Notes on God in the Gospel of John

[Thomas]

All John had to do to unambiguously show readers Jesus is ho theos is write the following: "These are written so you may believe Jesus is the Almighty God."

But the writer didn't . . .

Or perhaps he did ...

 

[Thomas]

This is a really good point that can be broadened... it seems to be the difference between modern day fundies and everybody else - the facticity of various biblical accounts. Fundies insist everything is literal/factual, other believers argue that it doesn't have to be to support theological beliefs.

And as ever, there's a middle ground.

The Fundies insist everything is literal/factual, the other extreme that nothing is ... and most likely somewhere between those two poles lies the truth.

 

[Ahanu]

Have you a reference to this? Ehrman regards it as authentic.

Reference to what? John 28.29-31 being inauthentic? My reference is John's narrative. Yes, if your reading is the right one, I think we should discard verses 29-31.

You've rather made a point by the need to insert a parenthetical text to make the citation say what you want it to say.

'In that day' may refer to the day of His Resurrection, but not the only reading. Reading in the context of the Chapter, it is equally possible that Jesus is talking of Pentecost:
"... And I shall entreat the Father, and he will give you another advocate, that he may be with you throughout the age, the Spirit of the truth, which the cosmos cannot receive because it neither sees nor knows it; you know it because it abides with you and will be within you" (v16-17).
So we have 'another advocate' whom the Father will send at the Son's

John's timeline is not the same as Luke/Acts, so it sounds like you are conflating accounts. Raymond Brown notes: “It is bad methodology to harmonize John and Acts . . .” As other scholars have argued, restricting Pentecost to a single event (e.g., Acts 2, John 20.22) is neither necessary nor helpful.

On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.

Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”

John 14.20 states: "In that day you will know that I am in my Father . . ."

So when did this "knowing" that "I am in my Father" happen? Well, John 20.28 says Thomas realizes the Father is in the Son ("My Lord and my God"). There is no need to wait for Acts.

Traditionally Pentecost (the Third Month festival) was about making a covenant, not just about a harvest. The Johannine Pentecost (John 1–2) is modeled after Sinai (Exodus 19), and it sets the stage for the finale. Jesus is like a new Moses mediating a New Covenant. On day 6 God descends in fire and cloud. Similarly, John 2.11 states: "This beginning of signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory."

When John is thinking of allos parakletos, he is thinking that this second Paraclete promised later should functionally be another Moses-like figure who brings the next Covenant. According to Jubilees, all the covenants (e.g., Noah, Abraham, Moses) were made in the third month, which is the month the Israelites arrive at Sinai (Exod 19.1). Similar to the thought in Jubilees here, the True Prophet appears appears cyclically.

Not only does John view Jesus as a new Moses, he also views Jesus as the man who is the Branch who builds God's house (Zech 6.12). When John calls Jesus "the Nazarene" (John 18.5), the author is actually proclaiming him as this special Branch (Isaiah 11.1).

Since the first Paraclete is the Branch who builds the Temple, allos parakletos would be the next Branch sent to continue that building work.

He is "present with us at all times" (Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 2.22). Thomas’s confession ("My Lord and my God") is the recognition of this despite the departure of Christ's physical body.

 

[Thomas]

Reference to what? John 28.29-31 being inauthentic? My reference is John's narrative. Yes, if your reading is the right one, I think we should discard verses 29-31.

When you say 'the right one' d'you mean a version of John in which the verse is missing? As far as I know, scholars regard John 20 as original in its entirety, no-one suggests ending the chapter at v28.

Can you explain why you think 29-31 are an interpolation?

 

[Thomas]

John's timeline is not the same as Luke/Acts, so it sounds like you are conflating accounts.

I was working the possible interpretations of John in the light of later events – but my use of the term 'Pentecost' was ill-advised, I quite agree.

So when did this "knowing" that "I am in my Father" happen? Well, John 20.28 says Thomas realizes the Father is in the Son ("My Lord and my God"). There is no need to wait for Acts.

Quite.

In fact, John 20:8 John enigmatically says "So the other disciple, the one having come first to the tomb (John), also entered, and he saw and had faith" – so the question of who knew quite what and when is never easily nor clearly resolved.

Traditionally Pentecost (the Third Month festival) was about making a covenant, not just about a harvest.

