Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Spotify | Email | RSS
This lecture was the opening session of the 2021 Unitarian Christian Alliance Conference.
In it, after briefly surveying the historical range of interpretations of John 1:1-18, I show how earlier literature gives us the context in which the original audience would have understood the prologue of the fourth gospel.
The resulting interpretation is compatible with but does not imply Trinity or Incarnation as normally understood, as befits a writing of the late 1st century.
The keys to understanding this text, I show, are themes from previous Jewish “wisdom” literature.
Along the way I explain why trinitarian, subordinationist, oneness/modalist, and Socinian interpretations of this text are problematic.
But my purpose is not to give full refutations of these, but rather to show how overall plausible and well-motivated the correct interpretation is.
A correction: when I listed the four kinds of readings of John 1, I unaccountably left out the Oneness/Modalist sort. But I do discuss it, and why I think it is mistaken.
Links for this episode:
UCA podcast 38. The Making of a Trinity Nerd – Dale Tuggy
Living Hope International Ministries
Williamsburg Christadelphian Foundation
21st Century Reformation Online
All your base are belong to us
podcast 301 – Dr. Daniel Boyarin on John 1
podcast 298 – Andrews Norton on John 1
podcast 295 – James Martineau on John 1
podcast 294 – Dr. Jo-Ann Brant on the Gospel According to John – Part 2
podcast 293 – Dr. Jo-Ann Brant on the Gospel According to John – Part 1
podcast 292 – New vs. Old “Beginning” – Two Interpretations of John 1
podcast 291 – From one God to two gods to three “Gods” – John 1 and early Christian theologies
podcast 290 – Is the “Socinian” interpretation of John 1 correct? A conversation with Carlos.
podcast 289 – “Socinian” approaches to John 1 – Part 2
podcast 288 – “Socinian” approaches to John 1 – Part 1
podcast 287 – Dr. Andrew Perry on John 1
podcast 116 – George R. Noyes’s Explanation of Isaiah 9:6 and John 1:1
podcast 70 – The one God and his Son according to John
podcast 63 – Thomas Belsham and other scholars on John 8:58
podcast 62 – Dr. Dustin Smith on the preexistence of Jesus in the gospel of John
Debating John 1: Eusebius vs. Marcellus
John A. T. Robinson on “the Word” of John 1
This week’s thinking music is “Circles (Instrumental)” by Greg Atkinson.
This presentation at the UCA conference was extremely well put together Dale. Great job. I especially loved the “all your base” humored references – a classic from our youth. I’m also glad to see how simply you paraphrased John 1 at the end, as I see it in the same light, and it is so plain. Nice integration of other writings too, such as Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach – I’ve been a fan of those books for a decade.
The way you presented the 4 main views, then eliminated the 3 wrought with difficulty, made it clear. I loved how you omitted the Trinitarian perspective fully since it didn’t come around until late 4th-century AD. I agree the Socinian view (though I’ve tried to see it that way) just doesn’t seem feasible, besides the fact that it appears to be only 4 centuries old itself. It seems to complicate the text too much.
I highly suggest you make the fundamentals of this presentation into a booklet. Maybe not as thick a book as your “What is the Trinity?” book or your co-authored book with Chris Date, but something 50-pages or less that hits this point home. A few of the charts/slides you used could go in there as well. John 1 is a huge stage-setter for many discussions on this topic, as you’ve known. I think it could do a lot of good for both those with Trinitarian or Unitarian Christology, and with <50 pages, could be distributed cheaply and easily.
Thanks Prof Dale. I’m a fan of the podcast, even though I disagree with much of the material. This particular episode inspired—or maybe drove is the better word—me to write an article:
https://blog.dianoigo.com/2021/11/the-parts-of-johns-prologue-that.html
At 8 minutes into video Dale presents that the concept that ‘In the Beginning The Son is the Father’ as if that were unthinkable. Unthinkable .. like 3 can not be 1, and that is all it takes – hand waving and a decisive ‘Of Course’, ..
