Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Spotify | Email | RSS
Is the author of John confused about Jesus and God? Does he think that two different beings – the Father, and the man Jesus – are numerically the same as the one true God? Some people think so; putting it gently, they talk of the “tensions” (=apparent contradictions) in the book. But is this author that confused?
Again, some think that John makes Jesus qualitatively equal to God, that is, divine in the same sense that the one God is divine. But John firmly distinguishes between Jesus and his (and our) God, and wasn’t this author, and all the early Jewish Christians, monotheistic, believing in the uniqueness of YHWH, as emphatically claimed in Isaiah and Deuteronomy?
How does Dr. Ehrman read the gospel according to John in his How Jesus Became God? And what about Dr. Ehrman’s claim that the authors of Matthew, Mark, and Luke considered Jesus to be a lesser god, a lower level divinity, while John has a notably “higher” christology? We discuss these questions and the topic of monotheism in this episode.
You can also listen to this episode on youtube. And here is Part 1 of the interview.
The assertion that Trinitarian thinking became established ‘very early on’ seems to be derived from Trinitarians understanding of Philippians 2.
As “Trinities’ recent blog on this scripture shows, the Trinitarian view is quite misguided.!
Paul was referring to the ‘second Adam’ who unlike the first Adam did not seek equality with God but instead emptied Himself of His human ego and became obedient,even to death on the cross.
The “Trinity’ that we are all familiar with only became established once Christianity had become separated by time and space (centuries and thousands of kilometres) from the land of its origin.
The idea that YHWH was ‘multipersonal’ would have been abhorrent to people living in Christs time. as it is to many thinking people today!
Blessings
John
I read “How Jesus Became God” and the refutation, “How God Became Jesus.” Both books explained progressive Christology, how almost all Christologies – high and low – were around very early on, and how these Christologies were chronologically *eliminated,* from low to high, as the nascent church built its orthodoxy.
My comments, and these go to both books, are: 1) they assume that Jesus’s ministry was apocalyptic, when Crossan and others make a good case that Jesus’s ministry was sapiential – that is, present here now and attainable through adhering to the law, and 2) that the Pauline epistles are the earliest source writings – when the Epistle of James the Just arguably pre-dates them.
For further discussion of these comments, and a thorough review of both books, please check out my Reader’s Guide to Bart Ehrman’s How Jesus Became God.
This is the latest in a series which includes my best-selling Reader’s Guide to Reza Aslan’s Zealot , and my Reader’s Guide to Bill O’Reilly’s Killing Jesus .
John and Charles:
So I was listening to a Trinitarian apologist build his case against a non-Trinitarian, and he kept referring to the non-Trinitarian’s “assumption[s]”, and “the assumption of Unitarianism” that he felt was controlling his opponent’s thinking. I found that approach singularly unhelpful when hearing it from the other side, and by the time the phrase was uttered 3 or 4 times, I even found it touch annoying. Of course, this immediately made me think of my own comments here, and I now regret that I said what I thought without thinking about whether that would be more likely to alienate my dialogue partners than actually be helpful.
~Sean
Hi Charles,
I think you’ve misunderstood me, as I wasn’t being defensive, but merely stating what I perceive to be the ultimate controlling factor in your exegesis. Sorry if that was offensive to you, though I think most people recognize that we all have presuppositions, and I think we should all be willing to acknowledge this. Saying that I’m leaving it in God’s hands is just another way of saying that I recognize my own limitations, and that if you are ever going to accept what I consider obviously valid, then it probably won’t be me that makes that happen.
From my perspective, you haven’t shown any weaknesses in my view, but you’ve merely attempted to side-step it’s rather obvious strengths. My view subsumes your view, i.e. it incorporates it’s strengths, while having the added virtue of recognizing the Greek idiom at work in verse 58 and rendering the verse accordingly, with the result that Jesus’ response fits exquisitely in context, especially in light of the question posed. That you can’t even bring yourself to acknowledge the potential validity of the argument strongly suggests that Socinian-type Unitarianism is controlling what you’ll allow yourself to accept in terms of interpretation and infer from the account.
Is it possible that my own presupposition of a being who preexisted his earthly life is controlling my view without my recognizing this? Well, yes, that’s possible, but I think you’ll find that that’s a harder sell. Even James Dunn — whom you quoted approvingly, and who is perhaps quoted more often than any other scholar by Socinian-type Unitarians because of his arguments in relation to the evidence for preexistence in the NT — has stated that John 8:58 is the verse “…where Jesus’ claim to pre-existence achieves its most absolute expression…” (Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation, second edition), p. 29 Dunn’s response isn’t to deny this, but to argue that these words probably weren’t uttered by the historical Jesus. Most scholars would agree with Dunn, but, like me, many of them also feel that it is appropriate to allow John’s portrayal of Jesus to shape our understanding of who he was, so the question of historicity becomes secondary to the question of accurate interpretation. If we’re going to let John shape our understanding of Christ, then let’s allow ourselves to hear what John is saying.
~Sean
Sean,
I gave quite a bit of evidence for a very different reading on the passage, used the internal context and shown ample motivation and justification for stoning, and I’ve shown weaknesses in your argument that doesn’t fit with the times, so your criticism about my presumptions goes both ways, really. One could say you are quite determined that Jesus pre-existed as some sort of being (which you never explained), and that flavors your entire reading as well. But just b/c I find your view of the context weaker, you don’t have to get chippy (lumping my ideas with others and their arguments? –ouch) It’s just a dialogue. And no need to take your ball and go home (leave “it” in God’s hands?) nor demand with such polemic that your reading is the obvious and clear one.
Again, your burden of proof remains to explain the blasphemy of a lying pre-existent being. You still have been unable to show how this fanatical crowd of Jews would even have a concept of a pre-existent being, and so your point about the blasphemy of a lying agent is simply, upon my reading, too preposterous to even be considered a lie. At the same time you say in your second paragraph that Jesus is claiming to be greater than Abraham, and this is worthy of stones, and with this I fully agree and have argued for. But not b/c the crowd understood Jesus to be an agent of God who was lying about his pre-existent status (this begs too many questions). Rather, Jesus gave crystal clear communication that he was superior to Abraham (for Abraham looked upon Jesus’ day with anticipation and gladness) but was obscure with their question about whether he had seen Abraham personally. I’ll stick with my reading, and of course you’re certainly welcome to yours.