If we're taking time out for a Pentecost excursus, then I'd say Pentecost stands in relation to the Passover, being the Festival of Weeks from that event, and established in relation to that event. Whether there was actually a gathering in a house is a matter for scholars to debate, whether, if there was a gathering, what happened was the descent of the Holy Spirit, or a collective ecstacy, again is up for scholarly grabs.

What we do know is only Luke mentions it – and it seems to me Luke presents a legendary narrative to embody principles already accepted as true by the community – the Resurrection, the Ascension and the coming of the Holy Spirit in Jesus' name through baptism.

The Johannine Pentecost (John 1–2) is modeled after Sinai (Exodus 19), and it sets the stage for the finale. Jesus is like a new Moses mediating a New Covenant. On day 6 God descends in fire and cloud. Similarly, John 2.11 states: "This beginning of signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory."

OK.

When John is thinking of allos parakletos, he is thinking that this second Paraclete promised later should functionally be another Moses-like figure who brings the next Covenant.

A curious reading, when everything Jesus says about the Paraclete is not about 'another figure' but about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Nor is there any indication of 'the next Covenant' – but rather the enlightening and affirmation of the message and mission of Jesus.

Not only does John view Jesus as a new Moses, he also views Jesus as the man who is the Branch who builds God's house (Zech 6.12). When John calls Jesus "the Nazarene" (John 18.5), the author is actually proclaiming him as this special Branch (Isaiah 11.1).

We're jumping around a bit here. Two points I would make:
One is that it is not John who calls Jeses "the Nazarene", but those who came to arrest Him. The other is that, for John, it's irrelevant whether Jesus is from Bethlehem or Nazareth. In fact his Gospel supports Nazareth, but more importantly for John, Jesus has come down directly from the Father, not through any earthly heritage; He is from above – the Incarnate Son of God. We can fairly assume John knows the tradition of Jesus’s virginal conception and birth in Bethlehem (Matthew and Luke) but not only does he choose to ignore it, he actually brings up the criticism of Jesus by his contemporaries as being from Galilean Nazareth, and not of the line of David.

Since the first Paraclete is the Branch who builds the Temple, allos parakletos would be the next Branch sent to continue that building work.

As for the relationship between Jesus and the Holy Spirit, we've been over this before.

 

[Thomas]

All that aside, you still have not made the case for your interpolation into the text of John 14:20.

 

[Ahanu]

All that aside, you still have not made the case for your interpolation into the text of John 14:20.

Please use the correct terminology. You should write interpretation, not interpolation. Interpolation is when a scribe inserts new words into the original manuscript to make it look like the author wrote them (e.g., see Comma Johanneum in 1 John 5.7). Interpretation is when a commentator adds words in brackets to clarify the meaning. Anybody here can go back and see I inserted brackets.

We're jumping around a bit here. Two points I would make:
One is that it is not John who calls Jeses "the Nazarene", but those who came to arrest Him.

I am making the point that another (allos) Paraclete is similar in this way too. Both are Branches that build the Temple. Many 1st century Jews, including John, merged the lineage of David (Isaiah 11) with the building of the Temple (Zechariah 6).

Also, there is more than just one reference:

“Philip found Nathanael and told him, ‘We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph’” (John 1.45).

The other is that, for John, it's irrelevant whether Jesus is from Bethlehem or Nazareth.

Just like the word Nazarene, the term Nazareth is derived from the Hebrew root NZR (Netzer), which is the word used in Isaiah 11.1: "A shoot shall come out from the stump of Jesse [David's father] and a branch (netzer) shall grow out of his roots.”

In fact his Gospel supports Nazareth, but more importantly for John, Jesus has come down directly from the Father, not through any earthly heritage; He is from above – the Incarnate Son of God.

No, John proclaims Jesus as the Branch of Jesse. John highlights it through the etymological pun we clearly see above and elsewhere in his writing (e.g., John 19.19).

As stated above, the Branch is the Messiah that builds the Temple (Isaiah 11.1; Zechariah 6.12). In fact, this interpretation is no different than what we find in the Dead Sea Scrolls!

 

[Ahanu]

I think John uses the fig tree (John 1.48) to reference Zechariah 3.10, which announces the arrival of the Branch:

"Nathanael says to Him, 'From where do You know me?' Jesus answered and said to him, 'Before Philip’s calling you, being under the fig tree, I saw you.'"

 

[Thomas]

Please use the correct terminology.

