christian ways of reading the Old Testament, some of which would not have occurred to even the average literate Second Temple Period Jew (though others were part of the STP milieu).

1 Like

These are echoes of what I’ve been reading in Newbigin’s book: “The Gospel in a Pluralistic Society”.

1 Like

I didn’t say that. The JWs and the LDS put forth the effort to produce what they believed were better translations.

So we can’t say, “The Bible clearly says…”

1 Like

I never said that orthodox Christianity will just organically spring up from people reading an awesome translation of the Bible. And all people grow up in a culture.