Charles
Hi Charles:
I get the feeling that, like John, you have some deep commitment to a Socinian-type Unitarianism, and that’s probably what’s truly controlling your interpretation, just as many Trinitarians approach the text with a deep commitment to Trinitarianism, which more often than not controls their interpretation. There isn’t much I can do or say in response to such commitments, as they tend to constitute a person’s ultimate authority in something like a transcendental (i.e. Van Til-ian) sense. Just as faith in God is the precondition for intelligibility, scientific laws, moral absolutes, etc, for many in the reformed tradition (e.g. Van Til, Bahnsen, Frame, etc), so a Socinian-type Unitarianism is the precondition for intelligible biblical interpretation vis a vis the person of Christ for you and John. Thus, it doesn’t really matter how compelling a case I make for the position held by McKay, myself, and many others, you simply won’t be able to accept it. If there’s one thing I’ve learned over the years it’s that only God can convert a Trinitarian, and that would apply equally here, just as I’m sure it applies to me respecting some presuppositions I hold. I’ve said what I can, so now I’ll leave it in His hands.
BTW, Jesus words in verse 58 would probably have suggested that he was making himself out to be greater than Abraham. This wasn’t conveyed cryptically, though; rather, it was conveyed via an explicit claim to have been in existence since before Abraham was even born. This clear claim, in context, would have suggested his priority over Abraham.
Sincerely,
Sean
Sean,
I simply disagree with the importance you’re putting on 8:58 to justify the crowd’s action. The crowd had enough justification for Jesus’ blasphemy with his claim to be greater than Abraham and his charge that the people were not legitimate Abrahamic heirs (but of the devil). They weren’t (as you tried to recreate my position) mulling back and forth in confusion about the “I am” statement at all, they caught the gist of its meaning, it bookends the controlling question about who is greater than Abraham…Jesus is saying he is greater. That’s all the crowd needed to conclude, blasphemy is justified. Remember, blasphemy was a large category that involved a number of religious offenses (insulting the crowd as illegitimate heirs of Abraham is a blasphemous offense in and of itself). If we’re to use “lying as God’s agent” as a possible blasphemous category offense, then it’s quite clear that Jesus is lying (in their minds) as God’s agent by saying he is greater than Abraham (not a pre-existent being, a concept they wouldn’t have had for God’s supposed agents nor wouldn’t have understood in the unusual “I am” statement). For in that case, Jesus is lying in saying that Abraham looked forward to Jesus’ coming, that Jesus supercedes Abraham in importance. Enough said, time for stones.
Charles
I had said:
“4) The verse understood as an example of the EP or PPA idiom forms a statement that constitutes a stoning offense.”
I should have said:
“4) The verse understood as an example of the EP or PPA idiom forms a statement that would have constituted a stoning offense if it were not true.”
Charles: One point I forgot to mention in relation to your view is that claiming to be greater than Abraham was not a stoning offense, and so there is a two-fold problem with it, IMO:
(a) If it were true that John 8:58 is “cryptic”, then Jesus’ words couldn’t have been used to justify the stoning. To put it humorously, you don’t stone someone for saying something that seems to maybe imply that he might possibly think he’s greater than Abraham, but maybe not, I’m not sure, though I think possibly so but it’s hard or impossible to say so or not, but, well, I don’t know, it’s cryptic so it doesn’t really have any obvious meaning other than maybe, possibly seeming offensive in some undefinable way;-)
(b) Even if they thought they might have possibly heard some undefinable reason to infer that Jesus was claiming superiority to Abraham, again, that wasn’t a stoning offense.
On the other hand, as I pointed out previously, for someone to present himself as God’s supreme agent, i.e. someone who has all authority granted to him by God, to abuse that authority and tell a lie while in the context of his commission, would make God a liar, because, according to the shaliah principle, “the agent is equated with the principal” and therefore speaks the principal’s words.
So, again:
1) At John 8:58 we have about as clear an example of the EP or PPA idiom as one is likely to find based on the definition given by McKay.
2) In the previous verse Christ’s opponents asked how he, a man not yet 50 years old, could have seen Abraham rejoice over seeing his [Christ’s] day.
3) A translation based on the idiom that clearly appears to be at work in verse 58 fits exquisitely in context, while all other alternatives are either highly speculative or instances of non sequitur.
4) The verse understood as an example of the EP or PPA idiom forms a statement that constitutes a stoning offense.
“Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad’. ‘You are not yet fifty years old,’ they said to him, ‘and you have seen Abraham!’. ‘The truth is, I have been in existence since before Abraham was born!’”
Irresistible:-)
~Sean
Charles: You said:
“You’re convinced the crowd was not trying to kill Jesus yet…”
No, no, no, that’s not what I’m saying at all. Note what I actually said:
“Yes, the Jews were bent on killing Jesus long before verse 58, and yes, they were possessed by a mob mentality. But, as much as they wanted an excuse to kill him, they didn’t pick up stones until verse 58. As rabid as they were, they held themselves in check until Jesus said something that they felt ***justified*** the response they were determined to give.”
To repeat, the Jews were “bent on killing Jesus LONG BEFORE VERSE 58…”
They wanted him dead, but they needed a plausible excuse to ostensibly ***justify*** carrying out that objective.
~Sean
Sean,
“If they merely heard something odd and cryptic, then I doubt that they’d have used Jesus response in verse 58 as the justification
You’re convinced the crowd was not trying to kill Jesus yet, but were waiting for something more solid. My view of the passage shows they already had a “determination” to kill (as Jesus stated plainly) so their motivation doesn’t hang on 8:58, nor on Jesus’ cryptic answer (yes cryptic, as there is little consensus in theology on the meaning, and countless articles on what it might mean). So we’ll just have to beg to differ on the weight of the passage on this matter.
For me, in light of the unusual way Jesus answers (you agree it is the only example we have), there wasn’t clarity of understanding by the crowd in their state of mind, simply a confirmation to the crowd that Jesus is claiming to be greater than Abraham (which is the context, the controlling question they’ve asked here), and therefore time to take action on what they have already determined to do.
To shore up my view on what was “blasphemy” here…If Jesus is challenging the precious position of authority that Abraham holds among these Jews, and claiming to be greater, well then…time for stones. Nothing else makes better sense in light of 1st century Judaism, I hold. My position doesn’t require understanding the complex “I am” statement (for a frenziec crowd) nor does it require a category in the Jewish mind of the day that pre-existent beings come to earth as God’s agents. My view takes into account a precedent for blasphemy in the 1st century (challenging Abraham) and I don’t think your position has a precedent, a clear category for blasphemy.
Just for the sake of argument, (lying as God’s agent in his commission), even if this was a category for blasphemy in the 1st century (this is your view, an extension of Bock’s point, not Bock’s point per se) it would require accepted agency. But the crowd does not accept Jesus’ agency. And second, it also would require a precedent in the Jewish mindset for pre-existent beings coming to earth as agents, which you haven’t established. In my view, you’ve got too much weight for 8:58 to bear.