OK, my bad. I still question the interpretation – it's a reading, but not necessarily the correct one.

 

[Ahanu]

A curious reading, when everything Jesus says about the Paraclete is not about 'another figure' but about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

You overemphasize John 14.26, using it to override clear verses that say otherwise (John 16.13), and then marking such verses that say otherwise as simply metaphorical language.

John 16.13: “He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears.” In the context of John, hearing and speaking are the primary functions of a - drumroll, please - Messenger:

John 8.26: “I say to the world only what I have heard from him.”
John 12.49: “For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken.”

A prophet, according to Jewish tradition, is a mouthpiece. John uses the language of a Prophet like Moses (Deuteronomy 18:18: “I will put my words in his mouth”) when he writes “will not speak on his own.”

So how could you possibly conclude it is a curious reading? A metaphorical reading, however, is a curious reading: Why would a Spirit need to hear what it already knows by nature of being divine? Jesus was a person. He needed to hear and be taught by the Father. Do the same rules apply to the Paraclete or not here? According to John, the answer is yes (14.16).

What is even stranger about your reading? If the Paraclete is only the Holy Spirit indwelling in the heart, the verb ἀναγγέλλω (anangello) is a strangely external word to use (John 16.13). However, it makes great sense in a Jewish context in the 1st century, because ἀναγγέλλω (anangello) was often used for the proclamation of the Law or the decree of a king. John always uses ἀναγγέλλω (anangello) for a sent messenger:

“When He [the Messiah] comes . . . He will tell (ἀναγγελεῖ) us all things” (John 4.25).

Furthermore, if your reading were the correct one, John would have written heteros, which means “another of a different kind” in 14.16.

John is clearly saying that a second messenger of the same kind as the first is coming to declare things that haven't been said yet.

Nor is there any indication of 'the next Covenant' –

John 16.12.

 

[Ahanu]

When you say 'the right one' d'you mean a version of John in which the verse is missing? As far as I know, scholars regard John 20 as original in its entirety, no-one suggests ending the chapter at v28.

Can you explain why you think 29-31 are an interpolation?

Thomas, I am simply saying your Trinitarian interpretation of verse 28 makes the ending of the chapter (verses 29-31) problematic. If your reading is the correct one, then the narrative ending no longer makes sense.

John’s “my lord and my God” is just not a clear indicator of the Trinitarian position. In the ancient Near East and within Jewish law, there was a well-known dictum: “A man’s agent is as the man himself.” Therefore, if the disciples call Jesus God, they are not necessarily making a statement about his metaphysical substance. In other words, when Thomas sees the risen Jesus, he sees the agent of God, so the titles lord and God are about what Jesus does and who he represents, not what he is made of.

 

[Thomas]

John’s “my lord and my God” is just not a clear indicator of the Trinitarian position.

I accept that, nor would I argue it as such. Rather, to me, it is a clear indicator of a 'high Christology', arguing for the divinity of Christ.

To respond to the points you make:
The 'Trinitarian position', we both know, were somewhat diffuse and variable until the councils of the 4th century (Nicaea and Constantinople), so we're in agreement that I'd be jumping the gun by claiming this is a Trinitarian declaration.

However, the divinity of Christ goes back to the earliest Christian writers (eg Polycarp and Ignatius); acknowledgement of three divine persons was there by the late second century, the term 'Trinity' was used by Latin writers in the third, at least 100 years prior to Nicaea, and the 'metaphysical' nature of Christ continued to be discussed, although dogmatically defined at Chalcedon (451CE), the debate continued ... and indeed, goes on today.

Therefore, if the disciples call Jesus God, they are not necessarily making a statement about his metaphysical substance.

My emphasis, as I read it as a simple affirmation of, rather than a metaphysical statement about.

In other words, when Thomas sees the risen Jesus, he sees the agent of God ...

Or he sees himself in the presence of God, Jesus being more than a prophet or priest. The term 'agent' is open to a variety of interpretation.

... so the titles lord and God are about what Jesus does and who he represents, not what he is made of.

Again, I rather see it as a statement of who He is, as who Thomas sees himself in the presence of.

v28: "ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou"
Thomas addresses Jesus as ho kyrios, using the honorific article, in common with the Greek rendering of the Hebrew Adonai in the Septuagint, the preferred text for God's unutterable name. Thomas adds ho theos, again using the honorific, as if to rule out any ambiguity. As teacher / prophet / sage, Jesus might precariously be kurios, without the article, but not theos[/], with it.

