Notes on God in the Gospel of John

Thomas

Thomas

So it goes ...
Veteran Member
Messages
16,071
Reaction score
5,341
Points
108
Location
London UK
In Greek, and in the context of 1st century Jewish and Hellenistic metaphysics, the language of the Prologue to John's gospel is nowhere near as definitive as translations often make it seem.

The term Logos had acquired a very particular religious significance as well. For Philo of Alexandria, it infers a kind of 'second-order divinity,' the mediating principle between God the Most High and creation. In late antiquity, in pagan, Jewish and Christian circles, God as the absolute transcendent does not engage with the world directly. God's presence in the world was seen as theophany (Gk theophaneia, 'appearance of God'), as a manifestation of His presence in sensible and thus accessible form.

The Logos was, to many Jews and Christians, the subject of all the divine theophanies of Hebrew scripture. Many early Christian apologists thought of God’s Logos as having been generated just prior to creation, in order to act as God’s artisan and administrator of the created order. (This question of the Logos' origin was central to the Arian dispute.)

From early on, theologians differed in their interpretation of John 1:1 because of the absence, perhaps a significant absence, of the article.

As Hart points out, "the article is omitted in the latter case simply because the word theos functions as a predicate there, and typically in Greek the predicate would need no article. Yet this rule tends not to hold when the predication is one of personal identity; moreover, the syntax is ambiguous as regards which substantive should be regarded as the subject and which the predicate; though Greek is an inflected language, and hence more syntactically malleable than modern Western tongues, the order of words is not a matter of complete indifference; and one might even translate καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (kai theos én ho logos) as "and (this) god was the Logos." But the issue becomes at once both clearer and more inadjudicable at verse 18, where again the designation of the Son is theos without the article, and there the word is unquestionably the subject of the sentence." (Hart, New Testament, Postscript, p534)
I cite at length because Hart treats the problem fairly, purely as a matter of linguistics, rather than in the sense of a theological apologia.

John 1:18:
θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε ο μονογενης υιος ο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο
(The) god no one has ever seen. The only-begotten/unique son, the (one) who is in the bosom of the father, that (one) declared (him).
'Only begotten' is the translation of the Greek monogenēs, but the emphasis is on unique, the only one of a kind, class or relationship.

John 10:33-36 (Hart translation)
The Judaeans answered him, "We stone you not on account of a good work, but rather on account of blasphemy, and because you who are a man make yourself out to be (a) god. Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law 'I said, "You are gods"'? If he called gods those to whom God's Logos (ὁ λόγος θεός / ho logos theos came, and the scripture cannot be dissolved, how is it that, because I have said I am the Son of God, you say, 'You blaspheme' to one whom the Father sanctified and sent out into the cosmos?"

The Greek ho logos theos, in most translations, is "the word of God" and the Greek γίνομαι gínomai is 'came', but the more precise translation would be, from the verb 'to cause to be', "to whom God's word happened" or "with whom God's Logos was."
Again the Latin Verbum 'word' is insufficient with regard to the Greek Logos, as the mediator between the transcendent God and the cosmos.

So in these verses Jesus draws a closer union between himself as Son of the Father, v18 having already expressly stated that Jesus as Logos of God is one-of-a-kind and alone in his class of being.

Finally, we have John 20:28
και απεκριθη θωμας και ειπεν αυτω ο κυριος μου και ο θεος μου
kai thōmas apokrinomai kai eipon autos mou kyrios kai mou theos
and Thomas answered and said to him, my lord and my God!

Thomas addresses Jesus as ho theos, which unambiguously means the God, the One True God, God in the absolute sense.

He also says ho kyrios, again with the honorific article, which is the Septuagint rendering of the Hebrew Adonai, the preferred textual circumlocution for God's unutterable name.

Some scholars hold that this was the original ending of the Gospel, as it reaches a natural conclusion at this point. The last chapter then is a later addition, a kind of theological postscript that ties in with the theological prologue.

