@Earnest
Rufinus refers to specific complaints by Origen about corruptions in his
writings, but these are limited to certain instances where people deliberately
altered his works. This cannot be generalized to claim systematic corruption
across all early Christian texts. Origen lived during a time of
theological disputes, which occasionally led to opponents distorting works to
misrepresent theological positions. However, this is not evidence of widespread
or pervasive manipulation. Instead, it highlights isolated cases where
intentional edits may have been made by Origen’s critics. The distinction
between accidental scribal errors and deliberate alterations is
well-established in modern textual criticism. While Origen’s complaints reflect
occasional deliberate tampering, the vast majority of textual variants in early
Christian writings are demonstrably unintentional, as evidenced by manuscript
traditions.
The Long Recension of Ignatius’ letters is widely regarded as a
fourth-century expansion of the authentic Middle Recension. Scholars such as
J.B. Lightfoot and Theodor Zahn demonstrated that the Middle Recension represents
the authentic core. This consensus arose because the Middle Recension aligns
with early Christian theology and is attested by Eusebius in the fourth
century. The lack of widespread objection to the interpolations in the Long
Recension can be explained by its limited circulation and later composition. By
the time the Long Recension was produced, the authentic Middle Recension had
already been widely accepted and revered. The later interpolations, while
misleading, did not override the established text. The existence of the Long
Recension does not undermine the authenticity of the Middle Recension. Instead,
it underscores the need for textual criticism to identify the original form of
these writings.
Variants in manuscript traditions are a normal feature of textual
transmission. The omission of “and God” in some manuscripts does not
necessarily indicate deliberate theological manipulation but could reflect
scribal error or differences in regional textual traditions. While some Latin
manuscripts omit et deum, the majority include it, and these manuscripts
are based on an earlier Greek source no longer extant. The consistency of other
elements in the Latin tradition suggests fidelity to the original Greek text.
Even if et deum were omitted, the remaining text of Polycarp’s letter
reflects a high Christology, including reverence for Jesus as “Lord,”
consistent with early Christian theology.
Holmes’ statement that et deum is “more likely a later addition”
reflects scholarly caution, not certainty. Textual criticism often involves
probability rather than absolutes. Holmes’ position is an opinion, not
definitive proof. Other prominent scholars, such as J.B. Lightfoot, have
defended the phrase’s authenticity. While Holmes’ perspective is notable, it
does not invalidate earlier or contemporary scholarship that supports the
inclusion of et deum.
Even if et deum were a later addition, it would represent an
isolated case, not evidence of widespread manipulation. The interpolation (if
it occurred) does not negate the broader theological consistency of Polycarp’s
letter, which reflects a high Christology throughout. Early Christian writings
consistently affirm Jesus’ deity (e.g., John 20:28, Ignatius of Antioch).
The possible addition of et deum would reflect reinforcement of an
already-established belief, not the introduction of a new doctrine.
@Blotty
Please show me, if you have the opportunity, which scholar claimed that John 20:28 means precisely that "Oh my God, this is Michael the Archangel, who will come invisibly in 1914 to appoint Russell!" Until you find this, explain to me what the word αὐτῷ means in this verse.
The problem is that you think of "the scholars" as some universal infallible magisterium who collectively establish The Truth. When in fact they simply work with hypotheses, from available material, argue with each other, and what is fashionable changes roughly every two or three decades. (This is just like during COVID, they published biweekly reports on what "the scientists" say, whether it spreads through handshakes, whether you should elbow each other, etc. In hindsight, we now know that they were mostly just guessing.)
But to be serious... You claim that scholars
like Wallace and Robertson have not addressed the issue of alternative terms
(e.g., δεσπότης, θεῖος, etc.) because it is an invalid argument. This is not
accurate. While scholars may not explicitly focus on hypothetical alternatives,
their work establishes why the terms κύριος and θεός were deliberately chosen
and why they were uniquely suited to express Christ's deity in the NT.