Rather, Jesus’ claim to be greater than Abraham is an understandable motivation for blasphemy, sth closer to the real world of the Jews of the day, something a mob in its frenzied state would catch clear enough. But an unusual, esoteric-like answer of a pre-existent being who is actually lying as God’s agent? Would that be caught by this crowd? A bit forced. To say 8:58 is about Jesus’ pre-existence rather than about being more important than Abraham is missing the point of the blasphemy, I’d say.
Sean
So much of Chapter 8 is ‘imagery’ which conceals a very simple story.
Several scriptures use words to the effect that the Jews sought to stone Him – and yet they didn,t.
AND NEVER WOULD HAVE
They didn’t for the simple reason that they would have been charged with murder.
The only justification for stoning was blasphemy – and Christ never blasphemed.! THEY ALL KNEW THAT.
Why were the Jews so angry with Christ?
Apart from calling them rude names he was threatening their very existence.
See John 11v48 ‘If we leave him alone all will believe him and the Romans will come and take away our land, and our nation”
The imagery is superfluous.
Blessings
John
John: All I can say is that it appears that I’ve done my job as an apologist. You began our discussion a while back by arguing for a certain interpretation of John 8:58, and now that I’ve discussed the problems with the different interpretations — at least the ones I’m familiar with — you’ve changed gears and are now arguing that the subject account in the Gospel of John can’t be trusted. I wonder, if someone were to conclusively demonstrate that the Apostle Paul’s writings present Christ as a pre-existent being, would you reject them too? What would it take for you to set aside the presupposition that Jesus didn’t exist before his earthly life? I get the sense that that controlling presupposition is as fundamental for you as Trinitarianism is to Trinitarians. It forms a sort of precondition for interpreting the biblical data, and that data must either harmonize or be set aside.
Something to think about.
~Sean
Hi Charles:
I agree with much of what you say about the context, but, ironically, I see that data as supporting my view, not challenging it. Yes, the Jews were bent on killing Jesus long before verse 58, and yes, they were possessed by a mob mentality. But, as much as they wanted an excuse to kill him, they didn’t pick up stones until verse 58. As rabid as they were, they held themselves in check until Jesus said something that they felt ***justified*** the response they were determined to give.
The question is, why did they think Jesus’ words at John 8:58 justified stoning? I explained this in my initial response to Douglas, but you haven’t addressed that argument yet. Rather than having you search through the posts to find it, I’ll simply repeat myself:
Some apologists have suggested that such a statement would not have been a stoning offense, because there was nothing blasphemous about claiming to be really, really old. At worst Christ’s opponents would have merely considered him “crazy”, but wouldn’t have tried to stone him. Such shallow reasoning demonstrates pretty clearly to me that apologists have nothing more substantive (or, to put it bluntly, less silly) to offer in response, as they’ve completely missed (or ignored) the entire dynamic of the dialogue in John 8, and the general observation that in John’s Gospel as a whole Jesus is presented as an agent of God, his power of attorney, someone fully authorized to speak God’s words, thoughts, and judgements to us.
If memory serves, there was an example in Darrell Bock’s “Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism” in which it was considered blasphemy to lie to an agent of God. The reverse would apply equally if not more so: It would be blasphemy for an agent of God, someone who claimed to speak God’s words and thoughts to us, to utter a lie in the context of his commission. According to the agency principle, this would make God a liar, because, as the Rabbis put it, “The agent is as the principle”. There can be no question that Jesus’ opponents at John 8:58 would have understood Jesus’ claim to have been in existence since before Abraham was born to be a preposterous, blasphemous lie.
The weakness in your view is that in the account, Christ’s opponents, though bent on killing him to the extent that they almost seem rabid with this hateful design and desire, hold themselves in check until verse 58. If they merely heard something odd and cryptic, then I doubt that they’d have used Jesus response in verse 58 as the justification for finally satisfying their evil designs. No, they would have kept pressing him until he finally gave them the excuse they were looking for to murder him.
Finally, contrary to what some have argued, I don’t think John 8:58 is really cryptic. It isn’t that the Greek was “odd”, as some have said, but that the sentence was odd, and for good reason: How many opportunities are there in ancient writings to find a man saying “I have been in existence since before [some person who lived centuries before] was born”? I would venture a guess that the number is somewhere around one, i.e. the subject text.
I would suggest that you check out K.L. McKay’s article entitled “‘I am’ in John’s Gospel”, which is available for a reasonable fee (when compared to other such articles) here:
http://ext.sagepub.com/content/107/10/302.full.pdf+html
Verse 58 is an example of the EP (Extension from Past) idiom, which, as McKay informs us, occurs when a present verb is “used with an expression of either past time or extent of time with past implications.” [see footnote*] That is exactly what we find at John 8:58, and an English rendering based on that view fits the dialogue exquisitely (i.e. “I have been in existence since before Abraham was born).
~Sean
*A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: An Aspectual Approach, p. 41, available here:
http://www.amazon.com/New-Syntax-Verb-Testament-Greek/dp/0820421235
Sean,
Apologies for the lengthy response…in my view Jn 8:58 is part of a larger dialogue stretching back quite a bit that shows forth a rabid, crazed crowd looking for any reason (‘determined’ 8:40) to kill (stone) Jesus. This must factor into the “picking up of stones” when we look for motivations for such behavior, we can’t just look to 8:58 for the crowd’s behavior. The Jews have pre-determined that Jesus must die, and they seem erratic in this dialogue (an odd dialogue anyway, they jump here and there, flailing, not entirely logical or ‘flowing’ to begin with, claiming he’s a samaritan, claiming he’s demon-possesed, all mob-like irrationality) to find some reason to do so. Where’s the rationality of this crowd? Jesus has offended them as well, calling them ‘children of the devil,’ which I suggest already gives enough reason to stone him, regardless how he answers 8:58. Therefore I don’t think the crowd would have scratched their heads and understood “I am” so easily as claims of blasphemy of a pre-existent being. They seem to simply be looking for any odd statement to attack him.