Verse 29 is Jesus' response to Thomas' declaration, in which He does not challenge the straightforward meaning of the text, in which Thomas addresses Jesus as Lord and God, and verses 30-31 are the author's postscript to his Gospel. Notably the last part of of 31: "... that in having faith you might have life in his (Jesus') name."
This, of course, is idolatry if Jesus is not God, going against the Decalogue and the Shema Israel.

 

[Ahanu]

I accept that, nor would I argue it as such. Rather, to me, it is a clear indicator of a 'high Christology', arguing for the divinity of Christ.

I can agree with that . . . but it depends . . .

What do you mean by divinity of Christ? Ontological identity with the God? If so, I disagree. Even Paula Fredrikson describes herself as a member of the High Christology Club. But that club has some disagreement. Jesus is divine only in the sense that he is the perfect agent and symbol who renders the Father active in the world, not because he is of the same substance and eliminates his subordination to the Father.

To respond to the points you make:
The 'Trinitarian position', we both know, were somewhat diffuse and variable until the councils of the 4th century (Nicaea and Constantinople), so we're in agreement that I'd be jumping the gun by claiming this is a Trinitarian declaration.

However, the divinity of Christ goes back to the earliest Christian writers (eg Polycarp and Ignatius); acknowledgement of three divine persons was there by the late second century, the term 'Trinity' was used by Latin writers in the third, at least 100 years prior to Nicaea, and the 'metaphysical' nature of Christ continued to be discussed, although dogmatically defined at Chalcedon (451CE), the debate continued ... and indeed, goes on today.

Why should I care more about guys like Polycarp and Ignatius, who were writing in Koine Greek, to Gentile audiences over and above the entire Aramaic-speaking stream of Christianity (e.g., Ebionites, Elchasaites) that could represent more authentic belief forms of earliest Christianity than the later Greek-influenced orthodoxy? Methinks seeing the Aramaic-linked True Prophet doctrine as a later innovation and speculation from Syria as you do is nonsense.

Early Christianity was quite diverse. You have a bias for looking solely at the Hellenized Greek faction of early Christianity.

My emphasis, as I read it as a simple affirmation of, rather than a metaphysical statement about.

So, for you, verse 28 is a simple affirmation of, rather than a metaphysical statement about, but then later argue that the grammar proves Jesus is the God of the Shema, and that anything less is "idolatry if Jesus is not God." Make it make sense.

Or he sees himself in the presence of God, Jesus being more than a prophet or priest. The term 'agent' is open to a variety of interpretation.

In Jewish custom, the shaliach (the sent one) carries the full authority and presence of the sender. To reject the agent is to reject the principal. To honor the agent is to honor the principal. See Exodus 3's the Angel of the Lord. This figure appears in a burning bush and speaks as "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," but is not ontologically identical to God.

Also, I am not saying Jesus is just a prophet or priest.

Again, I rather see it as a statement of who He is, as who Thomas sees himself in the presence of.

v28: "ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou"
Thomas addresses Jesus as ho kyrios, using the honorific article, in common with the Greek rendering of the Hebrew Adonai in the Septuagint, the preferred text for God's unutterable name. Thomas adds ho theos, again using the honorific, as if to rule out any ambiguity. As teacher / prophet / sage, Jesus might precariously be kurios, without the article, but not theos[/], with it.

You have multiple problems here.

First, you have a big historical hurdle after the destruction of the Second Temple - a time in which the early Christians fled to other locations afterwards. In other words, it is truly a black box.

You do realize the historical Apostle Thomas, the original Jerusalem community, and Jesus himself were Aramaic speakers, not Greek speakers? In their native Aramaic language, the word used for Lord (mar) did not equate to the God.

"If the Aramaic-speaking original community in Jerusalem is the ('purely Jewish') source of the identification of Jesus with God, then they would have had to have been actually think-ing in Greek, and with the LXX. Only kyrios will do that work; mar will not."
-Paula Fredrikson

Second, your argument is weak because John 1.1 says:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God (ton theon - with the article), and the Word was God (theos - without the article)."

