podcast 57 – Richard Swinburne on the Trinity

ERRATA: a God possesses God’s logos [John 1:1]
CORRIGE: God possesses God’s logos [John 1:1]

“Of course there is a difference! So what? The two are distinct and not incompatible. Lo and behold:..1. “Your father possessed his own sperm”…2. “You are the incarnation of your father’s own sperm”…Is thyere anything else [sic] I can do to help you? :)”

You’ve equivocated again, and you don’t even realize how.

# Let me try again … #

A. What/who was the logos that “was with God” [ên pros ton theon] “in the beginning” [en archê] (John 1:1)?

B. Why would the Incarnation of the Logos as Jesus (John 1:14) have to be understood “metaphorically, as it’s not possible to understand it literally”?

“I accept [sic] the real personal pre-existence of the person who came to be known as Jesus the Messiah because I believe that this is the best reading of Scripture.”

I submit for your consideration that your “acceptance” of the “real personal pre-existence” of Jesus as the “best reading of Scripture” is not entirely unrelated from the situation that … “you cannot conceive that something that is not a person can BECOME a person” … 🙂

Once again, you have an immediate example that “something that is not a person can BECOME a person” every time that you put yourself in front of a mirror …

… the person you see, before being born, was not a person …

… unless perchance you subscribe to the Platonic-Origenic doctrine of the eternal existence of the souls … 😉

“No, but I still have a funny bone …”

Ridiculing other people isn’t really funny. It makes you appear to be an arrogant jerk. Just a head’s up.

@Mario:

Are you 12?

“You’re truly pathetic.”

And you’re a jerk, but I usually keep such things to myself, until someone steps over the line one too many times.

@ Sean

You’re truly pathetic. Fortunately I am not the only one, here, who can take good notice of your crass contradictions … 🙂

@ Sean

“Nothing you’ve said contradicts my point, so I’m not sure what you think you’ve demonstrated. Also, you’ve made assumptions that are questionable, i.e. that when angels are called gods it’s qualified while this is supposedly not so of the LOGOS. The LOGOS as a god is also qualified.”

Then let me rephrase it for you, more explicitly: no kings, or angels, or judges are “gods”, in the OT, in the PROPER sense of the word.

As for the LOGOS in John 1:1-18, which you understand as “a god”, you probably don’t even realize how contradictory it is, on your part, to affirm, on two different occasions:

[A.] [November 13, 2014 at 7:08 am] “… John presents Jesus as the incarnation of God’s Logos, but I understand this metaphorically, as it’s not possible to understand it literally.”

[B.] [November 13, 2014 at 7:41 pm] “Indeed, a person becoming a person in a different form seems quite intelligible to me.”

Why on earth should you understand the Incarnation of God’s Logos “metaphorically, as it’s not possible to understand it literally” (A.), if, on the other hand, you insist that the Logos is a “pre-existent person”, and “a person becoming a person in a different form seems quite intelligible to [you]” (B.)?

🙁

“Calling the LOGOS ‘a god’ is no more ruled out by D[eu]t. 6:4 than is calling Moses a god (Ex. 7:1, [reference omitted]), or calling a human king a god (Ps. 45:6; Isa. 9:6), or angels, or judges, etc, etc, etc. The application of such titles to individuals other than God himself was not uncommon during the biblical period …”

Let’s see.

Exodus 7:1 does not refer, literally, to Moses as “God”, or “god” or “a god”, in the sense of (incarnation of) heavenly being. If anything, “God” is the proper (figurative) reading, in the obvious sense that Moses (who is 100% man) will have to ACT like God (with the power of God) to Pharaoh, very much like his brother Aaron will be the “prophet” of Moses, viz. his spokesman.

In Psalm 45:6 a hyperbole is used to refer to the Davidic king as God’s vice-regent on earth, addressing him as if he were God incarnate.

Isaiah 9:6 is a continuation of the prophecy (in the specific sense of speaking about the future under inspiration) started with Is 7:14. Nobody knows who “Wonderful Counsellor – Mighty God – Everlasting Father – Prince of Peace” (Heb. pele-joez-el-gibbor-abi-ad-sar-shalom) is, any more than “Quickly Plunder – Hurry to Loot” (Heb. Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz – Is 8:1,3), any more than the “Immanuel” (God-with-us – Is 7:14). All we can say is that not only Christians, but also the Aramaic Targum consider it as a Messianic reference.

The reference to kings, or angels, or judges as “gods” in the OT is ALWAYS qualified and NOT literal. As for the NT, NOBODY there, AFAIK, is called “god” other than the One and Only God, if not, again, in a qualified – or even negative – way (John 10:24-35; 20:28; Acts 7:40,43; 12:22; 19:26; 1 Cor 8:5).

“Sean, given that you don’t believe a qualitative reading is plausible and that “a god” is to be preferred, what is John’s point in this verse? Jesus is the agent of the Father by whom all things have come into existence? Jesus is “a god” but he Himself has the God over Himself as well?”

Well, it isn’t so much that I don’t think it’s possible that QEOS can be used to highlight the nature of a subject, but that I reject the unfounded proposition that indefinite nouns are not the right tool for the job. Indefinite nouns are actually used in several ways, i.e. they can be used to categorize, to highlight blended nuance, or even when the “qualitative force” is more important than whether the noun is definite or indefinite (to paraphrase Harner).

Moreover, when an indefinite noun is used “qualitatively”, the “qualitative” nuance doesn’t exclude the noun’s indefiniteness, but it depends on it! As an example that is all too common in American culture today, a woman might tell her husband, “You’re such a child”, because his behavior is qualitatively immature. Had she said “You’re such child”, it probably would have been understood the same way, but he would have responded, “Oh yeah, well, your English sucks:P” 🙂

When I learned that Holle Barry is 50 years old, I exclaimed in delighted amazement, but with just a slight hint hyperbole (catch the irony?): “She has the face and body of a teenager!” Here the youthful characteristics (“qualities”) of her appearance are brought out by “teenager”. Now, I could have said “She has the face and body of teenager!” and people would probably have understood me, but they would have guessed that I was either uneducated or that English was not my first language.

Now, someone might point out that while we normally wouldn’t say “You are such child” or “She has the face and body of teenager” in English, that’s how you *would* say it in Greek! Ah, but that misses a crucial point: While the indefinite article would be missing in the Greek equivalent of these sentences, the nouns would still be indefinite, just as they are in English. The only difference is that in English we have an indefinite article to clearly identify indefinite nouns, whereas in Greek this is inferred from usage (context).

So back to John 1:1c. Is it possible that John meant to highlight the nature of the LOGOS? My own view is that John is speaking in primarily functional categories here, but, yes, it’s possible that John was referring to the “nature” of the LOGOS. If that’s the case, then one could offer the paraphrase “the Word was divine” and capture the meaning well enough, but there are three problems with this rendering.

a) John used a noun, not an adjective. If John wanted to tell us that the Word is “divine”, then he could have used the Greek word QEIOS, just as if John wanted to tell is that the Word is “deity” then John could probably have used QEOTES.

b) Use of “divine” seems overly interpretative. To say that the LOGOS is “a god” lends itself to either functional or ontological interpretations, whereas use of “divine” tends to lean towards the latter arbitrarily.

c) If we’re going to opt for a paraphrase and assume that John was speaking in ontological categories, then “a divine being” would be better, because it retains the inherently bounded property of the count noun QEOS in this text, while revealing that “nature” is in view. However, some might argue that this too is overly interpretative, as it could be said that it imports the sense of the LOGOS as “being” rather than allowing that sense to unfold naturally.

In the end, we have to opt for either a definite QEOS or an indefinite QEOS. Either is grammatically possible, and both have points in their favor. If I were a translator, I’d probably put “the LOGOS was a god” in the main body of the text, and “the LOGOS was God” in a footnote.

If we opt for “a god”, then I would argue that the most natural and the most neutral rendering of John 1:1c is “the Word was a god”. It’s faithful to John’s use of a count noun and it can convey both ontological and functional connotations, thereby avoiding the arbitrary exclusion of one connotation over the other, thus retaining the ambiguity that one finds in the original.

If we opt for “the Word was God”, then QEOS is probably being used as a title, there, rather than as a proper noun equivalent to a proper name. But even if it’s functioning like a proper name, the resulting meaning seems to be captured well by some theologians who have offered interpretations that harmonize well with the shiliah principle.

James D.G. Dunn:
“The fact that even when describing the Logos as God/god (1.1), John may distinguish two uses of the title from each other is often noted but too little appreciated. The distinction is possibly made by the use of the definite article with theos and the absence of the definite article in the same sentence… As we see in Philo, in his exposition of Genesis 31.13 (De Somniis 1.227-30)…John’s Gospel does not attempt similar clarification in his use of God/god for the Logos… But in possibly making (or allowing to be read) a distinction between God (ho theos) and the Logos (theos) the Evangelist may have had in mind a similar qualification in the divine status to be recognized for Christ. Jesus was God, in that he made God known, in that God made himself known in and through him, in that he was God’s effective outreach to his creation and to his people. But he was not God in himself.” (Did the First Christians Worship Jesus), pp. 134 & 135

Marianne Meye Thompson:
“Here the category of agency sheds light…A common saying in the rabbis was ‘the one who is sent is like the one who sent him’ or ‘a man’s agent is equivalent to himself’ (m. Ber. 5:5;b. B. Mes. 96a; b. hag. 10b; b. Menah. 93b; b. Nazir 12b; b. Qidd. 42b, 43a)…When the concept of agency is coupled with speculation on the names or powers of God, we see that the name of “God” for the Word is intended to show that the Word exercises the divine prerogatives. As Jesus of Nazareth, the incarnate Word continues to exercise the divine prerogatives, and exactly these actions and this claim evoke hostility from the Jewish authorities who charge Jesus with blasphemy (10:31-38).” (Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Intervarsity Press, 1992), pp. 376, 377

@ Aaron

“Mario, I agree if one reads the final “Theos” to be saying that the Word is “divine” that this does leave ambiguity. Arianism, Subordinationism, Trinitarianism, or your view are all possible Christologies from this reading. Obviously, we would hopefully not base an entire Christology on a single verse but also take into account everything said about God and Christ in the Bible.”

If you agree with my argument [November 14, 2014 at 10:11 pm], then Trinitarianism is to be excluded, because it implies identity (numerical identity, whether absolute or relative). Subordinationism (of which Arianism is a special case), is to be excluded because it is incompatible with Deut 6:4.

P.S. Have you seen my comment of November 14, 2014 at 9:42 am, as corrected November 14, 2014 at 9:44 am?