Wallace’s analysis of θεός
in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics emphasizes that the qualitative use
of θεός in John 1:1c affirms the Word’s full deity. This choice of terminology
reflects the apostles' theological intent. Wallace also examines κύριος in the
context of its LXX usage, demonstrating that it is the standard term used to
translate the Tetragrammaton, signifying its divine connotations. The absence
of a need to consider alternatives like δεσπότης or θεῖος stems from their
unsuitability to convey the same theological weight.
A.T. Robertson, in A Grammar
of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, supports
the theological significance of θεός and κύριος, noting that their usage aligns
with the apostles’ intention to ascribe full deity to Christ. The suggestion
that δεσπότης or θεῖος could serve as equivalents overlooks the theological
implications and cultural context of the NT writers.
Your point about δεσπότης
being used in the NT (e.g., 2 Peter 2:1; Jude 1:4) and LXX is acknowledged.
However, δεσπότης is not a term commonly associated with Yahweh in the LXX, nor
does it convey the same divine authority as κύριος. κύριος is the LXX standard
for translating the Tetragrammaton (YHWH), whereas δεσπότης often conveys a
master-slave relationship. When κύριος is applied to Christ, it invokes
Yahweh's divine authority, as in Philippians 2:10-11, where Paul quotes Isaiah
45:23 and applies it to Jesus, affirming His equality with Yahweh. δεσπότης
does not carry this association.
You ask for clarification
on "Christ’s full divinity" and whether it is synonymous with
"deity." In this context:
- Deity refers to the state of being
God—possessing the attributes and essence of the one true God.
- Divinity may sometimes refer to divine
qualities but, in theological discourse, it often functions as a synonym
for deity when applied to Christ.
For example:
- John 1:1: "The Word was God"
(θεός ἦν ὁ λόγος) asserts Christ’s full deity, not merely divine attributes.
- Colossians 2:9: "In Him all the fullness
of the Deity [θεότης] dwells bodily" explicitly ties Christ's
incarnate nature to the full essence of God, not a lesser divinity.
The Church Fathers, like
Athanasius in On the Incarnation, frequently used "divinity"
as a synonym for "deity" when discussing Christ. Any distinction
between the terms must be contextualized rather than assumed to reflect a lower
status for Christ.
You argue that JWs claim
Jesus was "fully divine" before His earthly life. This
interpretation, however, diverges from their theology, which denies the
consubstantiality of Christ with the Father. They argue Jesus is a created
being, akin to "a god" but not fully God. JWs render John 1:1 as
"the Word was a god," which is grammatically and contextually flawed.
Greek grammar, particularly the lack of an article before θεός, supports the
qualitative interpretation: "The Word was fully God in essence." By
"fully divine" I mean the identity of the quiddity with that of the
Father: what is the Father, is the same as the Son. The rendering "a
god" is precisely the explicit denial of this identity of the quiddity:
"it's kind of godlike, but it's not really that, it’s not a big deal, you
know, just like Psalm 82 and Exodus 7:1." And the Greek text does not make
this denial, on the contrary, it affirms it.
The apostles intentionally
avoided ambiguous terms like θεῖος or ἡμίθεος to describe Christ because these
terms could imply partial divinity or subordination, contrary to their
theological intent:
- θεῖος (divine): Used adjectivally, it could
imply a lower-tier divinity, akin to heroes or demigods in Greco-Roman
culture.
- ἡμίθεος (demigod): Explicitly denotes partial
divinity, inconsistent with the NT portrayal of Christ as fully God.
- κύριος and θεός: These terms directly affirm
Christ's divine identity and unity with the Father, avoiding the
polytheistic connotations of alternative terms.
Your suggestion that
"divinity" and "deity" may be used differently by different
groups requires careful examination. The NT and early Church Fathers
consistently affirm that Christ’s divinity means He shares fully in the essence
of the one true God. This is not mere wordplay but the logical consequence of
biblical revelation.