The writer of John explicitly chose not to use the definite article for the Word here, identifying Jesus as the divine agent (theos) while reserving the article for the Father with whom the Word existed. Philo would surely understand! See "A Not-Quite Mortal Moses." If you rely on the definite article to prove ontological identity with the High God in one single verse (20.28), then John 1.1 explicitly denies that Jesus is the High God. John also purposefully omits the article in other crucial places (John 10.33) to maintain a distinction Philo would readily recognize:

“'We are not stoning you for any good work,' they replied, 'but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.'"

It is clearly a oneness of function, not an ontological oneness in being/substance.

Now you want to resolve the ambiguity in John 1.1 with 20.28. Make it make sense. Ambiguity stacked upon ambiguity.

As stated earlier, in the ancient Mediterranean, a king’s representative or a divine messenger was often addressed as the one who sent them. This reasoning makes perfect sense of 20.28. John 20.28 is the recognition of Jesus as a divine image. Picture yourself living in the ancient world. When you stood before a cult statue of Zeus, you addressed the statue as Zeus. You weren't saying the stone was the god in a Trinitarian sense.

Third, if you use the article in 20.28 to prove Jesus is the High God, you have to ignore John 17.3 along with the verses mentioned above:
1. Jesus calling the Father the "only true God" in John 17.3.
2. The lack of the article in John 1.1 and 10.33.

Verse 29 is Jesus' response to Thomas' declaration, in which He does not challenge the straightforward meaning of the text, in which Thomas addresses Jesus as Lord and God, and verses 30-31 are the author's postscript to his Gospel. Notably the last part of of 31: "... that in having faith you might have life in his (Jesus') name."
This, of course, is idolatry if Jesus is not God, going against the Decalogue and the Shema Israel.

He does not challenge Thomas because he is finally getting it - that is, not that Jesus is the Father, but that Jesus is the perfect manifest presence of the Father. Throughout John, Jesus says, "The one who has seen me has seen the Father" (14.9). Jesus is the divine image, much like a living cult statue that actually functions. For Thomas to address that image as God is indeed correct for someone encountering the Father through the Son. To correct Thomas would be to deny that he is the Father’s authorized representative.

 

[Thomas]

I can agree with that . . . but it depends . . .

Well, clearly we have different views – that we are going to disagree is a given.

Why should I care more about guys like Polycarp and Ignatius, who were writing in Koine Greek, to Gentile audiences over and above the entire Aramaic-speaking stream of Christianity (e.g., Ebionites, Elchasaites) ...

Whoa, steady, LOL. Because of the diversity of proto-Christian orthodoxy, which included the Aramaic speaking world?

... that could represent more authentic belief forms of earliest Christianity than the later Greek-influenced orthodoxy?

It's somewhat partisan to describe early forms as authentic and by inference 'later Greek-influenced orthodoxy' as less so.
No thought, not even the New Testament scribes, were immune to Greek thought, nor indeed were the likes of Philo or Josephus.

Methinks seeing the Aramaic-linked True Prophet doctrine as a later innovation and speculation from Syria as you do is nonsense.

OK.

Early Christianity was quite diverse. You have a bias for looking solely at the Hellenized Greek faction of early Christianity.

Not really. Again, I think this is an anachronism, as the world was to some degree 'Hellenized Greek'.

So, for you, verse 28 is a simple affirmation of, rather than a metaphysical statement about, but then later argue that the grammar proves Jesus is the God of the Shema, and that anything less is "idolatry if Jesus is not God." Make it make sense.

I don't have to make it make sense, it does.

It can also be made to say other things, depending upon one's inclination and choices. There is no definitive and inarguable one-and-only way of reading.

I read it according to my orthodox conviction. I can defend an orthodox reading of it, I can cite saints and scholars in support of my defence, but I do not expect that to convince you, as someone who holds a different conviction.

You have multiple problems here.

I really don't. You have multiple objections, all of which can be answered. Orthodoxy finds none of them compelling or irrefutable.

 

[Ahanu]

Well, clearly we have different views – that we are going to disagree is a given.


Whoa, steady, LOL. Because of the diversity of proto-Christian orthodoxy, which included the Aramaic speaking world?

Well, you cited Polycarp and Ignatius as examples. They did not live in the Aramaic-speaking world. Instead, they lived in the Greek-speaking world of the Roman Empire. You can't conclude that since they all lived in the Hellenized world that there is no distinction in ways of thinking between a native speaker of Aramaic and a native speaker of Greek. Language is more than just some container for our ideas; it is a framework that shapes them.