@ Aaron [November 14, 2014 at 12:17 am]

[1.] “If my understanding of Greek is correct, this [“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”] is a perfectly fine translation. However, “and the Word was a god” is also a perfectly fine translation given the rules of Greek grammar, yes?”

Yes. While Greek has definite articles (in English, “the”), and uses them even where English would not use them (ho theos = “the god” => God), Greek does not have indefinite articles (in English, “a”), so, there is, in Greek, a certain amount of ambiguity. In John 1:1, there are two occurrences of the word THEOS, the first with the (definite) article (or arthrous, as grammarians fancily say), the second w/out article (or anarthrous, as grammarians fancily say). See herebelow, where I have put in EVIDENCE the Greek articles associated with “Word” and “God”:

“In the beginning was the Word [HO LOGOS], and the Word [HO LOGOS] was with God [TON THEON], and the Word [HO LOGOS] was God [THEOS]” (John 1:1)

TON THEON is the accusative form of HO THEOS.

In John 1:1 LOGOS is always (three times) with the (definite) article, which implies that HO LOGOS is not any “word”, but a very specific “word”, in fact God’s Word.

THEOS, on the other hand, appears twice, the first time with the article (the accusative form of HO THEOS), the second time w/out the article (in the nominative form THEOS). This immediately indicates that HO THEOS is not any “god”, but a very specific “god”, in fact the One and Only God: YHWH. So, why is the second occurrence of THEOS w/out article? Certainly the intention of the author is to mark a difference from the first occurrence. What kind of difference? I see three cases, from a linguistic POV:

a. THEOS is the equivalent of the English “god” with the (indefinite) article: “a god”.
b. THEOS (whatever anybody here may say to the contrary …) is used in a predicative/qualitative sense, something like: “belonging essentially to God”.
c. I exclude, for simple grammatical reasons, that THEOS EN HO LOGOS can express identity between “the Word” and “(the) God”, because there is no doubt that, in analogy with the second instance of HO LOGOS (HO LOGOS EN PROS TON THEON), it would have been …

not: THEOS EN HO LOGOS
but: HO LOGOS EN HO THEOS

Of course, by identity I mean absolute, numerical identity (and we don’t need here to resort to sophistications like the distinction between “strong” Leibniz’ Law and “weak” Relative Identity).

[2.] “‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the man, and the Word was man.’ … Now take this reasoning and use it while reading the verse with ‘Theos.’ The Word was with The God, and the Word was God (that is, God in its nature, or more simply, divine).”

The reasoning is correct, but what does it mean that “the Word was divine” (or “human”, if we apply your replacement of “God” with “man”)? You still have to decide whether “the Word was divine” means “member of the class THEOS” (and therefore if the Word is another THEOS, distinct from HO THEOS) or if “the Word was divine” means that the Word is an essential attribute of the (Only) God. If we had “man” (and therefore “human”), the information provided by the verse would be ambiguous.

In the real case (that is with THEOS, “god”), with the added condition that “YHWH is God, YHWH alone” (Deut 6:4), the Word can only be “divine” in the sense of an essential attribute of the Only God, YHWH.

“So “deity,” “divinity,” and “divine” are all to be rejected as interpretations of the last Qeos in John 1:1c? Would this leave us to the “God/a god” debate? I am supposing you favor “a god” as the best translation. What I’ve read and in my understanding both translations are possible, but I also know how scholars can spend dozens of pages making it seem this way when in fact it is not : P”

Yes, I think that after the dust of theologically motivated opinion is swept aside, what we are left with are two legitimate choices:

a) The Word was a god (indefinite)

b) The Word was God (definite)

When I reviewed all of the predicate nominatives in John’s Gospel that are comparable to QEOS at John 1:1c, — i.e. that are (a) pre-verbal, (b) anarthrous (no article), (c) bounded (count), (d) do not name qualities (love, happiness, etc) — I found that over 50% are indefinite, and the rest are probably definite. Of those that are definite typically have definitizing factors in context. I found zero “qualitative” bounded nouns. The notion that QEOS should be understood adjectively (yesteryear’s preferred term for what theologians now call “qualitatively”), has been around a while, but it’s always been dubious at best. J. Gwyn Griffiths highlighted the problem back in the 50’s:

“Dr. Strachan’s statement is of special interest in that it seeks to give an explicit philological foundation to the translation ‘divine.’ Greek lexicons do not generally admit an adjectival meaning for ????…Dr. Strachan, however, thinks that the omission of the article before ???? gives it the force of an adjective, whereas Dr. Temple derives the same force (or a force ‘not far from adjectival’) from the predicative use of the word. It may be suggested that neither of these statements is confirmed by general usage in classical or Hellenistic Greek. Nouns which shed their articles do not thereby become adjectives; nor is it easy to see how the predicative use of a noun, in which the omission of the article is normal, tends to give the noun adjectival force….Taken by itself, the sentence ??? ???? ?? ? ????? could admittedly bear either of two meanings: (I) ‘and the Word was (the) God’ or (2) ‘and the Word was (a) God.’ Since, however, the expression ???? ??? ???? has occurred immediately before this clause, the natural inference is that ???? now bears the same meaning and reference, the article having disappeared according to regular custom.” (The Expository Times, Vol. 62, October 1950 — September 1951), p. 315

As I pointed out on Bart Ehrman’s blog recently, I agree with Griffiths to the extent that there doesn’t really appear to be any reason to think that nouns that shed their articles change meaning, i.e. they don’t become “adjectival” or “qualitative”. Nor — I would add — does there appear to be any reason to think that placing a noun before the verb changes its meaning to one of “qualitativeness”. I therefore agree that the two most natural readings are (a) “the Word was God” or (b) “the Word was a god”. Griffiths favored the former (=a) because of ???? ??? ????, whereas I favor the later (=b) for the same reason, and for others, e.g. the traditional rendering yields a paradox that I don’t think the author of John’s gospel could have said without experiencing congnative dissonance for himself and his readers. Historically speaking, Trinitarianism didn’t exist yet as a conceptual grid into which such a paradoxical statement could be placed to avoid cognitive dissonance, and so if his readers understood him to be saying that the LOGOS was both “God” and “with God”, then they either would have understood that ???? was being used representationally, in harmony with the shaliah principle (meaning something like “the Word represented God”), or they would have required explication.

I have an interesting question for you, Aaron, which I’ve asked of others. Let’s assume, just for the sake of argument, that Harner, Dixon, and others are correct in arguing that ???? is “qualitative” at John 1:1c. In his JBL article, Harner asserted that “In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.” (ibid, p. 75). In his DTS thesis, Dixon said that “Technically, any noun which is not definite is indefinite” (p. 9). Now, in which of the following translations does ???? look like a “qualitative” noun that is “technically indefinite”?

(a) The Word was God
(b) The Word was a god

Anyone who chooses “a” gets a booby prize;-)

Sorry, the above comment was meant for Aaron …

I had said:

“The problem, it seems to me, is that QEOS is not interchangeable with either “divinity” or “deity”, in
their “abstract” (mass/non-count) senses; just as “canine” is not interchangeable with “caninity”; just as “bovine” is not interchangeable with “bovinity”; just as “porcine” is not interchangeable with “porcinity”. As I’ve said once before, Trinitarians are taking an cranberry and replacing it with an orange, because they don’t like the way the cranberry tastes at 1:1c (the milk in their theological diet).”

Forgive my early-morning blunder; I meant to say:

“The problem, it seems to me, is that QEOS is not interchangeable with either “divinity” or “deity”, in
their “abstract” (mass/non-count) senses; just as “dog” is not interchangeable with “caninity”; just as “cow” is not interchangeable with “bovinity”; just as “pig” is not interchangeable with “porcinity”. As I’ve said before, Trinitarians are taking a cranberry and replacing it with an orange, because they don’t like the way the cranberry tastes at 1:1c (the milk in their theological diet).”

Hi Aaron,

Holy spirit is not to be viewed in Trinitarian terms as a distinct hypothesis of God. In First-Century pneumatology it is used in reference to God Himself, while maintaining God’s transcendence. So I can say: Pentecost in the First-Century was an activity of holy spirit. Or, Pentecost in the First-Century was an activity of God. It can be used interchangeably with slight difference in emphasis, just like saying, “God told the Israelites at Sinai” and “Moses told the Israelites at Sinai.” Trinitarianism is an unnecessary distortion of First-Century pneumatology.

Jaco,

Thank you for your thoughts. You do make some good points and I will absolutely look back over many passages with your words in mind.

Do you care to explain your view of the Holy Spirit?

Thanks again.

Thanks Aaron,

“Although I will gladly agree with you that many Trinitarians are not even open to discussion about this topic and at times make this issue a reason for condemning others the fact is that this wasn’t what I was referring to but rather quite simply that both sides involve an inescapable bias.”

Many Trinitarians? MOST Trinitarians. Even your statement about both sides having bias should not be understood in binary terms. Bias comes in degrees, and it is here that your assessment needs some tweaking.

“I think calling the Trinitarian viewpoint as completely “alien” is unfair and MASSIVELY oversimplifying the factors which led to the doctrine of the Trinity. :P”

My training is in linguistics and psychology, particularly phenomenology and the cultural/linguistic constructivism of reality. What this means is that our “reality” is largely shaped by culture, ritual and language. Once sensitised to how world-views are shaped, it is hard to merely brush over the differences in world-views among cultures and time-periods. With this in mind, and I’m certainly not the first to realise this, it is a no-brainer that the Athanasian Church had a significantly different theological framework than what the ancient Hebraic mind allowed. Hyper-materialist, loaded metaphysical philosophy and language capturing concepts not realised in Hebrew or any other Semitic language. Calling this completely “alien” is an understatement if one realises that these Gentiles’ theological outlook in toto was shaped by their weird metaphysics.

“The best point about this that I have heard is that Jesus used metaphorical language in other parts of John so He is also doing it here. I don’t find that to be very convincing.”

I think you’re simplifying the issue here. John invites the reader to be weary about what Jesus says when he speaks. This is a profound theme in GJohn. Misunderstanding is always attributed to his enemies in darkness. So a straight-forward face-value reading of Jesus’ words is not always the best way to go about it. Since this is so, each interpretation given – whether from a Trinitarian perspective or a more biblical/Hebraic perspective needs to be assessed in their own right. But the Jn. 8:58/Ex. 3:14 fixation has overstayed its welcome.

“…that he would be expecting his largely Gentile audience to understand his words with certain “Jewish eyes” which are only found in a few OT passages and the Talmud as well as other extant Jewish writings which these people probably didn’t know about?”