Also, Jesus gave them less than a straightforward answer as well, using the present tense verb form that he did. With all of this in the immediate context, I suggest the crowd didn’t even quite know what he meant by the statement, other than he’s claiming to be greater than Abraham. Your suggestion that they contemplated his meaning, understood that he was claiming to be a pre-existent being and therefore having understood this wanted to stone him for blasphemy has other problems, how does it make sense of their rabid, frenzied state and how does it fit their world-view of what constitutes blasphemy? (would Jesus’ pre-existent claim even make sense to them? That Jesus pre-existed as some kind of being? What kind of being? Wouldn’t they have scratched their heads at this too?). That Jesus is claiming to be greater than Abraham is enough for them, I suggest, as he seemed to confirm their point in 8:53 ‘Are you greater than…’ by saying “before Abraham I am.” So having confirmed he’s claiming to be somehow (they wouldn’t have contemplated this too far) greater than Abraham, they pick up stones after Jesus’ somewhat esoteric response. So I conclude that the best interp. here is I don’t think they really understood what Jesus meant in 8:58, they simply were pushed over the edge to pick up stones as a result of the build-up in the context.
And, of course, no, I don’t think at all that the crowd concluded that Jesus was saying he pre-existed as the Word (as you projected that I might hold to in your response post above), for how could they in light of a) their mob mindset and b) there’s no mention here of the logos. My view, rather, is that the GJohn writer crafted/edited this apologetic dialogue in light of the prologue to emphasize for his audience (Jews being kicked out of the synagogue) that Jesus’ authority supercedes Abraham’s as his origins even pre-date Abraham (as the Word). This is my presupposition regarding GJohn, not entirely a historic account of Jesus’ words/actions (though it doesn’t have to be ahistoric to conclude what I have about this passage if we see the clues in the dialogue that show forth this was not a reasoning crowd who needed clear understanding of Jesus’ claims to be pre-existent in order to stone him). Therefore, I suggest the best interpretation of 8:58 must include more than this particular dialogue (which has its own value) e.g., must include who GJohn is writing to, his purpose of including a number of extended, intense dialogues with Jews (not found in any other gospel), the esoteric/mystical nature of his responses, and the entire content of this gospel, esp. including the window-prologue through which we can understand 8:58 and 20:28 and other difficult passages. To see 8:58 as intending to communicate a literal pre-existent being for Jesus requires a rational crowd who have a view of blasphemy that include claims of people for their pre-existence (but wouldn’t they just be viewed as crazy and find it laborious to even look for rocks and waste them on this guy?). Also, your view has the added challenge of dealing with Jesus’ claim to just be “a man” (8:40), as you’re insisting Jesus’ intended meaning is to show he was some other kind of being in addition to being born a man, and that this is Jesus’ key point he’s trying to communicate, while using an odd phrase to do so “I am.” Seems to me he could have made that more clear for the crazed crowd if he really wanted to to be understood as a pre-existent being (of some kind). All in all, less compelling for me, but I admit my understanding of GJohn is not entirely historic in my interpretation, and I’m influenced by Dunn’s article “Let John be John” which seems to me to answer more puzzling pieces in GJohn than more literal/ historical approaches to the gospel.
Charles
Hi Sean,
I wasn’t suggesting interpreting certain scriptures figurativly as opposed to literally, I’m suggesting that sometimes the writer of the scripture ‘wrote it down wrong’.
We have textual variation and interpretation problems. We have wrong translations from Hebrew to Greek.
Yet some people stake everything on assuming that the Bible is word perfect.
Blessings
John
@John: Nothing I’ve said can be viewed as advocating “extreme literalism”. I’m advocating interpreting accounts according to the intent of the author as far as we are able to discern it in light of context — i.e. the immediate context, co-text, the Bible as a whole, the world of Judaism of the time from which Christianity emerged as a sect, the larger environment in which Jews and Christians found themselves, etc. — and just plain common sense.
It isn’t sound exegetical methodology to try and set aside biblical data just because it jeopardizes a preferred view by asserting that it shouldn’t be taken literally. On the one hand, whether an account is literal or figurative, or a combination, it has meaning that we need to try and apprehend to the best of our abilities in an effort to allow it to shape our Christian understanding. On the other, there’s no evidence that John 8:56-58 is meant to be understood “figuratively”, nor is it obvious how a figurative claim to have existed before Abraham would have inspired figurative Jews to pick up figurative stones to figuratively kill Jesus. Trying to interpret this account figuratively will lead to a dead end.
~Sean
Sean,
All I have really said is ‘watch out for literalism’!
We know the Bible is sometimes not to be treated literally.
To hang on to every word leads one into the extreme fundamentalist camp or cults like the Jehovas Wittnesses.
Blessings
John
Hi John,
I don’t see how what I’ve said lacks God-given discernment, nor how the view I’ve expressed has been negated by your comments, but thanks for interacting.
~Sean
Hi Charles,
The reason the view that Christ preexisted as an impersonal LOGOS is not compelling to me is because it simply wouldn’t make sense in context for Christ to say (paraphrasing) “I have been in existence as God’s LOGOS since before Abraham was born, though God’s LOGOS is impersonal.” If that’s what the Jews thought he meant, then they wouldn’t have lifted up stones to stone him, but instead they would have stood there scratching their heads, with their eyebrows scrunched together, offering a unanimous: “Huh? What in the world does that mean?” How could an impersonal LOGOS see Abraham rejoicing while Abraham was seeing Jesus’ day? It simply doesn’t make any sense.
In context, Jesus had to mean that he had been in existence as a being of some sort since before Abraham, IMO. Any answer that omits this reality is simply a non sequitur, and I see no reason to believe that he offered a non sequitur, since his answer flows logically, even exquisitely from what precedes it when rendered properly.
As for the many different interpretations, I addressed the ones I’ve heard and offered a brief statement regarding why I don’t find most of them to be compelling in my recent post to John. The popular Trinitarian interpretations fail to convince because (a) EGO EIMI was not God’s name, (b) because there’s no reason to believe that Jesus was deliberately patterning his use of EGO EIMI after Yahweh in Isa, and (c) even if he did pattern his use after Yahweh, there’s no reason to believe that his reason for doing so was to implicitly identify himself as Yahweh. James McGrath’s and Stephen Motyer’s interpretation isn’t compelling because (a) again, EGO EIMI isn’t God’s name, so it never gets off the ground, but also because (b) it isn’t at all obvious how declaring himself to be a fully authorized agent of God with the power of God’s name behind him answers the question posed to him in context regarding who he was able to witness Abraham rejoice when Abraham saw his day.
Thanks for following up.
~Sean
Hi Sean,
If you ‘hang onto every word’ you may make a grave error.
There are problems with text – and even the John 8 v57 text that you quote above is not without potential problems.
As the foornotes to the NAB Bible say
” The evidence of the third century Bodmer Papyrus P75 and the first century Codex Sinaticus indicates that the text originally read ” How can Abraham have seen you”?