Now the writer of the Book of Elchasai lived in the Aramaic-speaking world. His book was written around the Parthian War (114-117CE) in Aramaic.

It's somewhat partisan to describe early forms as authentic and by inference 'later Greek-influenced orthodoxy' as less so.

Not really. Again, I think this is an anachronism, as the world was to some degree 'Hellenized Greek'.

But there remains a theological disconnect from the original Aramaic-speaking Christian community. Consider my earlier example: In Aramaic, the term for lord was mar, which was not a designation for God in biblical Targumim. Traces of this remain in Paul’s letters, such as the prayer Maranatha (“Our Lord, come!”) in 1 Corinthians 16.22. It remained a term of address for a human leader or social superior. The Septuagint used Kyrios as the replacement for the Divine Name, so the word already had divinity baked into it for Greek speakers. Fredriksen goes so far as to conclude this “effectively severs Jerusalem [or primarily Aramaic-speaking Christians] as the source” of the very high Christology found in later Greek orthodoxy. When an Aramaic-speaking Jew called Jesus Lord (Mar), they were calling him a Master or Messiah. When a Greek-speaking Gentile heard Jesus called Lord (Kyrios), they heard Yahweh.

Another example is giant beings. Epiphanius spoke multiple languages, including Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic, but he primarily used Greek logic and thought in Greek categories. Epiphanius mocked the huge dimensions of a giant Christ as fantasy or tall tales, showing he was still culturally blind regardless of being multi-lingual.

 

[Thomas]

Well, you cited Polycarp and Ignatius as examples.

Within the context of the discussion, yes – examples of a doctrine of Divine Incarnation, that's all.

They did not live in the Aramaic-speaking world. Instead, they lived in the Greek-speaking world of the Roman Empire.

Judea was in the Greek speaking world of the Roman Empire. Greek was known to the educated elite in Jerusalem.

But what can we know? Hebrew and Aramaic would have been used by the Jewish communities of Smyrna (Polycarp) and Antioch (Ignatius). It's doubted that Ignatius came from Jewish stock, whereas it's thought Polycarp did, but both might have had some knowledge of Aramaic.

Mark (possibly John-Mark) likely knew Aramaic, it's assumed Matthew would be fluent, Luke most likely not, John (possibly John the Elder) again, most likely fluent. Paul would likely be fluent, too.

So not that far removed.

You can't conclude that since they all lived in the Hellenized world that there is no distinction in ways of thinking between a native speaker of Aramaic and a native speaker of Greek. Language is more than just some container for our ideas; it is a framework that shapes them.

OK. I see that as providential. Greek was favoured as the language of the empire, whereas Aramaic was relatively local.

But there remains a theological disconnect from the original Aramaic-speaking Christian community. Consider my earlier example: In Aramaic, the term for lord was mar, which was not a designation for God in biblical Targumim. Traces of this remain in Paul’s letters, such as the prayer Maranatha (“Our Lord, come!”) in 1 Corinthians 16.22. It remained a term of address for a human leader or social superior. The Septuagint used Kyrios as the replacement for the Divine Name, so the word already had divinity baked into it for Greek speakers.

I'm not sure it's that cut and dried.

I've had a look round. The Judaism Stack Exchange offers:
"The Peshitta Old Testament (which is usually thought to have been translated by Jews) routinely uses ܡܪܝܐ marya for the Tetragrammaton (like Hebrew אדני or Greek kyrios), but Jewish Aramaic Targumim always leave the Tetragrammaton untranslated ...

The word can be used to refer to God, see e.g. Daniel (5:23):
וְעַ֣ל מָרֵֽא־שְׁמַיָּ֣א ׀ הִתְרוֹמַ֡מְתָּ – You exalted yourself against the Lord of Heaven

However, the term mar, and related words, do not necessarily imply divinity. It's contextual. It is used in Scripture as an honourific for humans, e.g. in Daniel (4:16 & 21).

Mar in Aramaic is equivalent to Adon in Hebrew - sometimes refers to G-d, sometimes is a respectful way to refer to a very human being, and occasionally is used to refer to angels.

Q: Do you agree that is better to translate Maran as "Our master" and not "Our Lord"?
A: The terms are synonymous. The latter has a particularly Christian ring to it, so that would be an advantage to the former, but I see nothing inherently wrong with the latter. After all, the term is frequently used to refer to humans with no divine implications.