Yes, there were various Jewish strands, but we have a fairly good idea which traditions he evokes by noticing which traditions his words resonate with. We can also expect that the writer would prefer more popular/influential traditions, as these were current sources and because he writes in protest to the Jewish synagogue. Whether his writings were understood by the Gentiles is another matter altogether. What we do know is that his presupposition pool was thoroughly Jewish, and his sources thoroughly Jewish too.

“I didn’t understand. Sorry, can you make it fool proof? : )”

Similar to my first point, ancient motifs are used and applied in new ways as if they were happening now. “Creation,” for instance, refers to Genesis, yes. But there is also a new creation, taking place during a time when Christians believed was the introduction of a new age. Then Creation no longer refers to an ancient event, but a current process. Similarly, if the logos concept is used, it does hark back to Creation, but is understood eschatologically. The Logos-motif is used as metaphor for the new arrangement of chaos in and through the ministry of Jesus.

” I understand that being the plan of God for all things is a big deal, but the inescapable reality is that we are and have always been in God’s mind and plan even if we weren’t the summation of all of the creative order.”

Yes, but I also think that the Catholic understanding of original sin and the later developments into Augustinian and Calvinist “Total Depravity” notions add to the mix of not being impressed by Man. Ancient Jews, particularly of the mystical strands, were convinced that God was most purely encountered in man and God’s glory most clearly incarnated in Man. Appreciating the high view of Man, especially man completely open to the imprints of God (to use Philo’s words), and realising that this happened most superbly in the Man Jesus, changes one’s appreciation of the Man significantly.

Thanks for your well-thought out challenges.

Jaco,

“You are welcome to think that way. The difference is that the whole Trinitarian world-view is an invented, alien worldview. Disagreements among Unitarians on how the early Jews may have understood Jesus’ words is not remotely as wishful and fantastic as the philosophical speculation of the Gentile Church. So I think you are MASSIVELY overstating your case here.”

Well, this is likely to come down to our individual assessments of the matter. I don’t think it is a massive overstatement. Although I will gladly agree with you that many Trinitarians are not even open to discussion about this topic and at times make this issue a reason for condemning others the fact is that this wasn’t what I was referring to but rather quite simply that both sides involve an inescapable bias. I think calling the Trinitarian viewpoint as completely “alien” is unfair and MASSIVELY oversimplifying the factors which led to the doctrine of the Trinity. 😛

In response to language of personal or impersonal pre-existence, respectively, you noted:

“1) Genre: metaphorical/allegorical use of language opens the way for metaphorical/allegorical understanding thereof;”

I agree. But still, John 8:58 is from a biographical work about Jesus. It is true that John uses figurative language, almost everyone does on a regular basis to one degree or another. I’m not pulling this verse from Revelation or a Proverbs or the Olivet discourse and being hyper-literal here. I think a literal reading worth discussing and to be respected. I also think that there is a burden of proof here upon the one who would say that Jesus is speaking “metaphorically” in John 8:58. The best point about this that I have heard is that Jesus used metaphorical language in other parts of John so He is also doing it here. I don’t find that to be very convincing.

“2) Worldview: contemporary Jewish worldview allowed for an alternative understanding of pre-existence than the literalist/materialist priorities of Gentile presuppositions;”

Okay. I hear you. But there were many different worldviews among the Jews and a bunch of them were wrong about a bunch of things…how do we sift through all the ideas of the Jews and determine which ones should shape our readings and interpretations of scripture today? Does it seem worth discussing to you that while John wrote in A.D. 90 (or thereabouts) and wrote in Greek while also including a Greek idea (the idea of the “Logos”) that he would be expecting his largely Gentile audience to understand his words with certain “Jewish eyes” which are only found in a few OT passages and the Talmud as well as other extant Jewish writings which these people probably didn’t know about?

“3) Eschatology: similar to genre, an eschatological understanding of things, where traditional language is used for a new order/arrangement necessitates a shift in time-reference from past (e.g., Genesis creation) to present (New Creation humanity).”

I didn’t understand. Sorry, can you make it fool proof? : )

“And to call our position “of the dozen” Unitarian position is merely a stigmatizing of our positions (maybe, hopefully, not deliberately so), since our positions are grounded in solid and among the best scholarship available. (Compared to the challenged and gradually marginalised pro-Trinitarian scholarship these days).”

Not at all what I meant. I was trying to say that all the Unitarian positions are biased and none of them escape. That’s all. If it makes you feel better, there are probably a dozen or more variations of Trinitarianism with differing details in each about the relationship and roles of the Father, Son & Spirit as well. None of these escape heavy bias either. I feel like you see me as a heavy-handed Trinitarian who has no respect for other viewpoints. I hope that isn’t how I come across. Let’s be honest, we are all here like a bunch of nerds reading about this stuff because we are open to discussion much more than most other Christians. If someone hits a homerun with a Christology and it best aligns with scripture then I will “adopt” (hehe) that Christology and advocate it.

I wrote this below…
“Socinianism seems to make too little of Jesus, relegating Him to a mere thought of God,”

You responded thus:
In the eye of the beholder, that’s all. To a rabbinical Jew, reducing the notional pre-existence of Torah, Paradise, the Patriarchs, the Throne of Glory, etc. to “a mere thought,” would have been regarded as blasphemy. If “a thought” to you means nothing by default, then no thought would be great enough, even if it were the Master Design Plan of God.

However, I wrote that as my understanding of Mario’s position about Socinianism. Not a final conclusion about how or if Socinianism diminishes the glory of Christ. To be sure, I do find it to come up short in how it honors Christ at the very core of who He is intrinsically, but that was not the point of this statement. I understand that being the plan of God for all things is a big deal, but the inescapable reality is that we are and have always been in God’s mind and plan even if we weren’t the summation of all of the creative order.

I wonder how extreme open theists who do not believe in the Trinity view Christ. Certainly for Him to be in the “plan of God” from eternity cannot suffice. There would be no way for God to know that all things would actually be summed up in Him and for Him. Another interesting topic, I think.

Thanks for your time. I value the input from everyone here.

@ Sean

[1.] “How do you engage something that is philosophically unintelligible?”

Unlike you, Aaron doesn’t find my literal interpretation of the Incarnation of God’s Logos “philosophically unintelligible” (see, in particular, Aaron: October 22, 2014 at 5:41 pm; Mario: October 22, 2014 at 6:53 pm; Aaron: October 22, 2014 at 10:11 pm).

Are you perhaps suggesting that this is because Aaron is “philosophically illiterate”? 😉

[2.] “I don’t know what it even means to suggest that a person is *literally* an attribute of another person.”

Interesting how you are (unwittingly?) conditioned by your “personal pre-existence” understanding.

I do NOT say that (before the Incarnation) God’s Logos is a “person” (YOU say that, NOT I …), that, with the Incarnation would become “an attribute of another person”.

I DO say something quite different, viz. that God’s Logos is an (IMPERSONAL) eternal essential attribute of God (John 1:1), that, with the Incarnation, BECOMES the “attribute of another person”, (ho logos sarx egeneto – John 1:14): Jesus.

I am not suggesting that this view is common in Christianity, in fact it is an absolute “minority report”. But there is at least one author, that I have already mentioned, Marcellus of Ancyra (died c. 374 C.E. – unfortunately ostracized by “orthodox” Christianity, so that only fragments of his have survived), affirmed essentially what I affirm. If you want to familiarize yourself with Marcellus’, a good book is “Contra Marcellum. Marcellus of Ancyra and Fourth-Century Theology” (Joseph T. Lienhard,, 1999)

[3.] “I actually agree that John presents Jesus as the incarnation of God’s Logos, but I understand this metaphorically, as it’s not possible to understand it literally.”

I see. So you find “not possible to understand literally” that Jesus is the incarnation of God’s Logos, BUT you claim to find perfectly understandable that Jesus is the “incarnation” of some alleged pre-existent, personal entity, that the Evangelist John would have named “the logos”. Go figure …

“As people familiar with Greek, do you all think that John 8:58 has been translated in a biased manner by Trinitarians?”

In committee produced Bibles, yes, absolutely. Some translators who have produced their own translations have broken free from the pressure to sustain the traditional rendering, which isn’t even a translation, as it retains the word order in interlinear form. I believe that this is done because it makes it less obvious that EIMI is functioning as a normal verb there which connects the subject EGO to the predicate.

A first step in translation would be to put the words in normal English word order, which would give you something like “I am before Abraham was born”. Doing so reveals the verbal sense of EIMI, suggests it’s existential connotation, and makes it more obvious that this clause fits the Extension from Past idiom. A number of grammarians and translators have attempted to capture this idiom in their renderings, but only McKay’s really does justice to it. If you’re interested, see my comments, here for further elaboration:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2014/06/i-am-the-name-of-god.html

@ Jaco

“Sean and I happen to agree on this issue, that’s all.”

You are just making my point: Sean, with his “literal pre-existence”, Jaco, with his “notional pre-existence”, BOTH refuse to even engage seriously what I propose, viz. the LITERAL understanding of Jesus as the incarnation of God’s Logos.

Aaron,

“I have begun to think that the Unitarian (whatever form out of the dozen or so available it may take) interpretation of scripture is just as biased as the Trinitarian one.”

You are welcome to think that way. The difference is that the whole Trinitarian world-view is an invented, alien worldview. Disagreements among Unitarians on how the early Jews may have understood Jesus’ words is not remotely as wishful and fantastic as the philosophical speculation of the Gentile Church. So I think you are MASSIVELY overstating your case here.

“But I’m just making a simple observation here. What would have been necessary linguistically for us to conclude that Jesus had a personal pre-existence if not what is already written?”

1) Genre: metaphorical/allegorical use of language opens the way for metaphorical/allegorical understanding thereof;

2) Worldview: contemporary Jewish worldview allowed for an alternative understanding of pre-existence than the literalist/materialist priorities of Gentile presuppositions;

3) Eschatology: similar to genre, an eschatological understanding of things, where traditional language is used for a new order/arrangement necessitates a shift in time-reference from past (e.g., Genesis creation) to present (New Creation humanity).

And to call our position “of the dozen” Unitarian position is merely a stigmatizing of our positions (maybe, hopefully, not deliberately so), since our positions are grounded in solid and among the best scholarship available. (Compared to the challenged and gradually marginalised pro-Trinitarian scholarship these days).

“Socinianism seems to make too little of Jesus, relegating Him to a mere thought of God,”

In the eye of the beholder, that’s all. To a rabbinical Jew, reducing the notional pre-existence of Torah, Paradise, the Patriarchs, the Throne of Glory, etc. to “a mere thought,” would have been regarded as blasphemy. If “a thought” to you means nothing by default, then no thought would be great enough, even if it were the Master Design Plan of God.

I guess that the reason that I find John 8 v 58 difficult to understand , is that I see the words ‘ego eimi’ in John 8 v 28 and conclude that the person who said thise words in most certainly NOT God.