One has to take the text ‘as it flows’ or one will become trapped in the fundamentalists ‘snare’
The usual response to what I am saying is “well if I can’t take it literally then what am I to believe”?
The answer is of course that one must use ones God given discernment.!
Blessings
John
Sean,
You wrote, regarding He 1, “I have a different view regarding why that verse was applied to Christ, but the point is, it certainly seems, at face value, to suggest preexistence.” And about Jn 8:58, “John 8:58 is different, though, as Christ’s preexistence is unavoidable, IMO, if the account is understood and the verse rendered properly…John (8)58 is just so clear to me that when someone resists it’s meaning, I can’t help but wonder why?”
Apologies for sounding patronizing in my post when I pushed for context of meaning, my point is simply that you’re begging the question here, and so I briefly gave another take on 8:58 since you ‘wonder why’ some people resist a literal meaning about Christ’s preexistence. For you, it’s so ‘clear’ that anyone with a different interpretation is simply “resisting its meaning.” Strong and confident language in your interp. With your experience in exegesis, you’re aware that these are difficult passages with many possible interpretations, yet for you in this case the conclusion is ‘unavoidable’, that Christ preexisted. I’m questioning your interpretation of the sense of Christ’s state of being in his ‘preexistence’, not the fact that he preexisted. In what sense did Christ preexist? As Christ? As Jesus of Nazareth? As some other kind of being? I wrote earlier that it’s shakier to define his preexistence as anything other than the logos and go no further than GJohn. You seem to want take it a further step and define his preexistence as a personal being, so I’m simply asking for 1st-century context for your support rather than appealing to what is “clear” and “unavoidable,” that’s all.
BTW I agree with your interpretation of “I am”.
Charles
Forgive the question marks. I thought that this site allowed Greek characters, but apparently not the ones I used, which can be transliterated as EGO EIMI and HO ON.
Hi John,
Well, IMO, one either believes that the gospel of John conveys the truth about God and Christ or it doesn’t, and I am one who believes as a matter of Christian faith that it does. So, whether or not the Jews actually believed their own accusations in a given context isn’t really relevant; what matters is what those accusations were and how Jesus responded to them.
Each interpretation of John 8 has to be individually examined to determine whether it has merit and what the probability is that such interpretation is correct.
The popular orthodox view that Jesus was using God’s name, as supposedly used by God in Exodus 3 in the LXX, has nothing to recommend it, IMO, as God didn’t refer to himself as ??? ???? in Exodus 3 in the LXX, but as ? ??.
Another common orthodox interpretation holds that Jesus’ use of ??? ???? is deliberately patterned after Yahweh’s use in Isaiah, according to the LXX, and that this implies that Jesus was indirectly identifying himself as Yahweh. I’ll repeat what I’ve said before about this view, i.e. I agree with Margaret Davies that it is “…merely fanciful, an attempt to find later Catholic christological doctrine in the Fourth Gospel.” (Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel), p. 85
Yet another interpretation that has emerged, fairly recently, as far as I’m aware, is that in saying ??? ???? Jesus was using God’s name as though it were given to him as a means of empowering him as God’s agent, just as God’s name was given to Yahoel in The Apocalypse of Abraham in order to empower him (see: http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/box.pdf). I believe that both James McGrath and Stephen Motyer hold this view. Again, though, IMO, this view appears to have nothing to recommend it, because ??? ???? isn’t God’s name, not even in the LXX.
Then there is the popular Unitarian interpretation, which would have us believe that Jesus meant “I am he” (he = Messiah), as a response. However, as I’ve tried to demonstrate, that would be a non sequitur in context. It would also be grammatically problematic in light of prin abraam genesthai.
Then there is my view, following K. L. McKay and others, which I consider grammatically probable, and contextually unavoidable. It also forms a sort of middle ground between the two other extremes, i.e. one that’s bent on believing that Jesus was claiming to either be God or eternal, or both, while the other seeks to avoid allowing that Christ was claiming preexistence. The alternatives seem to be heavily motivated by theological presuppositions, while my view is essentially neutral. Either a Trinitarian or an Arian-type Unitarian Jesus could have said “I have been in existence since before Abraham was born.” The only Jesus who couldn’t have said those words is a Socinian-type Unitarian Jesus. I would personally suggest that we would be better off setting aside the Socinian-type Unitarianism and embracing the Son’s preexistence than setting aside Jesus’ claims in the Gospel of John.
~Sean
Hi Sean
So often one encounters people who say ” well, the Jews accused Christ of X ” – they then go on to assume that the accusers actually believed X.
There is so much TYPOLOGY in Johns Gospel and one should not hang on to every word.
That is what the fundamentalists do!
We are looking at John Chapter 8 and one asks ” where did the first eleven verses come from”?
Check the Pashitta Aramaic Bible and you will find that verse 1 is what we now call verse 12.
Check the original Greek texts – verses 1 – 11 are no-where to be found.
The NAB (Catholic) Bible has an interesting footnote to chapter 8
“The story of the woman taken in adultery is a late insertion here, missing from all early Greek m.s.
A western text -type insertion attested mainly in old Latin translations, is found in different places in different m.s. …..”
This is difficult stuff and comes as a shock to people who have tended to view the scriptures literally.!!
Typology is everywhere – as I mentioned in connection with Hebrews!
Blessings
John
Hi John:
You said:
“I certainly don’t think that people reading John 8v58 would have concluded that Jesus is superior to Abraham I have a feeling that the Jews living then would have accepted the words ‘seeing my day’ to mean ‘forseeing the coming of the Messiah’ – but I really cannot support this.”
Whether or not the Jews would have thought that Jesus was claiming to be superior to Abraham doesn’t seem to be in tension with how the Jews would have understood “seeing my day”. Those are two separate questions, and I agree with Charles on this in that I think they almost certainly did infer that Jesus was claiming to be greater than Abraham (see verse 53).
With that said, it appears that you’re looking at the wrong side of the dialogue. The point that is a bone of contention in the account is not whether “seeing my day” meant “foreseeing the coming of the Messiah”. The point at issue was that the Jews understood Jesus’ claim that Abraham saw his day and rejoiced to mean that Jesus _himself_ saw Abraham rejoice while Abraham was seeing his day. In other words, they inferred that Jesus saw first hand Abraham’s experience of foreseeing the coming Messiah, and his reaction, i.e. his rejoicing. We’ve gone over this before, but notice verses 56-58:
56. “Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”
57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
So verse 56 could be understood as a claim that Abraham saw Jesus day in prophetic vision or even through the eyes of understanding and then rejoiced, but that’s not the part of Jesus’ response the Jews focus on. They focus on the other side of the question, and wonder how Jesus, a man not yet 50 years old, could have seen Abraham rejoice while seeing his day. To respond “I am he” (=Messiah) would be a non sequitur in light of the specific concern and question posed. “I am the Messiah” doesn’t answer the question “How on earth could you have seen Abraham while he rejoiced over seeing your day (probably in vision)?”