HaShem (God) is referred to as Maran in a number of Aramaic prayers, such as מרן די בשמיא לך מתחננן, found in Selichos, and brought in Seder Rav Amram (Seder Selichos/Ashmoros Page 41). Another example is the use of the term מרן די בשמיא in יקום פורקן.

These show that in Jewish tradition there are examples that show that Maran by itself (meaning "our Master") refers to HaShem."

+++

Thus I'd say mar and kyrios are closely related terms, both meaning "lord" or "master", and they function similarly in religious contexts. In the same way they were used as respectful terms of address towards individuals.

The Peshitta (Syrian Aramaic Bible) uses marya (the emphatic form of mar) where the Greek New Testament uses kyrios. This indicates a direct semantic equivalence in function.

The fact that St Paul uses an Aramaic compound, "Maranatha" ("Come, Lord", 1 Corinthians 16:22) suggests a direct correspondence. Likewise the Didache (10:6).

Fredriksen goes so far as to conclude this “effectively severs Jerusalem [or primarily Aramaic-speaking Christians] as the source” of the very high Christology found in later Greek orthodoxy. When an Aramaic-speaking Jew called Jesus Lord (Mar), they were calling him a Master or Messiah. When a Greek-speaking Gentile heard Jesus called Lord (Kyrios), they heard Yahweh.

I think she's over-stating the case.

 

[Ahanu]

I think she's over-stating the case.

Fredriksen, citing linguistic experts like Prof. Steven Fassberg at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, argues that in the Aramaic Targumim (which is the vernacular translations used in first century synagogues), mar did not function as a standard designation for God. Fassberg notes that while the later Peshitta used marya God, the first century Targums used different designations.

Again, she is not arguing that mar was never applied to God, but that it did not function as a standard designation or a replacement for the Divine Name in first century synagogue vernacular.

You example from Daniel is a composite title ("Lord of Heaven"), which is linguistically different from using the standalone word mar to mean God.

As for the the Peshitta, it represents a later stage of Aramaic/Syriac where marya became a technical term for God. Using the Peshitta to define how a first century Jew in Judea understood the word mar will not work.

The Jewish liturgical prayers you cite date from periods much later than the first century, so they will not work either.

 

[Ahanu]

Judea was in the Greek speaking world of the Roman Empire. Greek was known to the educated elite in Jerusalem.

So? That the "educated elite" in Jerusalem knew Greek is irrelevant.

What does that have to do with the leadership of the Christian community in Jerusalem (James, Peter, and John)? This is the Aramaic-speaking original community. Their theology in this community was carried out in Aramaic, so the leaders at the very top of the Christian movement were not thinking in Greek. Are you proposing they were? That they were interacting with the educated elite in Jerusalem in Greek? If they were using mar, they could not have been identifying Jesus with the God of Israel, because that relies on the Greek Septuagint translation of Kyrios. As Fredriksen says: "If the Aramaic-speaking original community in Jerusalem is the ('purely Jewish') source of the identification of Jesus with God, then they would have had to have been actually think-ing in Greek, and with the LXX. Only kyrios will do that work; mar will not."

As for Paul (who speaks both Aramaic and Greek), he further developed his ideas within the Greek-speaking culture, and he largely depended on the Greek Septuagint. He was reportedly a Roman citizen (Acts 16.37). He was a bit of an outlier from the original inner circle, as disputes with that group prove.

It does not matter whether Paul or Matthew were bilingual. To say "Jesus is the Lord God of the Old Testament" only works when you are reading and thinking in the Greek Septuagint.

Calling someone kyrios in prayer was not exclusively used for the High God the Second Temple time period anyways. It was also used for lesser divine beings.

Fredriksen points to Sefer ha-Razim, in which a Jewish believer addresses the Sun as kyrios, and she says that other texts venerate angels. Her point is that even when Paul's communities did use the Greek kyrios for Jesus, it did not necessarily mean God.

"Taking seriously that mar—an Aramaic outcropping still visible in Paul’s let-ters (1 Cor 16:22)—was an early term for Jesus means letting go of the divine-identification-through-kyrios argument, or at least letting go of Jerusalem as its source.