“When you lift up the Son of Man, you will realise that I AM and that I can do nothing of my own , but I only say what my Father taught me”

The words ‘ego eimi’ are used so many times to mean ‘I am
he’ or ‘I am the one’ and I have always believed that Christ was referring to His Messiahship.

On the subject of Christ’s ‘literal’ pre-existence I understand both sides of the argument and cannot make up my mind on the matter!

Perhaps readers can explain why God spoke through the prophets in times past ( Hebrews 1 v 1)
and only spoke through Christ in ‘these last days’. ?

Blessings
John

“At some point I think it is necessary to ask, what kind of language would Jesus and the NT writers have had to have used in order to convince us that Jesus had a personal pre-existence (be it Arian, Subordinationistic, or Trinitarian)??”

I would guess that, for the Socinian-type Unitarian, Jesus or his chroniclers would have had to have explicitly said that he existed in heaven as a real person prior to taking the form of a man (or something similar) before they’d start to be more open to it. I don’t really understand this myself, except that there is a certain logical beauty in Socinian-type Unitarianism that one might find difficult to give up. While this type of Unitarianism comes under some strain in light of verses like John 8:58, it also makes interpretation much less ambiguous in many cases. I can understand the attraction, I just don’t think it’s the best reading of Scripture as a whole.

@ Jaco

“… the son of man figure in Daniel, even at the time of his writing it is neither God nor a god (in the pagan sense), which introduces a basis for variance in understanding and translating the Aramaic pelach’. In fact, the royal setting of the son of man’s subsequent rule would instead hark back to all the other instances in the Bible where the Aramaic pelach’ was also used, as can be seen in the Targummim.”

Surely you are aware that “internal consistency” in the use of the same word (here, the Aramaic verb p@lach) in the same text is considered by scholars (yes, scholars!) a criterion that is at least as important (in fact, even more important) than the use of the same word in different texts (in this case the Targummim).

“I still don’t see why Theodotion, Aquila and Symmachus would bother to correct latreuo to douleuo if there was no apparent reason to do so – neither by the Jews (who cared?) nor by Christians (they WANTED latreuo). Unless the Christians of the time were so strongly monotheistic, that latreuo was too strong a word associated with Jesus.”

How about this: according to Matt 26:64, Jesus, questioned by Caiaphas, had referred to himself the figure of the Son of man in Dan 7:14 (whether in the Aramaic original or in the OG LXX translation is here immaterial), implicitly affirming that he (Jesus) was the Messiah NOT in the sense of “Powerful Liberator” expected by (most of) the Jews, BUT in an eschatological sense?

How about this: God (YHWH) “locally sped up” the eschatological process, by raising Jesus from the dead, letting him sit at His right hand, and proclaiming him Lord?

Would this not be enough of a “mutation” (to filch Hurtado’s word, obviously not in an evolutionistic sense) to justify also a “mutation” in the order of worship?

(I believe it would, of course without “trinitarian strings” attached …)

BTW, eerie how, while divided on the key issue of “personal pre-existence”, Sean and you are quite ready to join forces …

@Mario:

“Why? Are you aware of more than one? (BEFORE Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, of course.”

Actually, it appears to me that it is you who is lost without the academy, as your lack of exposure to the work of scholars in the field causes you to make assumptions that are questionable at best.

@ Sean

[November 6, 2014 at 7:38 am] “It seems that Hurtado is correct in noting that the manner in which Jesus came to occupy a central place in the worship of the early Christians really was a novel ‘mutation’, and as such it would seem that exaltation alone probably cannot account for this.”

This appeal to Hurtado is a non sequitur. The exaltation that Jesus received, according to Early Christians (see Acts 2:32-36, Phil 2:9-11) has no equal in any other Jewish figure. Incidentally, and for the umpteenth time, all other figures that are usually cited in this context (Adam, Abel, Enoch, Metatron, etc.), even apart from the pseudepigraphical/apocryphous character of the texts, are all rather mythical, wouldn’t you agree?

[November 10, 2014 at 6:51 pm] “I’ve never conversed with a scholar who claimed that there was ‘ONE Greek LXX’, and I wonder if such an assertion would get very far in the academy.”

Why? Are you aware of more than one? (BEFORE Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, of course …)

P.S. … scholars … academy … you are really lost without some authority to refer to, aren’t you?

There could have been many other reasons for correcting the OGLXX, apart from Jewish pressure. If anything, Jewish copyists could have corrected that LXX, why pressurise Christian copyists/translators? Add to it the high view of the LXXOG during the time, almost viewing it as the work of God Himself, it would be hard to think that a threat to that sentiment would be the motivation behind such correction. Other reasons for this correction could have been access to the Vorlage of the MT and the obvious differences between LXXDan and MTDan. A superficial comparison of the two versions shows the major difference in length, verse arrangement, etc. So it is likely that a desire to improve on the OG could have been the reason behind the corrected LXXs of the second century.

“Anyone who compares this version with Theodotion’s which is usually printed in all ordinary editions of the Greek O.T. must agree with Jerome (Praef. in Dan.) that the church chose rightly in discarding the former and adopting the latter. Indeed, the greater part of this Chisian Daniel cannot be said to deserve the name of a translation at all. It deviates from the original in every possible way; transposes, expands, abridges, adds or omits, at pleasure. The latter chapters it so entirely rewrites that the predictions are perverted, sometimes even reversed, in scope. We learn from Jerome (in. Dan. iv. 6, p. 646) that Origen himself (“in nono Stromatum volumine”) abandoned this supposed LXX Daniel for Theodotion’s. Indeed, all the citations of Daniel, some of them long and important passages in Origen’s extant works, agree almost verbatim with the text of Theodotion now current, and differ, sometimes materially, from that of the reputed LXX as derived from the Chisian MS. He seems, moreover, to have found the task of bringing its text to conform to the original by the aid of Theodotion’s a hopeless one, as we may judge by his asterisks, obeli, and marginalia in the two MSS. referred to. Yet that this is the version which Origen placed as that of the LXX in the penultimate column of the Hexapla and Tetrapla is certain.” – Henry Wace, A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D., with an Account of the Principal Sects and Heresies.

“I’m sure he was aware that the LXX was itself a translation, and as such the use of latreuô represented a choice of an earlier translator.”

Of course Theodotion was perfectly aware that the LXX was a translation, from the Hebrew/Aramaic “master text” to Greek.

What you are apparently ready to believe, though, is that the Jews were perfectly happy with the ONE Greek LXX translation for over 3 centuries, but then, in the 2nd century, after Christians had “appropriated” critical verses like Daniel 7:14 and Isaiah 7:14, not only Theodotion, but also Symmachus and Aquila felt the urge of changing critical words, like latreuô to douleuô in Daniel 7:14, and parthenos to neanis in Isaiah 7:14.

Coincidence?

You are welcome to delude yourself that it is …
… and even to calculate the odds thereof … 😉

“What a silly question! Theodotion translation of the (Hebrew and Aramaic) Bible is just a translation. Of course Theodotion did not “explicitly [give] his reason for choosing douleuô”. As though you’d find any ancient translator of a sacred text that would! Sheesh!”

So you’re just resorting to conjecture then. Very good; that answers my question. It’s also possible that the reason Theodotion corrected the text is because he believed that such really represented a correction, i.e. that latreuô wasn’t the best word in context. I’m sure he was aware that the LXX was itself a translation, and as such the use of latreuô represented a choice of an earlier translator. Imagine that, a translator disagreed with another translator. What are the odds? 😉

@ Sean

[Mario – November 2, 2014 at 5:05 pm]
Theodotion “softened” the (OG) LXX latreuô to douleuô because latreuô lent itself more strongly than douleuô to be read in the sense of ‘worship’, and the Jews loathed the appropriation of that Dan 7:14 by Christians, with the relative interpretation of the figure of the Son of man as Jesus.

[Sean – November 3, 2014 at 6:29 am]
Does Theodotion explicitly [say?] that this is his reason for choosing douleuô, or are you assuming that he did so for the reason you state?

[Mario – November 5, 2014 at 5:27 pm] I suggest that you read my comment (October 29, 2014 at 5:10 pm), in reply to Jaco’s (October 29, 2014 at 3:37 am), in particular the last paragraph.

[Sean – November 5, 2014 at 5:48 pm]
Or you could just answer the question asked.

COMMENT
I wanted to avoid being rude, but, as you please.

What a silly question! Theodotion translation of the (Hebrew and Aramaic) Bible is just a translation. Of course Theodotion did not “explicitly [give] his reason for choosing douleuô”. As though you’d find any ancient translator of a sacred text that would! Sheesh!

The Aramaic word used in Dan 7:14 (but also 7: 27, 3:12, 14, 17-18, 28) is p@lach. This word which means “to serve”, but it also means “to pay reverence to” and it appears elsewhere (e.g. Ezra 7:24) always in the context of religious service and never civil or secular service.

Once again, the Greek latreuô lent itself more strongly than douleuô to be read in the sense of ‘worship’, and the Jews loathed the appropriation of that Dan 7:14 by Christians, with the relative interpretation of the figure of the Son of man as Jesus.

“I suggest that you read my comment (October 29, 2014 at 5:10 pm), in reply to Jaco’s (October 29, 2014 at 3:37 am), in particular the last paragraph.”

Or you could just answer the question asked.

[Mario – November 2, 2014 at 5:05 pm]
Theodotion “softened” the (OG) LXX latreuô to douleuô because latreuô lent itself more strongly than douleuô to be read in the sense of ‘worship’, and the Jews loathed the appropriation of that Dan 7:14 by Christians, with the relative interpretation of the figure of the Son of man as Jesus.

[Sean – November 3, 2014 at 6:29 am]
Does Theodotion explicitly that this is his reason for choosing douleuô, or are you assuming that he did so for the reason you state?

COMMENT
I suggest that you read my comment (October 29, 2014 at 5:10 pm), in reply to Jaco’s (October 29, 2014 at 3:37 am), in particular the last paragraph.

“Patiently, and for the last time: Theodotion “softened” the (OG) LXX latreuô to douleuô because latreuô lent itself more strongly than douleuô to be read in the sense of ‘worship’, and the Jews loathed the appropriation of that Dan 7:14 by Christians, with the relative interpretation of the figure of the Son of man as Jesus.”

Does Theodotion explicitly that this is his reason for choosing douleuô, or are you assuming that he did so for the reason you state?

“As you seem so keen on the support of some “authority”, here is one for you: R. Alan Culpepper, “Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design” (1983). Enjoy.”