Now, render the Greek according to the understanding that it is an example of EP or PPA idiom, and we have an exchange of dialogue that flows exquisitely vis a vis coherence through the connectives:
56. “Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”
57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “I have been in existence since before Abraham was born!”
As I said to Dustin Martyr recently:
” It would certainly be ironic for Jesus to utter words that weren’t meant as a direct response, but which constitute a perfectly intelligible direct response when translated properly. (I know you disagree, but it seems pretty clear that John 8:58 is an example of a PPA, i.e. as a Present of Past Action Still in Progress.) That’s just a bit too coincidental, IMO;-)”
~Sean
@Charles: While I appreciate the insights others offer and often learn from these dialogues, I should point out that I’ve been involved with biblical exegesis for a long time, so there’s no need to point out the basics to me, e.g. how ancient document have to be interpreted in their own contexts.
I note that while you implied that I was reading my own view into the account, you didn’t actually address my comments. So, in response to you, I’ll simply direct you back to my post addressed to Douglas, because I think there’s sufficient data even in that brief post to demonstrate why I don’t consider your view compelling.
~Sean
Charles
John’s Gospel was probably written in the 90’s of the first century.
Readers at that time would probably have been Jews or Jewish converts to Christianity.
The audience would have included some people who were ‘steeped’ in Hellenistic thinking.
It is said that the author of GJohn was using language which all would have understood
(particularly in the opening verses)
“The word” or ‘logos in Greek has great significance in the Hebrew Faith and has links to God’s wisdom.
So the ‘logos’ combines
(i) Gods creative dynamic word (Genesis) AND
(ii)Personnified Word Wisdom as the instrument of God’s creative activity – the way He acts on earth.
and the ultimate intelligibility of reality (Hellenistic philosophy)
I don’t believe that more than one in a thousand people living today can naturally put themselves ‘in the shoes’ of people living in the first century.
If you ‘Google’ John 1 you will find a site which offers to give on 87 possible interpretations of Genesis 1 v 1-3!
The fact that ‘the logos’ is the subject of John 1.1.3 and the fact that the word ‘theos’ is anarthrous has resulted in many books being written -most contradicting each other.
If ‘theos ‘ had been preceeded by the definite article that would have made it the subject!
But the author didn’t add the definite article , much to the confusion of people living today!
You will also notice that in later chapters we have discourses of a quasi-poetic form resembling the speeches of personnified Wisdom on the Old Testament (e.g. Proverbs and the Book of Wisdom)
I certainly don’t think that people reading John 8v58 would have concluded that Jesus is superior to Abraham I have a feeling that the Jews living then would have accepted the words ‘seeing my day’ to mean ‘forseeing the coming of the Messiah’ – but I really cannot support this.
I agree that analysis of context is vital- and that puting onself in the shoes of the target audience is difficult – although one has to try to do so. The important thing is to recognise ones limitations and not bee to dogmatic regarding ones conclusions
Blessings
John
@Sean,
What is “face value” when trying to interpret ancient documents? “Plain meaning” or “obvious meaning” for us today in our age is hardly support for any interpretation. Jn 8:58 is more likely best interpreted in light of the prologue, per Dunn. As the “Word”, Jesus pre-existed, and that’s not a polytheistic or angelologic stretch for 1st century Jews, simply pointing to his superior origin. For Jesus is “he whom the Word became” (rather than ‘he who is identical as the word’). So did Jesus of Nazareth pre-exist? As some kind of conscious ‘person’? Or was he some kind of “heavenly being”? Now we’re drifting from GJohn. “Face value” is simply “what I think is face value in my generation.” Would be better to think in terms of what GJohn’s audience might have thought. and argue from there to be persuasive for our understanding today.
If GJohn’s audience were Jesus-following Jews of late 1st-century being kicked out of Jewish synagogues, which is most likely, and if it was written as a defense for this purpose, then most probably we would interpret 8:58 as “Jesus is superior to Abraham” (and Moses and all prophets who had been exalted to superior positions in Judaism of the day) because, having pre-existed as the Word, his origins pre-date Abraham, though not as a conscious ‘person’. That’s modern-day reading back in to what GJohn’s audience would have thought. Let’s return to the context of meaning to help us with difficult passages.
Hi John,
Thanks for the follow-up. I guess I’ll simply reiterate that I see nothing in Hebrews that suggests that the author would deny the preexistence of Jesus. It may be possible to understand verse 10 as typology, i.e. just as God was creator of original creation, so the Son is the one who brought about the new creation, but I don’t know that that’s the case. It’s possible that the reason the author did not have a problem applying that Ps to Christ is because he is God’s wisdom, and that one had a role in bringing about original creation. If this is correct, then verse 10 applies to Christ in two ways.
In any case, I’m not dogmatic about it; I just don’t feel the need to limit the possibilities.
~Sean
Hi Sean
Thanks for that!!
This is all very contentious but it’s hard to deny that
(i) All the material in Hebrews 1 ( except for the conclusion that the risen Christ is ‘higher than the angels’), was available ‘in the public domain’ at the time the unknown author penned Hebrews.
(ii) THe conclusion that the risen Christ was now ‘higher than the angels’ was an easy one – since Jews believed at that time, that angels were ‘higher’ than humans. A being who sits on the right hand of God must of necessity be higher than the angels.
The writer was using words and imagery with which his audience would have been familiar – being drawn from enthronement ceremonies of Davidic kings .
Of course the view of God had to be anthromorphic!
Some would assert that the WHOLE of Hebrews is TYPOLOGY
Every Blessing
John
Hi John,
I confess that I’m not particularly concerned or interested in how Trinitarians interpret Hebrews 1. In my experience, Trinitarianism is presuppositional in character, and it’s probably non-falsifiable to those who adopt it, as it serves as a precondition for interpreting the biblical data.
My concern is the intent of the author of Hebrews.
Hi Sean
“At the beginning you Lord established the earth…”
The Trinitarians say that this reference to ‘Lord’ is a reference to Christ – and therefore a clue to pre-existence – as well as ‘proving’ that Christ is God.
Of course we know that the original scripture in the Hebrew was addressed to YHWH
Blessings
John
Hi John,
I get that, but my point is that verse 10 seems (to me) to suggest preexistence, and this then, as you say, was done because it suited author’s Christology. In other words, it suited the author’s Christology to say of Jesus that:
“In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.”