What else? Prayer in Paul’s communities seems to have occurred in Jesus’ name; but the prayers themselves are offered to God, not to Jesus. And when, at his parousia, the knees of superhumans bend and tongues confess that kyrios Iêsous Christos, it is God, not Jesus, who is glorified (Phil 2:10–11). By contrast, many other late Second-Temple texts invoke angels and venerate them (espe-cially in the Scrolls).33 In Sefer ha-Razim 4.61–63, the Jewish adept bows down to and addresses the Sun as kyrios. Naming Jesus in prayer, even calling him kyrios, are indeed practices specific to Pauline communities. But within the broader context of Second-Temple and even post-Second-Temple Jewish devo-tional practices, Paul’s do not seem egregious."
-Paula Fredriksen

Paul's communities flourished, but the smaller Aramaic-speaking community almost vanished:

"We have no writings from the original Aramaic-speaking base; no record preserved in the New Testament canon, of what ultimately became of Christ's original Jewish followers in Jerusalem. Presumably the Roman destruction of the city in 70 CE swept away the founding community there, whether through death, through captivity, or through forced migration. The fourth-century bishop and historian Eusebius relates that it fled to Edessa in Syria before the destruction, and eventually returned to Jerusalem."
-Paula Fredriksen

 

[Ahanu]

Not really. Again, I think this is an anachronism, as the world was to some degree 'Hellenized Greek'.

To some degree. Some more than others.

Greek culture was widespread, but the original Jerusalem leadership prayed, listened to, and read scripture in Aramaic.

The Greek faction read the Greek Septuagint, where the unutterable name of God (YHWH) had been translated into the Greek word Kyrios (Lord). This allowed them to take OT verses about YHWH and apply them to Jesus, who they also called Kyrios.

But the Aramaic speakers in Jerusalem used the Targumim, which never translated YHWH into Mar. They left the Tetragrammaton untranslated or used symbols. Identifying Jesus directly with the High God simply did not exist in the Aramaic faction.

 

[Thomas]

Fredriksen, citing linguistic experts like Prof. Steven Fassberg at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, argues that in the Aramaic Targumim (which is the vernacular translations used in first century synagogues), mar did not function as a standard designation for God. Fassberg notes that while the later Peshitta used marya God, the first century Targums used different designations.

OK.

But to re-iterate (from a very quick search)

Again, she is not arguing that mar was never applied to God, but that it did not function as a standard designation or a replacement for the Divine Name in first century synagogue vernacular.

OK.

You example from Daniel is a composite title ("Lord of Heaven"), which is linguistically different from using the standalone word mar to mean God.

Nevertheless.

A quick search offers:
"In the Targumim, Mar is often combined with Yah (a shortened form of YHWH) to form Mar-Yah (ܡܪܝܐ in Syriac/Aramaic), meaning 'The Lord YHWH'. This usage is especially prominent in the Peshitta (Syriac Christian Bible), where MRYA replaces YHWH consistently."
Which would seem to agree with Fredriksen, however, it goes on:
"While Jewish Targums like Onkelos typically leave the Tetragrammaton untranslated (as יי), other Aramaic traditions, including liturgical and later Jewish prayers, use Mar or Maran ("our Lord") to refer to God."
Thus, the origin of Mar as a divine title in the Targums lies in the Aramaic linguistic and liturgical tradition, serving both as a respectful circumlocution for God and reflecting broader Semitic usage of 'lord' in religious contexts."

The point I would emphasise is that the Targumim did not translate the Tetragrammaton, so this rather qualifies the argument Fredriksen is making?

As for the the Peshitta, it represents a later stage of Aramaic/Syriac where marya became a technical term for God. Using the Peshitta to define how a first century Jew in Judea understood the word mar will not work.
The Jewish liturgical prayers you cite date from periods much later than the first century, so they will not work either.

OK. Then I refer to both 1 Corinthians 16:22:
εἴ τις οὐ φιλεῖ τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, ἤτω ἀνάθεμα Μαρὰν ἀθα
"If anyone does not cherish the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed. Marana-Tha (Our Lord, Come)"
Paul uses an Aramaic phrase, and clearly in the context of his Christology, and clearly a phrase in common usage, in the mid century (53-57CE).

Likewise Didache 10:13-14, late 1st century:
"If any man is holy, let him come;
if any man is not, let him repent. Maran Atha. Amen."

Both Aramaic, both 1st century, and both use Lord in a religious context, and furthermore seem to imply an Aramaic idiom.