I have this book in my personal library. Is there any particular section you’d recommend that I review? If you’re thinking about the section on “MISUNDERSTANDING” that begins on page 152, I don’t find his understanding of verse 58 convincing (see p. 158). It seems quite strained, actually.

@Mario

“Surely you understand that this is a substantial change of status …”

Yes, I do. But the Gospels were written with the belief in Jesus exaltation already. So authority is already present in their appellations of Jesus. Fact remains that Jesus was intimately involved in the lives of his followers – both before and after his exaltation. That intimacy was the most compelling reason for including him in their liturgy.

“The other “figures” that you mention do not compare: they are a mix of legendary, apocryphous and pseudepigraphical, so it is simply moot to argue whether they had status “as high as Jesus”.”

No, there was no hard and fast differentiation between the historical factuality of a religious tradition and its mythical significance. All these figures and what was written about them were considered to be real. As real as Jesus. Yet they are not included in religious worship.

“I wonder why you are “not following”, the reason that I have given, why “Theodotian under doctrinal pressure ‘soften[ed]’ the translation [of the Aramaic pelach from the (OG) LXX latreusosin] to douleusosin”. (Along with Symmachus and Aquila, BTW.)”

Why would Theodotion soften latreuo to douleuo “under doctrinal pressure” if latreuo more appropriately served the purpose of proto-Trinitarian doctrine? Or which doctrinal pressure are you referring to?

Hi Mario
I must confess that I have spent no time at all trying to understand the reasoning of the Early Church Fathera.
I have always been deterred by the seemingly never ending wrangles about ‘who said’ what’ and ‘what was on their mind at the time they wrote’
I am certainly not defending Farley as I have not read all his writings – but merely commented that he had made the point which inspired me to look at the Doctrine of the Trinity in a bit more depth.
I should also confess
(i) I am not a Biblical ‘literalist’
(ii) I tend to be Erasman in my thinking – tending to overlook flaws and inconsistencies
in peoples thinking in order to get as many good men ‘into the boat’ as possible.
One can point out my flaws -but I find that the general but flawed consensus of good men satisfactory for my purposes.
I admire people like you and Jaco for your tenacity.
Blessings
John

Mario
You tend to get lost in the detail .
My first indication that something was very wrong with the doctrine of the Trinity was in fact the thought that these men, the disciples., had lived in great intimacy with Christ over many years and yet never seemed to suspect that this man was YHWH Himself!
As Farley states , they continued to write such statements as ‘my Father is greater than I’ and ‘by my own self I can do nothing”
My experience is that all of the ‘experts’ will continue to disagree with one another on various matters, particularly the subject of Christs pre-existence and that this will persist till the very end!
Blessings
John

@ Jaco [October 30, 2014 at 2:51 am]

We are hardly speaking of “nuances”. When the disciples (according to the Gospels) addressed Jesus Christ as “Lord”, that is best understood as “honorific”. When the (died, resurrected and ascended Jesus Christ) is called “Lord” in Acts 2:32-36, Phil 2:9-11 it is because “God has made this Jesus whom you crucified both Lord and Christ”, it is because “God exalted him … so that … Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father”. Surely you understand that this is a substantial change of status …

The other “figures” that you mention do not compare: they are a mix of legendary, apocryphous and pseudepigraphical, so it is simply moot to argue whether they had status “as high as Jesus”.

In a nutshell, [1] even not considering that Jesus was (literally, not just “honorifically”) the Son of God, [2] Jesus’ status of “Lord” was GIVEN to him by God, the Father Almighty Himself. [3] “Personal, mystical intimacy” may help to explain the fervour, not the change of status, and the consequent worship.

I wonder why you are “not following”, the reason that I have given, why “Theodotian under doctrinal pressure ‘soften[ed]’ the translation [of the Aramaic pelach from the (OG) LXX latreusosin] to douleusosin”. (Along with Symmachus and Aquila, BTW.)

Patiently, and once again: he did it “precisely because Christians referred that latreuô (which they read in the strong sense of ‘worship’) to the resurrected and glorified Jesus.”

Isn’t it clear enough that (most of) the “élite” of the Jews (starting dramatically with Caiaphas) refused to even consider Jesus Christ as the Messiah in the sense of the Son of man figure of Dan 7:14? That it is precisely because of this that they condemned him for “blasphemy”? What is unclear to you?

“…only missing factor for devotion must be [3] personal, mystical intimacy which the Christians experienced with Jesus and not with the rest.”

That makes good sense. As a believer, I would add that God’s spirit also played a part in guiding and influencing the early Christians’ response to Jesus. Of course, by early Christians I’m not referring to the ante-Nicene Fathers, who made a real pigs breakfast of things, but to those who came before, who wrote and/or influenced the writings that now comprise the NT.

Stories handed down of other exalted characters were legendary in character, and none of those characters accomplished for us what Jesus is believed to have accomplished. The devotional practices of the early Christians, on the other hand, were no doubt influenced and shaped by what was handed down by people who knew Jesus personally. They weren’t responding to a mere story, but to a real human being who recently walked among them, who died for them, and whose resurrection paved the road to eternal life. It’s not surprising, therefore, that Jesus came to be the recipient of greater honor than his legendary predecessors.

Hi Mario,

“For the umpteenth time, “I read the title ‘Lord’ attributed to Jesus in the last two passages NOT as merely honorific, BUT as a clear, unambiguous indication that God raised Jesus to a status of power and glory (almost) on a par [with] His own.” How do you read them?”

I don’t think the title Lord can be differentiated in nuance as finely as between “honorific” and “status.” The one implies the other. The point I’m trying to make is that other highly exalted figures recorded in apocalyptic and mystical texts were not worshipped in association with Yahweh as Jesus was. These figures were also given high status; they were given glory as explicitly stated as in the case of Jesus; yet never included in liturgy. Now, since [1] ontology didn’t achieve it (they were also mortals “born of women”), nor [2] status (as high as Jesus), then the only missing factor for devotion must be [3] personal, mystical intimacy which the Christians experienced with Jesus and not with the rest.

“replacement of latreusosin for pelach in Dan 7:14 with douleusosin was done precisely because Christians referred that latreuô (which they read in the strong sense of “worship”) to the resurrected and glorified Jesus.”

I’m not following. If OGLXX has latreusosin, then why would Theodotian under doctrinal pressure “soften” the translation to douleusosin?

Thanks,

@ Jaco [October 29, 2014 at 3:37 am]

“… it is my contention that NOT [1] Jesus’ ontology, NOT necessarily [2] his status, but [3] his personal involvement and presence was the most compelling reason for inclusion into the Christians’ worship life.”

[1] is not necessary (although, as you know, I affirm that the NT attests the “divine nature” of Jesus). [3] is definitely too little for “inclusion [of Jesus] into the Christians’ worship life”. So we are inevitably left with [2] “his status”. Which, BTW is the very reason why I asked you how YOU “interpret key passages like Dan 7:13-14 (cp. Matt 24:30, 26:64), Acts 2:32-36, Phil 2:9-11.” For the umpteenth time, “I read the title ‘Lord’ attributed to Jesus in the last two passages NOT as merely honorific, BUT as a clear, unambiguous indication that God raised Jesus to a status of power and glory (almost) on a par [with] His own.” How do you read them?

“I accept [Hurtado’s] correction.”

And I agree with you that Hurtado’s dithering and ambiguity is more than a bit disingenuous, if that is what you think.

“In the Life of Adam and Eve and the Sibylline Oracles VIII Adam is said to be worshipped because he bore God’s glory. According to Crispin Fletcher-Louis, this was the basis for early Christian worship of Jesus, since divine humanity was worshiped as bearer of God’s glory.”

I simply don’t agree with what Crispin Fletcher-Louis says, in his “The Worship of Divine Humanity” (pp. 112-13) about s.c. “Adam worship” and similar. His argument is very weak.

“Both groups [Alexandrians and Arians] used Origen as support for their case at Nicaea. I’ve found that Hurtado is similarly used to support both pro- and non-Trinitarian discussion today.”

Origen spoke, indeed, of “trinity”, however emanationist and subordinationist his take on the “trinity”. Obviously his language was ambiguous enough, not only for Alexandrians and Arians, to “use Origen as support for their case at Nicaea”, but also, after Nicea, and at least until the Synod of Alexandria (362 CE) for “homoousians” (to be accurate, Athanasius, NOT Marcellus) and “homoiousians” to refer to him. I am not entirely sure that the parallel holds, but, again, Hurtado’s dithering and ambiguity is more than a bit disingenuous.

“It is my understanding that the OG has latreusosin for pelach in LXXDan 7:14 and that the later LXX by Theodotian “corrected” it to douleusosin. The OGDan is significantly different from LXXDan by Theodotian (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/40-daniel-nets.pdf).”

But it is precisely that “correction” that is suspect. Theodotion’s replacement of latreusosin for pelach in Dan 7:14 with douleusosin was done precisely because Christians referred that latreuô (which they read in the strong sense of “worship”) to the resurrected and glorified Jesus. BTW, similar translations of the 2nd century CE (Aquila and Symmachus) adopted exactly the same “correction”. That these “corrections” are deliberately meant to “defuse” the interpretation of some key passages of the (OG) LXX by Christians can be seen in another, even more famous example. While the (OG) LXX translated the Hebrew almah in Isaiah 7:14 with the Greek parthenos (virgin), Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion ALL “corrected” parthenos in neanis (“young woman”).
Coincidence? Mmm …

Hey John,

No, you’re not missing the point here. You are quite correct – the Aramaic pelach is not limited to religious service. The Aramaic is also what many early Christians would have been aware of, since the Targummim would capture that same meaning. The Old Greek does use latreuo, which has a religious connotation, but Daniel in OG is an elaborate paraphrase compared to the MT, Targummim and later LXXs. And even then, it is not the service rendered which determines the identity of the recipient; it is instead the understanding of the recipient’s identity which shapes the meaning of the service rendered.

Thanks!

Thanks Mario,

I agree that Jesus was highly exalted as God’s plenipotentiary. That was also the firm understanding of the first Christians who became convinced of this reality after Jesus crucifixion and resurrection. What Bauckham and Hurtado do, however, as showing the differences in devotional practices between monotheistic Christians and other Jews who also believed in highly exalted human figures. While the pseudepigrapha believed that sages like Enoch, Abraham, Abel, Job and others were highly exalted at God’s right-hand, there’s never been a cult of worshipers who included, say, Abel in their religious liturgy. Crispin Fletcher-Louis has challenged this point by showing that the High Priest was included in temple worship because he bore God’s glory, and Loren Stuckenbruck showed that angels were often invoked in prayer (also in 2 Enoch). So, even with Bauckham and Hurtado’s emphasizing that single difference, namely inclusion in religious devotion, it is my contention that NOT Jesus’ ontology, NOT necessarily his status, but his personal involvement and presence was the most compelling reason for inclusion into the Christians’ worship life. Their believing that God expected them to do that had precursors in traditions of Adam being worshiped, so they may have felt that monotheism was not compromised.