.
.. once again – so sorry to have to mention – that Dale’s abilities toward Abstract Reasoning – like to count to 3 is somehow a huge leap in Theological imagination because “1, 2, many” is all the number system a person needs.
.
As I try to politely suggest in Post, September 22nd, 2021, Wednesday Late Morning, ‘Index Number 1171:’, ..
https://www.facebook.com/Steven.Work/posts/10227260994294943
Archived: https://archive.ph/dHQjE
.
.
I as Dale and us all to Imagine The Son IS the Father until after new soul is ‘budded’ or Spoken, and the moment that new Soul ‘takes it’s first Steps’ and become Different than the Father that the Son extends out and around that Soul to provide all that is needed to Be Different, to BeCome unique and able to See and Love from the outside and to experience the Suffering and Desire to return – to Learn to Love Large enough for that Love to surround God and be brought back in .. a Passion in All It, His, and Her Forms.
.
The Son Forms the ‘substrate’ as well as all the needed parts to Perform that Function .. Reaching Out from The Father and Cradling that soul, the the Holy Ghost forming and becoming the Difference is a Holy Dimensions, the Fingers that help Shape and Tap that Soul back.
.
So .. Yes Dale, The Son IS The Father in the Beginning.
He Recursively extends Himself and ReCreates Himself.
.
It is Sad that such Apologetics seem unable to Penetrate. I continue to get the impression I am Shouting these arguments at an ’empty house’, as all efforts to Correct seem to fall on .. Ghost Ears.
Is it that evil-Zionists that seem to block such messages in at least one direction are in fact Supporting Dale and the misguided fools who are Advanced and Protected from us who might spawn the needed doubt and consideration that would lead to his (and those he influence’s) Return to the Truth – The Trinity?
.
Like Twitter shadow-banning my messages and tweets to him, our YouTube my Comments under the videos which – before they stop any of my comments with URLs connected to stay – may and likely were blocking others from seeing them all – including him.
.. and why would that be unreasonable – would any slimy vile act such a clear evil-corporation do like that now seem unlikely – given their ever expanding similar evils, and do you not believe they are THAT evil from the first they started the interference with our #FreedomToHear, that it was not directed – perhaps tailed at first from the evil targeting of a few of us, and expanded over time?
.
Using our Tax and public resources, and supported and not corrected by our Gov, their owned and directed Minions.
.
Making sure that not only Dale and people like Dale never face reason to doubt and Change, but Protecting his Error, amplifying it when they can.
.
.
So, I did not get much further in the video then that 9 or 10 minutes, as .. like the one in the reference Post I gave the URL for above, I could spend pages on the simple errors and over simplifications he makes in arguing.
.. do not misunderstand – It is worth doing as an exercise in person reAffirmation and opportunities to test Apologetic, but it is mostly a Sterile endeavor that Seems to provide him little value, either because he never see it, or is unwilling to engage.
.
.
This is part of a Post I expect to publish tomorrow 11/16/21on my Facebook account:
https://www.facebook.com/Steven.Work
And on my SubStack:
https://stevenwork.substack.com
Dale, I hope you are well. I do enjoy your work.
.. But the censorship I face is frustrating.
God Bless, Steve
“The Son IS The Father in the Beginning. He Recursively extends Himself and ReCreates Himself”
Steven, I don’t understand the meaning of these two sentences of yours. I could imagine how they might be taken in a modalistic monarchian sense. Is that your point? If so, then I have explained briefly in the talk – yeah, probably past the 10 min mark – why I think that is obviously mistaken. If you’re going to leave a long comment, it would make sense to at least listen through the whole thing. If you understand the concept of numerical sameness, you will see that it is clearly impossible that at t1 some a and some b are identical, then at t2 that a and that b are non-identical (i.e. numerically distinct). Again, I’m not sure quite what you’re saying, but some of it sounds like that sort of idea. Can you see why that sort of scenario is clearly impossible?
Comments are closed.