The point being, if John is uncertain or expressing any uncertainty in 1:1, then that is entirely and unequivocally resolved in 20:28.
 
Thomas mentions in the opening post: “As Hart points out, "the article is omitted in the latter case simply because the Word theos functions as a predicate there, and typically in Greek the predicate would need no article. “

While I certainly agree with Thomas’ comment that the prologue is not as “definitive” (whatever that means) as people make it out to be"I think Hart is completely silly to say the noun “θεος” “functions as a predicate” since it clearly remains, and functions as, a noun.

Hart seems to be trying to support some sort of underlying theological assumption in this specific case (which is not well defined in the post). Hart refers to “the issue” but I haven’t read the surrounding context to this statement to see what “issue” he is trying to address. (Perhaps he’s trying to address whether John 1:1c means “THE God” or “A God” - I can't tell)

Grammatically, this issue is clear and the debate tends to hinge on debates surrounding context.

However, the assumption that an obvious noun “functions as” a predicate in this case is a strange theory.



Thomas, quoted Hart as saying “But the issue becomes at once both clearer and more inadjudicable at verse 18, where again the designation of the Son is theos without the article, and there the word is unquestionably the subject of the sentence." (Hart, New Testament, Postscript, p534)

Here Hart makes the strange statement that the sentence designates the son as θεος when the sentence, grammatically, does no such thing since the phrases are independent. This grammatical silliness makes no sense.

Also, note that the Greek DOES have an article associated with “THE only begotten Son”. The Greek Hart quotes is “ο μονογενες υιος". The “o” you see IS the article and thus the phrase IS articulated. I noticed Hart doesn’t use the more original form of John 1:18, but perhaps this is irrelevant...

Thomas said: “I cite at length because Hart treats the problem fairly, purely as a matter of linguistics, rather than in the sense of a theological apologia.”

I disagree, Hart makes basic mistakes in his linguistic theory. The only reason (that I can see) for him to do this is that he DOES have an underlying theological apologia he is pushing. My comments do NOT mean Hart is correct or incorrect regarding his undefined "issue" he is addressing, but merely that he makes some grammatical mistakes that the quotes do not account for.

To his credit, Hard DOES go against most modern translations, and translates the unarticulated last phrase in John 10:33-36 correctly (grammatically) “you who are a man make yourself out to be A god.” This is a good thing, though there was no need to place parentheses around the “a”.

IF Hart is referring to the grammatical arguments surrounding John 1:1c, then his comments do nothing to settle the contextual debates. The grammatical debates have been settled and it is the many contextual arguments on John 1:1c that will continue.
 
Hi @Clear – and welcome aboard.

In retrospect I posted this in somewhat of a rush, on the back of another discussion, and should have taken time to go over it.

I rolled into this from a discussion going on here

Without getting into a huge discussion, allow me to repeat Hart's comment on the Prologue of John:
"There may perhaps be no passage in the New Testament more resistant to simple translation into another tongue than the first eighteen verses—the prologue—of the Gospel of John."
(Hart, New Testament, Yale University Press, ed 2, 2023)


Clear said:
I think Hart is completely silly to say the noun “θεος” “functions as a predicate” since it clearly remains, and functions as, a noun.
Click to expand...
This is my fault for editing his comment.

His translation of John 1:1
"In the origin there was the Logos, and the Logos was present to God, and the Logos was god"

with this footnote:
"Or "god was the Logos," going entirely by word order. In general, however, when two nominatives are placed in apposition and only one of them lacks an article, that inarticular noun is taken for the predicate and the articular for the subject. Still, there are many contrary examples in extant texts, word order is not entirely unimportant even in an inflected tongue like Greek, and the wording here seems intentionally elliptical, so as to avoid speaking of the Logos in a way that, in late antique usage, was reserved properly for the Father."
(ibid. Hart, footnote a, p217)