I read Hurtado’s piece where he refuses the characterization of his thought as binitarian. I, like others, have got that impression from, for instance, his paper from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus called “The Binitarian Shape of Early Christian Worship.” I accept the correction.

In the Life of Adam and Eve and the Sibylline Oracles VIII Adam is said to be worshipped because he bore God’s glory. According to Crispin Fletcher-Louis, this was the basis for early Christian worship of Jesus, since divine humanity was worshiped as bearer of God’s glory.

I got my Church Fathers mixed up (as usual). My reference to Irenaeus was meant to be Origen of Alexandria. Both groups used Origen as support for their case at Nicaea. I’ve found that Hurtado is similarly used to support both pro- and non-Trinitarian discussion today.

It is my understanding that the OG has latreusosin for pelach in LXXDan 7:14 and that the later LXX by Theodotian “corrected” it to douleusosin. The OGDan is significantly different from LXXDan by Theodotian (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/40-daniel-nets.pdf).

Thanks!

@ Aaron

Thank you for your question, which gives me the opportunity of expanding on a very critical scriptural point.

First of all, what you have heard is absolutely right: “the word for ‘sacred service’ [latreuô, from latris, ‘hired servant’] is never used of Jesus, but the Father only”. The verb for “worship”, instead, as referred to Jesus in the NT is invariably proskyneô (approximately, “to bow down”). For more information, you may want to look at my (Miguel_de_servet) Journal post as Beliefnet Community: “The ‘worship’ due to Jesus” (http://community.beliefnet.com/miguel_de_servet/blog/2008/11/22/the_quot;worshipquot;_due_to_jesus)

Regarding Daniel 7:14, we have to remember that the original text of the Book of Daniel is not written in Hebrew, but (mostly) in Aramaic. The Aramaic verb that is used in Daniel 7:14 to express the “serving” (or “worshipping”) of the Son of Man by all nations is p?lach (lit. “to serve”). The Greek verb used in the LXX Septuagint translation is yet another verb, douleuô (lit. “to serve”, from doulos, “bondman”).

So, it seems that the Son of Man, as pictured in Daniel 7:14 receives “worship” in the strong sense of “service”, virtually indistinguishable from that due to God alone.

When dramatically confronted by the High Priest Caiaphas, who had “charged him under oath by the living God, to tell if he was the Christ, the Son of God” (Matt 26:63), Jesus replied …

“You have said it yourself. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (Matt 26:64)

… where the “sitting at the right hand of the Power” is a strong allusion to Ps 110:1 and the image of “the Son of Man … coming on the clouds of heaven” is a near quotation of Daniel 7:14.

I believe that it is precisely this image, with the Son of Man receiving “worship” in the strong sense of “service”, virtually indistinguishable from that due to God alone, that made Caiaphas tear his clothes and declare, “He has blasphemed!”.

@Mario

I have always heard that the word for “sacred service” (latreu?) is never used of Jesus, but the Father only. Since I am not familiar with Greek, could you please tell me what word is used in the LXX translation of Daniel 7:14 when the Bible says that all the nations will “serve” (or “worship” depending on the translation) the Son of Man?

@ Jaco

Let me check, if I understand the gist of your argument correctly: are you saying that the “personal intimacy” towards the dead-and-resurrected Jesus, that his followers expressed in worship-like form from very early (possibly immediately after the witness by the Apostles to his resurrection), is NOT due to “Jesus’ divinity” (which would be only a later spin of the “trinitarians”), but the consequence of “mystical experiences” and of the closeness that his followers felt for him, because he had partaken so intimately, in his life, with the predicament of the “marginalised of society” and because he “died like one of them”?

If my understanding is essentially correct, can you please explain to me what do you make of key passages …

13 I was watching in the night visions, “And with the clouds of the sky one like a son of man was approaching. He went up to the Ancient of Days and was escorted before him. 14 To him was given ruling authority, honor, and sovereignty. All peoples, nations, and language groups were serving him. His authority is eternal [everlasting, Aram. ?alam] and will not pass away. His kingdom will not be destroyed. (Dan 7:13-14; cp. Matt 24:30, 26:64)

32 This Jesus God raised up, and we are all witnesses of it. 33 So then, exalted to the right hand of God, and having received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father, he has poured out what you both see and hear. 34 For David did not ascend into heaven, but he himself says, ‘The Lord said to my lord, “Sit at my right hand 35 until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”’ 36 Therefore [DIA KAI] let all the house of Israel know beyond a doubt that God has made this Jesus whom you crucified both Lord and Christ.” (Acts 2:32-36)

9 As a result God exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow – in heaven and on earth and under the earth –11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:9-11)

… like these? I read the title “Lord” attributed in the last two to Jesus NOT as merely honorific, BUT as God raising Jesus to a status of power and glory (almost) on a par to His own. How do you read them?

“It is therefore not the case that Jesus receives veneration and has a central place in the worship of early Christians because he’s God; rather, it’s because God himself required it.”

FYI, that part is not Hurtado’s view, but my conclusion based on taking his view to its logical conclusion.

@ Jaco
“… the personal intimacy due to Jesus is the only difference between devotion rendered to him and that rendered to other intermediary figures.”
Due? Can you please explain a bit more clearly what the above would mean, in particular the “personal intimacy due to Jesus” bit?

Thanks, M.

@ Jaco

“The contradiction Daniel points out is that the very text Bird cites counts against him, since it proves the exact opposite, namely that an appointed human agent has received worship without any claim to ‘inclusion into the divine identity.’”
I don’t have the book “How God Became Jesus” available, so I cannot check directly what Bird says and the texts he cites, but perhaps Daniel O. McClellan is not representing faithfully. Here is how a quotation available online reads:

“ [T]here was in Jewish thought accommodated beliefs and honorific titles given to various agents like chief angels such as Metatron and exalted humans such as Enoch. However, a sharp line was drawn between the veneration of intermediary figures and the worship of the one God (so Hurtado), and this was based on the fact that such beings were not part of God’s divine identity (Bauckham). In this case, and contra Ehrman, the continuity between Jewish monotheism and New Testament Christology does not flow from intermediary figures, but from christological monotheism.” (Bird, op. cit. p. 35)

Interestingly, Hurtado and Bauckham are the ones that seem to you to “make a lot out of the worship language in the NT” and to resort to “Christ-devotion” as a criterion for “association and identification with God”.

“It is my assessment that worship of Christ is the last strong-hold Trinitarians have latched on to.”
You may find of some interest my (Miguel_de_servet) Journal post as Beliefnet Community: “The ‘worship’ due to Jesus” (http://community.beliefnet.com/miguel_de_servet/blog/2008/11/22/the_quot;worshipquot;_due_to_jesus)

@ Jaco

I checked the “series of [guest] posts” from Daniel O. McClellan at blog “the archives near Emmaus” (nearemmaus.wordpress.com). I found three:
[1] A Critical Engagement with Richard Bauckham’s “Christology of Divine Identity” (April 7, 2014)
[2] Book Review: Ehrman’s How Jesus Became God (April 16, 2014)
[3] Review of Bird, et al., How God Became Jesus, Part 1 (May 13, 2014)

I found “worship” mentioned in a comment by Daniel O. McClellan in [1], where he cites “Gradel’s book Emperor Worship and Roman Religion” and in a footnote in [2], where he cites again the same book. More important, it seems, is a paragraph in [3], where Daniel O. McClellan criticises Bird a propos his take on the “Enochic Son of Man … receiving worship”, where McClellan seems to find some “contradiction”.
All the above being premised, can you please clarify what you mean by your comment (“Worship language is the last straw Trinitarians seem to clutch at to keep Jesus divine. It’s only a matter of time…”) ?

Thank you 🙂

Re. Bauckham and his divine identity wish, check the series of posts here:

http://nearemmaus.wordpress.com/2014/04/07/a-critical-engagement-with-richard-bauckhams-christology-of-divine-identity-guest-post-from-daniel-o-mcclellan/#_ftn9.

Worship language is the last straw Trinitarians seem to clutch at to keep Jesus divine. It’s only a matter of time…

Aaron /Mario
I think it is vitally important to understand the distinction between “nature’ and ‘identity’.

I recently read a paper by Larry Hurtado in which he referred to the ‘divine identity’.

He completely missed the point and the rest of his paper reflected this!!

NATURE is ‘what we are
IDENTITY is our unique identity -our DNA as it were. Something which applies to no-one else.

God is the source of the Divine Nature
Jesus has inherited the Divine Nature from God – His Father
Believers are ‘partakers’ of the Divine Nature

SO- note two points
(i) Because we can partiake of the Divine Nature does not make us God. God is the source
(ii) When people say ‘Christ was divine’ does NOT mean He is God. His divine nature is inherited

Blessings
John

Aaron,

thank you for your post and questions, because they are a help to clarify our thoughts.

1. “So, Mario, you are saying that “The Word” is an eternal/essential attribute of God which became a man (Jesus) and therefore Jesus is, in some sense of the word, “eternal” (all though not with a personal conscious). He is still “God” in the sense that He is the incarnation of the inner thought (if you will) or inner being of God? This is what makes Him the “monogenes Son of God” I take it?”

I believe that the above is a fair summation of what I am saying. As for personhood, while I believe that self-consciousness is necessary, I don’t think it is sufficient. Once again, the full definition of person (be it human being, angel or god, or whoever) is “self-conscious entity, endowed with reason, freedom and will”.

2. “Could you explain more as to why you disagree with the personal pre-existence reading?”

I have already indicated that the reasons why I disagree with the personal pre-existence reading is to be found at my Journal posts at Beliefnet (under the name Miguel_de_servet). But, as there are problems to link to my journal post there, I will reproduce it here.

This is what a highly respected theologian says:
“To say that Jesus is “before” him [Abraham] is not to lift him out of the ranks of humanity but to assert his unconditional precedence. To take such statements at the level of “flesh” so as to infer, as “the Jews” do that, at less than fifty, Jesus is claiming to have lived on this earth before Abraham (8:52 and 57), is to be as crass as Nicodemus who understands rebirth as an old man entering his mother’s womb a second time (3:4).” — J. A. T. Robinson, The Priority of John, 1987, p. 384.