I have a different view regarding why that verse was applied to Christ, but the point is, it certainly seems, at face value, to suggest preexistence.
~Sean
Hi Sean,
Back to Hebrews 1 !
I guess one might argue that Hebrews 1 v 1 might be used to support some sort of pre-existence of Christ since in is silent regarding Christs existence ‘in times past’.
I’m sorry that you did not pick up my point regardng Hebrews 10.
In my previous post I noted the comments in the NAB Bible to the effect that comments made in the Tanakh relating to YHWH, have been re-addressed to Christ by the author of Hebrews. The NAB footnotes state that this was to suit the authors Christology.
This is bacause the authors comments were drawn from the Septuagint, which misquotes the Tanakh.
Lets look at two verses in Hebrews 1 to illustrate what I am suggesting.
Hebrews 1 v 8 says
“but of the Son, thy throne O God stands forever..”
Compare this with Psalm 45 vv 7-10
“Your throne O god stands forever
Your royal sceptre is a sceptre for justics
You love justice and hate wrongdoing
Therefore God, your God has anointed you
with the oil of gladness
above your fellow kings
With myrrh, aloes and cassia your robes are fragrant
From ivory panelled palaces,
stringed instruments bring you joy
Daughters of kings are your lovely wives.
NAB Bible
KJV Bible used the words ‘honourable ladies’
Turn now to verse 10
Hebrews 1 v 10
v8 leads with ‘But of the Son…”
v10
“At the beginning O Lord you established the earth and the heavens…”
Psalm 102
vv 24 – 25
“I said O my God take me not away in the midst of my days
thy years are throughout all generations
Of old thou established the foundations of the earth…”
As mentioned above, the footnotes to the NAB Bible commet that it suited the author of Hebrews
Christology to make Christ the ‘target’ of these comments.
The fact is that much of Hebewws 1 is TYPOLOGY, i;e; the TYPE of words which God MIGHT HAVE used to welcome the newly risen Christ into Heaven – NOT the actual words. The author does not claim to have a ‘window into heaven’.
He used words which were in the public domain at the time. and simple logic to conclude that the risen Christ wss not ‘higher than the angels’ – since he now sits on Gods right hand.
Blessings
John
” I don’t think one can infer such a conclusion from Hebrews, while some would argue that verse 1 supports preexistence.”
Sorry, I meant verse 10.
Hi John,
Well, I certainly agree that Hebrews 1 doesn’t provide proof of a Trinity, which, IMO is a false doctrine. The questions is, though, is Hebrews 1 evidence that the one we came to know as Jesus didn’t preexist his birth as a man. I don’t think one can infer such a conclusion from Hebrews, while some would argue that verse 1 supports preexistence.
~Sean
Hi Sean
Sorry you didn’t fully comprehend my comments on Hebrews 1 !
My fault!
Most Christians will tell one that Hebrews 1 vv 5 – 13 are in a sense ‘prophetic’ – i.e. the ACTUAL words used by God to welcome the newly-risen Christ into Heaven.
Trinitarians take the words quite literally and integrate them into ‘proof texts’ .
But what was the author of Hebrews doing and saying?
In the opinion of many scholars he was SURMISING what words God would have used to welcome the newly risen Christ
He was using words and imagery with which the target audience was familiar.
The audience would have had an ‘anthromorphic’ view of God.. a mighty warrior king, a superman figure.
Honoured guests would be placed on his ‘right hand’. (As if this mighty being who lives in unapproachable light has a left hand and a right hand, mighty wings etc)
The words used by God would be similar to those used at the enthronement ceremonies for Davidic kings in which the candidates were
– ordained as priests
-made ‘adoptive’ sons of God
-crowned king.
While Hebrews i.e. Jews regarded the angels to be superior to humans, he surmised that the newly risen Christ must now be ‘higher than the angels’ (after all he is now ‘right hand man’ to God.)
The above overcomes some of the problems scholars have noted regarding Hebrews 1… e.g.
-The differences between Septuagint and Tanakh
-Problems of context.. for example the ‘god’ referred to in Psalm 45 v 7 has daughters of kings as his lovely wives / honoured women in v 10….
and so on!
Hebrews 1 is TYPOLOGY – the TYPE OF words which the writer surmised were used
There is no way that Hebrews 1 can be used to provide proof of a Trinity!
Blessings
John
John,
I confess that I don’t really know what you’re trying to say about Heb 1:10, but that’s fine.
As for the belief that a cult group that I assume believed in the preexistence of Christ had perceived negative influence on the family, I don’t think that should have any bearing on how one interprets a biblical text. Some have argued that Victor Paul Wierwille was a cultist, yet, if I recall correctly, he didn’t believe in the preexistence of Christ, and I believe some of his former followers are now part of the biblical Unitarian movement.
~Sean
Hi Sean,
I must confess that I regard Hebrews Chapter 1 as pure typology.
When it comes to Hebrews 1 verse 10 the footnotes to the NAB Bible tell it all-
” it is important for the authors christology that in vv 10 – 12 an Old Testament passage addressed to God is readdressed to Christ.”
As usual the Septuagint misquoted the Tanakh.
Hebrews V8 begins with ‘ But of the Son…”
Hebrews v 10 ” at the beginning O Lord you established the heavens and the earth.
Psalm 102 vv 24 and 25 state ‘ I said, O my God… of old thou laid the foundations of the heaven
and the earth…”
You query my reluctance to pursue the thought that Christ may have pre-existed as a heavenly being.
I’m afraid that this is a rather sensitive issue with me and related to a matter which devastated my wifes extended family. Seemingly impeccable logic led people having the finest intentions into a cult
which drove the family apart. I am not alone in making the ‘toxic fruit’ observation !
I have gone the opposite way and really only entertain Mark 12 vv 29-35 as the foundation of my faith..
I guess that you might say that I reject ‘complexity’ and eschew ‘simplicity’ since I don’t believe that any group has a monoloply of the truth.
Blessings
John
Hi John,
Ever since the work of folks like George Bradford Caird, L. D. Hurst, and Kenneth Schenck, I’m sympathetic to the view that the author of Hebrews 1 may not have meant to say anything that suggests Christ’s preexistence, although verse 10 seems to on face value. But different authors have different purposes for writing, and if it’s true that Hebrews 1 doesn’t imply Christ’s preexistence, it’s also true that this doesn’t necessarily mean that the author of Hebrews didn’t believe that Jesus existed in heaven prior to his human life on earth. All it may mean is that he didn’t chose to incorporate that part of Jesus’ life in his composition.