and in greater detail here:
"in order to act as God’s artisan of, and archregent in, the created order. Moreover, the Greek of John’s prologue may reflect what was, at the time of its composition, a standard semantic distinction between the articular and inarticular (or arthrous and anarthrous) forms of the word theos: the former, ὁ θεός (ho theos) (as in πρὸς τὸν θεόν (pros ton theon), where the accusative form of article and noun follow the preposition), was generally used to refer to God in the fullest and most proper sense: God Most High, the transcendent One; the latter, however, θεός (theos) (as in καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (kai theos en ho logos)), could be used of any divine being, however finite: a god or a derivative divine agency, say, or even divinized mortal. And so early theologians differed greatly in their interpretation of that very small but very significantly absent monosyllable. Now it may be that the article is omitted in the latter case simply because the word theos functions as a predicate there, and typically in Greek the predicate would need no article. Yet this rule tends not to hold when the predication is one of personal identity; moreover, the syntax is ambiguous as regards which substantive should be regarded as the subject and which the predicate; though Greek is an inflected language, and hence more syntactically malleable than modern Western tongues, the order of words is not a matter of complete indifference; and one might even translate καὶ θεὸς ἦνὁ λόγος as “and [this] god was the Logos.” But the issue becomes at once both clearer and more inadjudicable at verse 18, where again the designation of the Son is theos without the article, and there the word is unquestionably the subject of the sentence. Mind you, in the first chapter of John there are also other instances of the inarticular form where it is not clear whether the reference is the Father, the Son, or somehow both at once in an intentionally indeterminate way (as though, perhaps, the distinction of articular from inarticular forms is necessary in regard to the inner divine life, but not when speaking of the relation of the divine to the created realm). But, in all subsequent verses and chapters, God in his full transcendence is always "ho theos; and the crucial importance of the difference between this and the inarticular theos is especially evident at 10: 34-36. Most important of all, this distinction imbues the conclusion of the twentieth chapter with a remarkable theological significance, for it is there that Christ, now risen from the dead, is explicitly addressed as ho theos (by the apostle Thomas). Even this startling profession, admittedly, left considerable room for argument in the early centuries as to whether the fully divine designation was something conferred upon Christ only after the resurrection, and then perhaps only honorifically, or whether instead it was an eternal truth about Christ that had been made manifest by the resurrection."
(ibid, postscript, pps 533-535)
 
Hi Thomas. Thank you for the additional clarifications and quotes from Hart.


1) HARTS THEORY AS TO WHY THE GRAMMAR OF JOHN 1:1C DOESN'T MEAN WHAT JOHN WROTE DOESN'T WORK
Thomas quoted Hart as saying: "when two nominatives are placed in apposition and only one of them lacks an article, that inarticular noun is taken for the predicate and the articular for the subject.”

ONE problem is that whether θεος and λογος are actually in apposition cannot BE determined by any grammatical rule in this case. Hart can argue context, but the grammar is against him (unless supporting context is provided to support him)

The question is entirely contextual (which is, in this case, an ahistorical, subjective, and somewhat arbitrary context). Inside Harts personal theology, he seems to feel the two nouns in John 1:1c are in apposition, but in the context of ancient Judeo-Christian literature, (e.g. Jewish Enoch, Christian abbaton, etc.) they are not in apposition. Hart DOES have an underlying apologia which (for him) is determining his opinion that they are in apposition.

Because they are not in apposition in ancient religious literature of the time, his theory is anachronistic and dependent on subjective opinion.



2) HART ADMITS THE ANCIENT USAGE, BUT FAILS TO APPLY THE USAGE ITSELF
Your next quote by Hart as much as admits this problem:
Thomas quoted Hart as saying: “…the wording here seems intentionally elliptical, so as to avoid speaking of the Logos in a way that, in late antique usage, was reserved properly for the Father."