Jesus existed, somehow, “before Abraham came into existence”. The question is, HOW?

w. Some claim “in the Father’s mind”, from eternity; [see, for instance, at biblicalunitarian.com]

x. Some claim, before creation, even before the beginning of time, BUT as an “inferior deity” (deutheros theos); [Arius and, today, the JW take the view that the “pre-existent” Jesus is a mere creature, the first and greatest of creatures, but still a creature]

y. Trinitarians claim, as a “pre-existing, co-eternal, co-equal person”.

z. I claim, as God’s Eternal Logos, an Essential Attribute of God.

w and x are, respectively, inadequate (w) and incompatible with scriptural monotheism (x).
[as for the Arian/JW view, see at the end of my comment here of October 19, 2014 at 1:11 pm]

I do not agree with y, because I don’t think it is objectively attested in the Scripture, but, even more so, because I believe, and I have amply argued, that it is incompatible EITHER with the reality of the Resurrection, OR with the unchangeability of God.

3. “If Jesus were an attribute of God only, then His statement seems to carry little to no weight. So Jesus, you were an attribute of God from eternity?? Well, we were a plan of God’s in His mind before Abraham was born…so???”

See above. I didn’t say “an attribute of God only”, some sort of “plan in the mind of God”, BUT an ESSENTIAL attribute, something that is essentially of God. The Scripture uses repeatedly, for the word/logos/dabar of God, the image of an “arm” (Deut 33:27; Job 40:9; Psalm 33:6; Isaiah 53:1, cp. John 12:38). I distinguish between the doctrine of the “trinity” (that I reject on many grounds) and the doctrine of the dual nature of Jesus (divine and human), that I share. I don’t think that I need to explain what we mean when we say that Jesus was man, a real human being, with a real human nature.

So, the question is, what is this “divine nature” that Jesus would have in common with God? In a human father-son relationship, we call it “genome”. If the father is God, and the son is Jesus, what is it that he has from the Father “by inheritance”? My answer is: God’s logos. (John 1:1-18)

@Sean and Mario

So, Mario, you are saying that “The Word” is an eternal/essential attribute of God which became a man (Jesus) and therefore Jesus is, in some sense of the word, “eternal” (all though not with a personal conscious). He is still “God” in the sense that He is the incarnation of the inner thought (if you will) or inner being of God? This is what makes Him the “monogenes Son of God” I take it?

And Sean, you are saying that your view lines up with a rather Arian/JW Christology? (Personal pre-existence, though not eternal).

I am no Greek grammarian, I am simply trying to get clarification as to where you all land on this issue. Mario, I find it extremely difficult for anyone reading the text plainly to understand John 8:56-58 to conclude that Jesus isn’t saying He personally pre-existed. Just saying that the Gospel of John is replete with misundersandings where people thought in hyper-literal manners (Temple, born again, water at the well, eat my flesh, etc.) seems unconvincing. In those cases, the text seems to be plain that this is what is going on. That really doesn’t seem to be the case here in John 8. This to me, is the highest hurdle for your viewpoint, regardless of what any authority on any side of this issue says. Could you explain more as to why you disagree with the personal pre-existence reading? If Jesus were an attribute of God only, then His statement seems to carry little to no weight. So Jesus, you were an attribute of God from eternity?? Well, we were a plan of God’s in His mind before Abraham was born…so???

@Mario:

Are you the person who posts on other forums as “Miguel de Servet”?

… but in case you still feel like being argumentative, not only …

a1. “I have been in existence since before Abraham was born”

… and …

a2. “since before Abraham was born, I have been in existence”

… are BOTH perfectly good English, BUT, even more to the point, they are (should be …) absolutely semantically equivalent …

… even for someone who subscribes to the claim that Jesus of Nazareth, who lived his earthly life in Palestine, c.a 4 BCE – 30 CE, was a pre-existent personal being …

… you obviously failed to notice what my little comment of October 22, 2014 at 1:52 am hints at, even daring to go against Mr. BeDuhn’s dogma …

… but beware: before you get there, I have been there already … 🙂

“… I simply tidied up your (unjustifiìed) inversion relative to the Greek text.
But as you prefer …”

Sorry to have to break it to you, Mario, but you are wrong again. One of the very first things a student learns when she begins to study the art of Bible translation is that a translation is not an interlinear. Standard English has different common word order than standard Greek, and it would actually result in an UN-enjoyable mess to maintain the Greek word order in English translation.

I know you hate authorities (unless they agree with you), but I’ll let Bible translator Jason BeDuhn explain why you are mistaken about John 8:58:

Quote
On the matter of word order, normal English follows the structure we all learned in elementary school: subject + verb + object or predicate phrase. So it is the most basic step of translation to move the predicate phrase “before Abraham came to be” (prin Abraam genesthai) from the beginning of the sentence to the end, after the subject and verb. Jest as we do not say “John I am” or “Hungry I am” or “First in line I am,” so it is not proper English to say “Before Abraham came to be I am.” (Truth in Translation), p. 105
End Quote

“[Sean] since before Abraham was born, I have been in existence (as a pre-existent personal being)”

Actually, you’ve got it backwards:-)

There is no doubt that the critical phrase at John 8:58 is too “dense” to be “unpacked” without some theological presupposition. Let’s sum up the evidence so far:

[John’s text – Greek] prin abraam genesthai ego eimi
[John’s English lit. transl] before Abraham’s coming into existence, I am
[Sean] since before Abraham was born, I have been in existence
(as a pre-existent personal being)
[Jaco] … even before Abraham was born, I have been the intended one
(the Messiah’s name “pre-existed” with God before creation)
[Mario] before Abraham was born, I have existed as God’s logos
(NOT as a “person”, BUT an essential attribute of God)

@Jaco:

“You may want to have a look at my summarised dialogue with James F. McGrath here: http://worshipingmind.wordpress.com/2014/07/28/is-jesus-of-the-fourth-gospel-the-i-am-of-the-old-testament-3/, where the McKay’s “extension from the past” can still be applied as “I have been [the intended one] [since] before Abraham was born.”

The problem with that understanding is that, if one accepts the preferred reading of verse 57, then it ignores what just preceded it, and makes Jesus offer a non sequitur. Why opt for a non sequitur when a contextually exquisite response based on sound grammatical principles is available?

The second link doesn’t work. Let’s see if it works now:
http://community.beliefnet.com/miguel_de_servet/blog/2013/04/24/“…_before_abraham_was,_i_am”

@Sean and Mario,

You may want to have a look at my summarised dialogue with James F. McGrath here: http://worshipingmind.wordpress.com/2014/07/28/is-jesus-of-the-fourth-gospel-the-i-am-of-the-old-testament-3/, where the McKay’s “extension from the past” can still be applied as “I have been [the intended one] [since] before Abraham was born.”

Thanks,

“As you seem so keen on the support of some “authority”, here is one for you: R. Alan Culpepper, “Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design” (1983). Enjoy.”

You’ve completely missed the point of the quoted authorities. I offered them not because “if they say so then it must be true”, but so that you could track down the sources and review for yourself the compelling data upon which they base their informed assessments.

I guess such obvious intends and purposes escape some.

@ Sean

“If one accepts the reading of John 8:57 that all Bibles I’ve checked favor, then there really is no questioning the fact that Jesus’ opponents thought Jesus was claiming to have personally seen Abraham rejoice over his future day.”
I’m afraid, nay, I am certain that you completely misunderstand that John 8:57 is one of many instances of misunderstanding of Jesus on the part of his hearers, of which the Gospel of John is replete, and that Jesus has to (tries to) correct. Just off the top of my head, here are some other instances.

What “temple” was to be destroyed and then “raised” again? (John 2:19-22)
How can a man be born “from above” / “again” (anôthen)? (John 3:1-15)
What “living water” can Jesus give to the Samaritan woman? (John 4:10-15)
What “food” did Jesus have that his disciples knew nothing about? (John 4:31-34)
What is the “bread from heaven”? What is the “bread of life”? (John 6:32-35)
“How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (John 6:52)

As you seem so keen on the support of some “authority”, here is one for you: R. Alan Culpepper, “Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design” (1983). Enjoy.

@ Sean

[October 20, 2014 at 7:21 am]

I will ignore your post as irrelevant to the debate, except for this:
“If John wanted to convey that the LOGOS was “divine” he probably would have used QEIOS.”
I have proposed a detailed paraphrasis of John’s most concise and most difficult verse. Within it, and in context, I have proposed that John’s Greek phrase, theos en ho logos, should be “unpacked” as “the Word was [an attribute of] God [himself]”.

The logos is NOT merely “divine” (viz. having to do with God, as, for instance, in the phrase, “divine decree”), BUT “an essential attribute of God himself”. An attribute, NOT a “person”, not a “pre-existent person”, anyway, and even less an “eternal person” (not to mention “co-eternal”). Not until John 1:14. Then, and only then, it is legitimate to say that, ho logos sarx egeneto, “the [impersonal] logos became flesh” or, as it would be more normal to say today, a “human being”.

[October 20, 2014 at 7:45 am]

“A preexistent idea could not have observed Abraham while Abraham rejoiced over Jesus’ day. Christ’s opponents inferred from Jesus’ words that he had personally observed Abraham while Abraham rejoiced over his day, and that’s what Jesus was responding to.”
You are the one who needs to “read the context”, Sean. Where, in John 8, do you read that Jesus (or his alleged “pre-existent personal self”) would have “observed Abraham while Abraham rejoiced over Jesus’ day”? Nowhere, of course.

What Jesus says to “the Jews” is, “Abraham saw my day” (John 8:56), viz. the day when Jesus walked on earth – in a vision granted to him by YHWH.

As for the logos as mere “pre-existent idea”, see my immediately previous comment.

I find his explanations about God not revealing himself as a trinity to the Jews not very convincing (they could not grasp it at the time etc. …) The best action of a perfectly good God could have been revealing himself as a trinity right from the start and make people understand.

@ Sean

Mine are not “assertions”, but argued replies. On the other hand, your replies are almost entirely made of a string of quotations. You obviously believe that backing your beliefs with a host of authorities amounts to (conclusive?) arguments … that is quite cute, actually …

“Ps. 96 has to be understood in conjunction with both the biblical evidence, DSS, Philo …”
Your claim only confirms that, rather than arguing for any essential difference between “strict monotheism” and “biblical monotheism” on the basis of the Bible, you feel like you need to throw in the DSS (and we certainly didn’t need to wait for Yigael Yadin to find someone who affirmed that in Gen 1:26, YHWH addressed his heavenly court) and Philo, who is obviously the source of “Christian pains”. But even Philo made a point of underlining the difference between (arthrous) ho theos and (anarthrous) theos (De Somniis, 1.229). Exactly the same difference that we find at John 1:1, BTW. Unfortunately, due to his Platonic leanings, Philo attributed to the (anarthrous) theos the meaning of deuteros theos (Questions and Answers on Genesis 2:62). Unfortunately, Justin Martyr followed him, and, 2000 years on, Christians still have to live with the disaster, and, most of all, with the disastrous “trinitarian solution” thereof …

“But [Dixon] reveals the motivations behind the emergence of the Q theory.”
You obviously do not refer to the “Quelle” synoptic theory. Perhaps your Q stands for QEOS, but I have never heard anybody but you using the expression “Q theory” in this sense. Could you please be so kind as to spell out, essentially, in your own words, the s.c. “Q theory”?