John 8:58 is different, though, as Christ’s preexistence is unavoidable, IMO, if the account is understood and the verse rendered properly.
Is there some reason why you are opposed to the possibility that Jesus existed as a celestial being in heaven before coming to earth via his birth by Mary? John 58 is just so clear to me that when someone resists it’s meaning, I can’t help but wonder why? You don’t have to adopt the Trinity or the even more convoluted Oneness theology to accept that Christ had a heavenly life before his earthly life, right? Perhaps you could help me understand your mind on this a little.
~Sean
Hi Sean
Sorry to be ‘oblique’.!
You seem to be supporting Christ’s pre- existence – but Hebrews 1 v 1 seems to cast doubt on this.
Several scholars have raised this issue in the past.
Do you think that Christ pre-existed as an ‘idea’ or a ‘plan’ — or as a ‘being’ , maybe an angel?
Blessings
John
Hi John: You’ve stumped me:-) Is Heb 1:1 open to multiple interpretations? It seems to be a pretty strait-forward sentence, to me. Moving to verses 2 and 3 and beyond gets more difficult and speculative, but I don’t see any interpretative issue with verse 1. What am I missing?
~Sean
Sean,
An interesting post!
How do you interpret Hebrews 1 v 1 ?
Blessings
John
@Douglas: I think that you’re over interpreting the account. The dialogue makes perfect sense if we treat the present tense EIMI as a PPA a/k/a EP, which, as Kenneth McKay has indicated, can be properly rendered into English like this: “I have been in existence since before Abraham was born.” ( ‘I am’ in John’s Gospel, Expository Times 1996), 302-303
Such a statement follows naturally, even exquisitely from the dialogue, where the Jews inferred from Jesus’ previous statement that he was claiming to have seen Abraham while Abraham was seeing his day. As for the perceived connection between Jesus’ EGO EIMI sayings and those of his father, I agree with Margaret Davies, who, speaking in reference to Raymond Brown’s attempt to make the same connection, observed that such a connection is “…merely fanciful, an attempt to find later Catholic christological doctrine in the Fourth Gospel.” (Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel), p. 85
Some apologists have suggested that such a statement would not be a stoning offense, because there was nothing blasphemous about claiming to be really, really old. At worst they would have merely considered him “crazy”, wouldn’t have tried to stone him. Such shallow reasoning demonstrates pretty clearly to me that apologists have nothing more substantive (or, to put it bluntly, less silly) to offer in response, as they’ve completely missed (or ignored) the entire dynamic of the dialogue in John 8, and the general observation that in John’s Gospel as a whole Jesus is presented as an agent of God, his power of attorney, someone fully authorized to speak God’s words, thoughts, and judgements to us.
If memory serves, there was an example in Darrell Bock’s “Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism” in which it was considered blasphemy to lie to an agent of God. The reverse would apply equally if not more so: It would be blasphemy for an agent of God, someone who claimed to speak God’s words and thoughts to us, were to utter lie in the context of his commission, for, according to the agency principle, this would make God a liar, because, as the Rabbis put it, “The agent is as the principle”. There can be no question that Jesus’ opponents at John 8:58 would have understood Jesus’ claim to have been in existence since before Abraham was born to be a blasphemous lie.
~Sean
“I tell you, before Abraham was, I AM”
Myself, I don’t think Jesus was claiming to be THE God, but I don’t think he was simply expressing that his coming was planned, either. The more I think about it, I think he was killing two birds with one stone there: emphasizing that, yes, he has existed long before even Abraham walked the Earth… endorsing the idea that he actively served his Father before his human time on Earth… and that by using “I AM”, he was forcefully stating his connection to Yaweh, repeating a phrase that his father had once famously used, and thus, emphasizing his heirdom.
It struck me as humorous at the end when Ehrman seemed to take a more conservative interpretation of John than you, Dale.
Chance
I’m sorry – I expressed myself poorly.
Most Unitarians have a low regard for Trinitarian exegesis. and do not spend much time considering it.
We believe that words have meaning and that logic is important…and that ‘truth’ is simple!
Just compare the ‘elegance’ of Unitarian interpretation of scriptures with the obscene gymnastics which ‘rationalist’ Trinitarians employ in understanding scripture..particularly when considering doctrine.
And Trinitarians call Unitarians ‘rationalist’.!!
I agree that Nicky Gumble and certain Jesuits where I live do not speak for all Trinitarians.
Prosestants are stuck with ‘Sola Scriptura’ – which is ironic since since all the exegesis in the world does not support the doctrine of the trinity.!
Trinitarians still do not give up trying – but it just becomes annoying!
Blessings
John
Thanks, Dale. The big picture is always made up of the details (i.e., exegetical details in this case), right?
John, I never asserted that this website is dearth in exegetical issues; I simply asked a question about it. Moreover, Nicky Gumble and “Catholic priests in Africa” don’t speak for all Trinitarians.
Thanks for the interaction,
Chance
Chance
You comment on the paucity of exegesis of key Christalogical texts at the Trinities web-site.
The doctrine of the Trinity is not scriptural!
We have certain verses which are purported to be trinitarian proof-texts – but these do not stand up to
rigorous analysis.
Even writers like Nicky Gumble the founder of the Alpha Course have admitted that the doctrine is not made explicit in the scriptures. Catholic priests I have talked to here in Africa admit the same -but urge one to study the writings of the Early Church Fathers.
The standard exegesis conducted by Trinitarians remind me of a bunch of people staring at a stereogram pinned to the wall and seeing the rabbits!
Trouble is that ‘the rabbits’ are not there!
Blessings
John
Hi Chance,
Thanks for the comment!
I have approached these topics by way of competing Trinity-theories. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/
I indeed have things to say about all the main christological texts. e.g. 1 Cor 8 – https://trinities.org/blog/archives/5180 I intend to cover Phil 2 and John 1 in forthcoming podcasts – perhaps some time this year.
Being trained as a philosopher, I always have the big picture in mind. But being trained specifically in history of philosophy, I have always been concerned to read and understand texts in their own terms. I think this bears fruit when it comes to christology and theology… I think analytic theology can add some needed clarity to theological discussions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt_3LWElWRw
Glad to have you listening.
Greetings, Dr. Tuggy!
I was just led onto your website via Bart Ehrman’s twitter feed. I look forward to listening to this and other podcasts.
One quick (somewhat unrelated) question: My training is in exegesis. Through a brief search of key Christological texts in your search box, I was unable to find much discussion on important Christological texts from an exegetical point of view. Am I not searching well enough?
Thank you for this blog. It’s chalked full of great discussions.
-Chance
Comments are closed.