There is a reason that historically, Judeo-Christians avoided speaking of the Logos as a reference to the Father. To use the logos to reference the father would have been, historically, incoherent.



3) HART DISTORTS ANCIENT GRAMMATICAL RULES (THE STANDARD SEMANTIC DISTINCTION) TO SUPPORT HIS PERSONAL CONTEXTUAL ARGUMENT
Harts further “explanatory” quote itself, admits that the sentence may actually mean what it says grammatically (Harts translation is not grammatically correct since it shifts from an indefinite greek noun to a definite english noun. Thus, he's not using a grammatical greek translation, but instead is using a contextual translation).

Hart as much as admits this in his statement: "Moreover, the Greek of John’s prologue may reflect what was, at the time of its composition, a standard semantic distinction between the articular and inarticular (or arthrous and anarthrous) forms of the word theos”

After admitting this, Harts translation doesn’t recognize the distinction he admits was a “standard semantic distinction” between articular and inarticular. Hart, doesn’t explain why he doesn’t use this historical, “standard semantic distinction” in his translation.


4) HART ADMITS HIS UNDERLYING ASSUMPTION (WHICH EXPLAINS HIS APOLOGIA)
Hart describes his underlying apologia when he explains: “the accusative form of article and noun follow the preposition), was generally used to refer to God in the fullest and most proper sense: God Most High”. Hart is assuming this specific indefinite word is Definite and trying to develop an apologia as to why the inarticulate greek should be translated as articulate.

To his credit, Hart admits this historical incoherence by saying: “And so early theologians differed greatly in their interpretation of that very small but very significantly absent monosyllable.” And he admits: “kai theos en ho logos)), could be used of any divine being…”…” a god…”

And then Hart offers us his theory regarding why he doesn’t translate according to the “standard semantic distinction” used anciently by admitting he assumes: “…the article is omitted in the latter case simply because the word theos functions as a predicate there…” We are now back to his assumption that an obvious noun “functions” as a predicate. However, this assumption does not come from the grammar, instead it comes from his personal assumption


5) HART CLAIMS THE SYNTAX IS AMBIGUOUS AND BLAMES THE GRAMMAR IS TO BLAME
Again, to Harts credit, he admits that “the syntax is ambiguous”. However, he fails to point out that the ambiguity does not lie in the grammar (which is unambigious), but instead it lies in the context (which IS ambiguous).

However, after claiming grammatical ambiguity, Hart then undermines his own theory by telling us that “in all subsequent verses and chapters, God in his full transcendence is always "ho theos.

I agree with Hart in this admission. John seems to be very careful in subsequent verses. Do we assume John simply made a single mistake in this phrase while NOT making this mistake in any other place in the chapter or did he intend what he wrote? (i.e. an unarticulated θεοσ)


6) HART OFFERS AN INCOHERENT "EXAMPLE" THAT (PENDING MORE DATA), IS INCORRECT

In another unusual twist, Hart claims “the crucial importance of the difference between this and the inarticular theos is especially evident at 10: 34-36.”,

However, if you READ the greek of John10:36, it IS articulated properly and according to Koine greek rules of grammar.

The greek reads: “Βλασφημεις, οτι ειπον Υιος του Θεου ειμι”. (I have underlined the clearly articulated Theos).
READ the Greek in 10:34. θεοι is clearly indefinite and inarticulated BECAUSE the Θεοι is referring to indefinite “Gods” and not a specific God.
READ John 10:35, BOTH Logos AND God are IS articulated (ο λογος του θεου) I’ve underlined the articles so that no one can miss them.

So, it is clear that Hart DOES bring a personal apologia to his statements as to why he thinks John 1:1 doesn’t mean what the Greek grammar indicates it means. He also admits he is not using a “standard semantic distinction” of the time of the writing but doesn't give us enough logical support to tell us WHY he does this.

Harts theory doesn’t really do anything to change the rules of grammar in this case. He will have to argue CONTEXT, since the Greek grammar doesn’t support his argument.
 