Now, to the point. What none of your “authorities” says is that the Greek theos (and the Hebrew ‘el, and derivatives) is NOT a proper name. In John 1:1, when it is used in its anarthrous form, together with a form of the verb “to be”, it is a predicate of the subject (in particular arthrous noun) to which it refers (in John 1:1, ho logos). In conclusion, contrary to your “the logos was a god”, I propose that the proper sense of John’s most concise and most difficult verse is something like this: “The Word was[/existed] from the very beginning, and [in fact] the Word was [intimately associated] with God, and [in fact] the Word was [an attribute of] God [himself].”

As for your several quotations from GoJ (all having the form {subject – einai – anarthrous noun predicate} or permutations thereof), let’s just consider one, the first (prophetês ei su – John 4:19: “you are a prophet” – where the Greek, unlike the English does not have the indefinite article, for the simple good reason that … the indefinite article does not exist in Greek), as an example for all. Obviously the Samaritan woman is affirming that Jesus is “a prophet”, that is, one of the class of prophets, NOT a specific, identified prophet. Otherwise, if that had been the case, the woman’s phrase would have been, HO prophetês ei su, “you are THE prophet”. So simple …

(BTW, your remark on John 10:1, viz. on the Greek phrase having the {anarthrous noun predicate– einai – subject} or the {subject – einai – anarthrous noun predicate} or even {subject – anarthrous noun predicate – einai} form, or any other permutation thereof, is a red herring …)

As for your debate with James F. McGrath on the “true meaning” of EGÔ EIMI at John 8:58, it is evident that, with your pre-existence presupposition, it comes easy to you to buy enthusiastically and without further inspection Kenneth McKay “Extension from Past” interpretation of EGÔ EIMI at John 8:58. Jesus had indeed already/always “been”, somehow, “before Abraham was”. That is not in question. The question is, what form of “being”? The answer is: NOT as a person, BUT as the eternal logos of God, that would have become incarnated (“became flesh”, sarx egeneto) in/as Jesus of Nazareth.

P.S. I inadvertently omitted from my previous post this comment:
“In my reading of Philippians 2 as well Jesus existed in heaven in God’s form, and gave that existence up and became a man.”
What Phil 2:5-11 says is that Jesus, although he shared God’s “form” (morphê) “did not regard equality with God as something to hold on to [harpagmos]”. Nothing less, but also nothing more.

I had said:

“@Mario: Thank you for sharing your assertions;-)”

Scratch that. I thought I was being cute, but then I remembered that I haven’t been cute for a long time! 🙂

@ Sean

“As many scholars who have addressed this question critically have observed, biblical monotheism and modern strict monotheism aren’t identical.”
I can imagine that by “strict monotheism” you mean “there is only one God” (which is certainly incompatible with henotheism). Then it is the same as “biblical monotheism” (see Ps 96:5).

“In my view the grammar of John 1:1c would best be represented in English as “the Word was a god” (…), but I don’t insist that this is the only plausible translation.”
The Greek is: kai theos en ho logos. Noting that logos is with the (definitive) article and theos is without article, I agree with the linguists and scholars that attribute an “adjectival quality” in the anarthrous theos: the (impersonal) logos shares in exactly the same nature as God, it is an essential attribute of God.

“I personally consider the beliefs of the ant[e]-Nicene fathers to be too removed in both time and intellectual place to be of much value in answering questions about how Jesus or monotheism was understood by the first Christians.”
On the contrary, it is essential to confront the problem in terms of historical development of the doctrine of the “trinity”, otherwise one will NEVER be capable to understand how, in about 300 years, Christians may have gone from the unambiguous clarity of Mark (‘Listen, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.’ – Mark 12:29, cp. Deut 6:4) to the unscriptural obfuscation of the Cappadocian scoundrels (‘[God is] one ousia [in] three hypostases’)

“I think that the gospel of John at least teaches that the Son preexisted his earthly life, and the Bible as a whole teaches that, while on earth, he was a man.”
While the Bible, including John (and against Gnosticism/docetism) teaches that Jesus was a man, only biased reading may make one affirm that “the gospel of John … teaches that the Son pre-existed his earthly life”. Including John 8:58.

@Mario:

“Perhaps there is logical compatibility, but how far would you push that compatibility? Would the Philonian deuteros theos that Christian theologians started flirting with as early as Justin Martyr be compatible with monotheism?”

I guess it would depend, at least in part, how one defines monotheism. As many scholars who have addressed this question critically have observed, biblical monotheism and modern strict monotheism aren’t identical. As for how one might take a view of Philo and reshape it in light of Christ, James Dunn offered these words in reference to the Johanine prologue:

“The fact that even when describing the Logos as God/god (1.1), John may distinguish two uses of the title from each other is often noted but too little appreciated. The distinction is possibly made by the use of the definite article with theos and the absence of the definite article in the same sentence… As we see in Philo, in his exposition of Genesis 31.13 (De Somniis 1.227-30)…John’s Gospel does not attempt similar clarification in his use of God/god for the Logos… But in possibly making (or allowing to be read) a distinction between God (ho theos) and the Logos (theos) the Evangelist may have had in mind a similar qualification in the divine status to be recognized for Christ. Jesus was God, in that he made God known, in that God made himself known in and through him, in that he was God’s effective outreach to his creation and to his people. But he was not God in himself.” (Did the First Christians Worship Jesus), pp. 134 & 135

In my view the grammar of John 1:1c would best be represented in English as “the Word was a god” (this harmonizes with the Coptic translation), but I don’t insist that this is the only plausible translation. Most people recoil at such a rendering because they believe that it necessarily implies polytheism, yet that conclusion no more follows than the conclusion that calling Moses (Ex 7:1 LXX) or an Israelite King (Ps. 45:6) or a judges (Ps. 82) G-god(s) implies polytheism.

Dunn would reject the notion that Jesus was called “a god” at John 1:1, yet his understanding is certainly plausible, in context.

“But the incompatibility that I am speaking of is not so much in terms of logic as of history of Christian doctrines. In case you have failed to notice, on the other hand, Dale has designed the “additional material related to” his main entry on “Trinity” at SEP (in particular “History of Trinitarian Doctrines” and “Unitarianism”) in such a way that it appears as though the full-fledged “trinity” (“co-equal, co-eternal”, “three-personal” – “three hypostases and one ousia”) appeared out of the blue at some (not well identified) point in the 4th century, while everything that went before (everything, not only Justin Martyr, but even Tertullian, even Origen, of course Arius, and even the two Eusebii) can be rubricated (with some … er … massage) as “unitarianism”.”

I personally consider the beliefs of the anti-Nicene fathers to be too removed in both time and intellectual place to be of much value in answering questions about how Jesus or monotheism was understood by the first Christians.

“And no, a “pre-existent” spiritual being (say, an angel, as you exemplify), more specifically a person (that is a conscious entity endowed – at least – with reason, freedom and will) could NEVER be/become a genuine human being. No human being that was “donned” by a “pre-existent person” (theologians prefer the fancier expression “assumed human nature”) would be a genuine human being. At most you could call him/her a possessed human being. Yikes!”

I disagree. I think that the gospel of John at least teaches that the Son preexisted his earthly life, and the Bible as a whole teaches that, while on earth, he was a man. In my reading of Philippians 2 as well Jesus existed in heaven in God’s form, and gave that existence up and became a man. How that is to be worked out philosophically is another question, but I believe that this is what Scripture teaches.

“Hard to confront for someone who thinks that the “pre-existence” of the Son of God is compatible with “Unitarianism” …”

I don’t see the logical connection. A person who is not God could begin to exist at the time of his physical birth on earth or he could exist before his incarnation. A person could even exist eternally yet not be God, logically speaking, unless one assumes that God’s identity is defined in relation to time. For example, some have argued that angels were created before the physical universe. If that’s true, and there’s no biblical reason to deny it, as far as I’m aware, then angels share God’s relation to time, yet are still creatures whose existence depends on God.

Hey there Dale, I really enjoyed your interview with the ‘benignly’ tritheistic Swinburne. Actually I think his position is the only one which really does justice to the claims that Trinitarians want to make about the persons being distinct and each of them qualifying as a divine thing in their own right. As hard as the words “I do believe in 3 gods in the sense that I believe in 3 distinct personal entities which instantiate the divine nature” are to say, they really should just bite the bullet and admit it. But I’m actually commenting to say that I came across a really interesting Master’s program thesis paper that makes extensive use of your writing. It is called “Trinitarian Theorizing and Mystery as a Way Forward” by one Matthew Conniry. Don’t know if he ever consulted you but his paper references you a lot and I thought I’d call it your attention in case you weren’t already aware. I haven’t finished reading it but it’s great so far! Here’s a link: http://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=seminary_masters

@ Dale

“Simply look at, e.g. Mackie’s The Miracle of Theism, Richard Gale’s On the Nature and Existence of God, William Rowe’s Philosophy of Religion textbook, Graham Oppy’s Arguing about Gods. All leading atheists, all discussing the arguments at length, without the idea that Kant decisively refuted them all.”
Let’s just consider the first on your list, Mackie’s The Miracle of Theism. I have, and have read the book, and I am not aware that Mackie conclusively (or simply persuasively) argues against Kant’s basic objection that the existence of anything (be it God or the Fortunate Isles) cannot be the object of a necessary demonstration. Otherwise, please provide the relative relevant reference: then we can discuss it …

“I know the view that Kant destroyed all theistic proofs lives on in some circles, but really not at all in analytic philosophy.”
Then perhaps, I surmise that the problem may be with the analytic philosophers that tread into territories that seem more appropriate for medieval scholasticism …

“It is …. an idiosyncratic view that Kant wiped the board clean [regarding the validity of “proofs” for the existence of God]. In the last 60 years or so, there’s been a large literature in philosophy of religion produced by atheists, theists, and agnostics, which does not, generally, consider Kant’s objections to be decisive.”

Really? Discounting the “theists”, can you provide at least one reference (possibly with relevant quotation) of “atheists” and “agnostics”, who would have relevantly argued, “the last 60 years or so”, against the conclusiveness of Kant’s objections?
Thank you.

ERRATA: “you would have shown”
CORRIGE: “Swinburne would have shown”