Hi Clear – thanks very much for your comments, your grasp of grammar and its language is clearly better than mine, and I bow to you on those points. I will need to read and re-read your comments to get a better understanding of what you're saying.

Purely as a matter of interest, the one point I paused at was:
... he seems to feel the two nouns in John 1:1c are in apposition, but in the context of ancient Judeo-Christian literature, (e.g. Jewish Enoch, Christian abbaton, etc.) they are not in apposition...

I am mindful of recent posts in the Two Powers discussion

Further to that, there was a critique of Hart over at Eclectic Orthodox, principally about Hart's Orthodoxy and Apocalypse, but there were a couple of comments that apply here:

Quibble #1 — Sometimes DBH is not piteously literal enough
DBH claims his New Testament translation is “piteously” literal. But his translation and explanation of John 1:1 is not literal enough (pp. 113-119). Perhaps for shock value, DBH exploits a moment of Second Temple ambiguity about what Alan Segal has labeled as the “two powers in heaven” theology: “In the origin there was the Logos, and the Logos was present with GOD, and the Logos was god” (pp. 113-119). But we can do better. DBH missed one definitive article (θεόν avec article) and added unnecessary ambiguity. How about this alternative rendering that nicely preserves the word order of the Greek?

Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was present with the GOD, and GOD was the Logos.

At one stroke even the most biblically illiterate reader can perceive that St John deliberately echoes Genesis 1:1. This Logos—Whatever or Whoever this deuteros logos is—is God’s associate and His agent in creation. If the rabbis didn’t think the Logos compromised or weakened “pure monotheism,” then we shouldn’t either.
I am mindful that your post was more concerned with grammar than theology, so apologies if I've side-tracked the discussion.
 
Thomas said:
Hi Clear – thanks very much for your comments, your grasp of grammar and its language is clearly better than mine, and I bow to you on those points. I will need to read and re-read your comments to get a better understanding of what you're saying.

Purely as a matter of interest, the one point I paused at was:
... he seems to feel the two nouns in John 1:1c are in apposition, but in the context of ancient Judeo-Christian literature, (e.g. Jewish Enoch, Christian abbaton, etc.) they are not in apposition...

I am mindful of recent posts in the Two Powers discussion

Further to that, there was a critique of Hart over at Eclectic Orthodox, principally about Hart's Orthodoxy and Apocalypse, but there were a couple of comments that apply here:

Quibble #1 — Sometimes DBH is not piteously literal enough
DBH claims his New Testament translation is “piteously” literal. But his translation and explanation of John 1:1 is not literal enough (pp. 113-119). Perhaps for shock value, DBH exploits a moment of Second Temple ambiguity about what Alan Segal has labeled as the “two powers in heaven” theology: “In the origin there was the Logos, and the Logos was present with GOD, and the Logos was god” (pp. 113-119). But we can do better. DBH missed one definitive article (θεόν avec article) and added unnecessary ambiguity. How about this alternative rendering that nicely preserves the word order of the Greek?

Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was present with the GOD, and GOD was the Logos.

At one stroke even the most biblically illiterate reader can perceive that St John deliberately echoes Genesis 1:1. This Logos—Whatever or Whoever this deuteros logos is—is God’s associate and His agent in creation. If the rabbis didn’t think the Logos compromised or weakened “pure monotheism,” then we shouldn’t either.
I am mindful that your post was more concerned with grammar than theology, so apologies if I've side-tracked the discussion.
Click to expand...
In another thread you said that you believe that Jesus is God, in the orthodox Christological sense as defined at Chalcedon in 451. Do you mean this?
Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart… One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably ...
Click to expand...
 
Maybe we could all agree with doing God's will, even if we disagree about what His will is.

Here's one thing that I would like to know. Do we all agree that Jesus has all the authority, power, knowledge and wisdom of God that there is in the world? Or maybe even more, that everything that there is of God in the world, is in Him? @walter I'm thinking of you for example. Can you go that far? Don't say yes if you want to say no. :)
 
Last edited:
Hi Thomas

Your quotes from Stamps and Boyarin, et al were quite insightful


1) GRAMMATICALLY JOHN 1:1C IS CLEAR. CONTEXTUALLY IT IS NOT. HOWEVER...WHICH CONTEXT DOES ONE THEN USE TO TRANSLATE IT?
I noticed John Stamps renders the inarticulated John 1:1c as though it was articulated and thus, he is also using his own context rather than grammar to translate.

As I pointed out, the grammar is clear, but it is uncomfortable for 3=1 trinitarians.

This is why the controversy originated and continues. Since the grammar is clear, (despite discomfort), the debate has to center on historical context instead of grammar. (at least for 3=1 trinitarians uncomfortable with the text)



2) DO WE USE THE ANCIENT POLYTHEISTIC CONTEXT (GENESIS) OR A LATER JUDEO-CHRISTIAN HENOTHEISTIC CONTEXT (JOHN 1:1); OR A LATER, MORE MODERN TRINITARIAN CONTEXT TO TRANSLATE AND INTERPRET ANCIENT TEXTS?

I like your insight when you say: “At one stroke even the most biblically illiterate reader can perceive that St John deliberately echoes Genesis 1:1." “

The problem is that any echo from the ancient text must remain in the ANCIENT context it was written in and this is a problem.
Since Judeo-Christian religion has evolved over centuries, does one interpret these echoes in the most ancient polytheistic context, or the later strict monotheistic context (after the Babylonian exile), or in the early Judeo-Christian Henotheistic context?



3) THE ANCIENT JUDEO-CHRISTIAN LITERATURES CONTEXT WHERE A 3=3 TRINITY WAS MOST ORTHODOX

The early Judeo-Christian literature is written mostly in the Henotheistic (i.e. there may be other Gods, but ONLY one that is “God of Gods and Lord of Lords” and the only one worthy of worship).

For example, Jewish Enoch of 300 b.c. describes the prophet Enochs ascension into heaven where he sees God the Father walking together with his son, the Messiah. The narrative describes seeing the Father thusly: “At that place, I saw “he who is of primordial days,” and his head was white like wool, and there was with him another individual whose face was like that of a human being. His countenance was full of grace like that of one among the holy angels.”

In this early model, Enoch sees both the Father and Son in his vision and he then asks the angel with him regarding who the person was who accompanied the Father and why he was with the Father saying:

“And he answered me and said to me, “This is the Son of Man, to whom belongs righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells. And he will open all the hidden storerooms; for the Lord of the Spirits has chosen him, and he is destined to be victorious before the Lord of the Spirits in eternal uprightness. This Son of Man whom you have seen is the One who would remove the Kings and the mighty ones from their comfortable seats, and the strong ones from their thrones. He shall loosen the reins of the strong and crush the teeth of the sinners. He shall depose the kings from their thrones and kingdoms. For they do not extol and glorify him, and neither do they obey him, the source of their kingship.” (1st Enoch 46:1-6)

Such Jewish ancient narratives mirror the early 3=3 trinitarian models of early Christian literature (i.e. before the 3=1 trinity became the most popular). Keep in mind that the Talmud of orthodox rabbinic Judaism has prohibited their members of study of, discussions and questions regarding, the reading of, etc. of any theme that occurred before the creation of the earth and so modern, rabbinic Judaism is different than ancient Judaism in this respect.

For example, the Christian Abbaton narrative (40 day literature) describes the creation of man and the different roles of the Father and the Son. The narrative begins with Jesus, teaching his disciples about certain events surrounding the creation of Adam as a mortal, thusly:

"And He (the Father) took the clay from the hand of the angel, and made Adam according to Our image and likeness, and He left him lying for forty days and forty nights without putting breath into him. And he heaved sighs over him daily, saying, 'If I put breath into this [man], he must suffer many pains.'

And I said unto My Father, 'Put breath into him; I will be an advocate for him.' And My Father said unto Me, 'If I put breath into him, My beloved son, Thou wilt be obliged to go down into the world, and to suffer many pains for him before Thou shalt have redeemed him, and made him to come back to primal state.' And I said unto My Father, 'Put breath into him; I will be his advocate, and I will go down into the world, and will fulfil Thy command.”

Such examples clarify the modern controversy concerning John 1:1.

Does one translate it according to Judeo-Christian doctrines at the time it was written (i.e. a more henotheistic context), or should it be translated according to the later and more modern context when a 3=1 trinity became popular?

This is what I mean when I say the problem is not grammatical (which is clear, but uncomfortable to 3=1 trinitarians), but it is contextual (which is not clear but can be manipulated and made comfortable to a later, and different, orthodoxy).



4) BOYARIN IS CORRECT THAT MONOTHEISTIC HENOTHEISM DOES NOT WEAKEN MONOTHEISM

This may be part of Boyarins assumption where you quote him saying: ”So any evidence for Jewish binitarianism does not constitute a ‘weakening’ of pure monotheism, any more than Christian trinitarianism does, except from the point of view of Modalists such as rabbinic Jews, who regard it as heresy, of course."…”St John’s Gospel doesn’t give us the Trinity quite yet. At best we get a robust Binitarian faith. He is the only-begotten GOD (John 1:18).

The added bonus is that our translation stands cogently within the realm of meaning of Second Temple Judaism. The Logos who is in the Father’s bosom is not the God—the God of course is the Father. “

I think Boyarin is absolutely correct in his statements here.

Binitarianism (two main Gods) does not weaken strict monotheism since it remains in a henotheistic model. Henotheism remains a type of monotheism since, regardless of other Gods, only ONE is to be worshipped.

Thus the grammatically correct translation of John 1:1c, “And the Word was A God” remains within the realm of meaning of Second Temple Judaism. It also allows historical coherency with John 1:18 where the Greek text reads : “No one has seen God at any time, the only begotten GOD who is in the bosom of the Father has explained him.”

While the Father is “unbegotten”, the dilemma of a text speaking of an “unbegotten God” is uncomfortable to 3=1 trinitarians but not the binarians and not the henotheistic early Judeo-Christians, and not the restorationists.

This discomfort with the text as it stands underlies the desire to place the text into non-historical contexts in order to explain why the text doesn’t say what 3=1 trinitarians want it to say.
 
I'm not sure I accept your "3=3" henotheism as the de facto belief of the early Judeu-Christian world?

You cite Enoch, but that itself is not definitive, and the books themselves are open to interpretation.

I have offered elsewhere on the 'Two Powers' discussion, and this is relevant to the opening verses of the Gospel of John, that we are more accurately talking about the orthodoxy of a '2=1' belief – Jewish scholars from the Book of Daniel and elsewhere, and John's prologue, if Boyarin is correct, is a midrash of Genesis – the text speaks of God and Logos – just two, not three.

Philo argues his own '2=1' theology, as cited by Segal.

+++

John 1:1-18 is used to argue Christology, not Trinity.

I don't see how you understand Trinitarians suffering discomfort with the Johannine text?

+++
 
"The Investiture of Abbaton, the Angel of Death" is generally listed in NT apocrypha as being among the Pseudo-Apostolic Memoirs, in this supposedly Timothy of Alexandria (381-384), but its origin is actually much later.

Ps-Timothy tells his audience that the book is one of many, written by the apostles and deposited in their library in Jerusalem. The apostolic work, the library, and the sermon in which The Investiture of Abbaton is embedded, are literary fictions, not uncommon in Coptic texts at the time. In fact the genre is called 'pseudo-documentarism' by scholars of Greco-Roman literature.
A mention of this and other such works is discussed here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top