@Blotty
Textual criticism recognizes differences between deliberate alterations and inadvertent scribal errors. Even if (!) et deum were added later, this doesn't mean the entire letter is inauthentic or that the theological message of early Christianity was fundamentally altered. The presence of similar high Christology in Polycarp’s contemporaries, like Ignatius, demonstrates that the belief in Jesus’ deity was not dependent on isolated phrases but was a widespread, well-attested doctrine. Accusing the entire tradition of manipulation based on one hypothetical instance is an overreach.
Origen himself acknowledged some alterations, but these were limited to his opponents or scribes with theological biases. However, the argument doesn't generalize. Early Christian communities were vigilant about preserving authentic texts. For example, when the Long Recension of Ignatius' letters emerged, it was recognized as inauthentic and was eventually dismissed by scholars. The preservation of the Middle Recension demonstrates the early Church’s efforts to maintain textual integrity. Theoretical possibilities (“what stops them?”) aren't evidence of widespread corruption; they’re speculative.
The pronoun αὐτῷ in John 20:28 unambiguously refers to Jesus. Your attempt to minimize its significance doesn't hold. Thomas’ declaration, “My Lord and my God!” (ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου), directly addresses Jesus, as αὐτῷ makes clear. The structure of the Greek grammar, particularly the article "ὁ" (the), shows that Thomas is making a direct and personal confession about Jesus' identity as both Lord and God. Claims that this is a general doxology lack linguistic and contextual support.
The vocative form of κύριος (κύριε) is indeed used in direct address, but the nominative ὁ κύριος can also function vocatively in Koine Greek, particularly in expressions of high reverence. In John 20:28, the nominative case serves both theological emphasis and direct address. Revelation 7:14 involves an angel, but the context clearly differentiates the angel from the Lamb (Jesus). Angels are messengers; they do not share the divine identity of the κύριος (Lord) invoked by Thomas in John 20:28.
Some marginal translations might interpret it as a doxology, but the original Greek supports a direct address to Jesus. The context—Thomas responding to Jesus’ invitation to touch His wounds—strongly indicates a personal address. The confession aligns with John’s theological emphasis on Christ’s divinity throughout the Gospel (e.g., John 1:1, 10:30). Rendering it as a doxology undermines the passage’s explicit Christological focus.
Scholars like Daniel Wallace and A.T. Robertson, widely respected in textual criticism and Greek grammar, support the interpretation of John 20:28 as affirming Jesus’ deity. While theological biases exist across all interpretations, the weight of scholarly consensus and linguistic analysis supports the traditional reading of this passage. It is not merely a matter of opinion but of consistent methodology in examining the text.
While δεσπότης and κύριος can overlap in meaning, their usage differs. δεσπότης typically conveys the sense of a master in a hierarchical relationship, such as a master over slaves (e.g., 1 Timothy 6:1-2). κύριος, however, carries broader connotations, including divine lordship. In the Septuagint, κύριος is consistently used to translate Yahweh, emphasizing God’s covenantal lordship. The apostles’ deliberate choice of κύριος for Jesus signifies His divine authority and identity, consistent with Old Testament usage for Yahweh.
Origen’s use of “divine” for angels refers to their participation in God’s glory, not their ontological nature as full deities. This is consistent with early Christian theology, which distinguishes between God’s uncreated essence and the derivative, participatory “divinity” of created beings. Angels are "divine" insofar as they reflect God’s holiness and serve His purposes, but they are not θεός in the sense applied to Christ in John 1:1 or Thomas’ confession.
Moses’ designation as “elohim” (Exodus 7:1) is metaphorical, reflecting his role as God’s representative before Pharaoh. Psalm 82 similarly refers to human judges as “elohim” due to their divine appointment, but this is a far cry from the ontological deity ascribed to Christ. Jesus’ identity as θεός (God) in John 1:1 and John 20:28 is presented as unique and unshared, aligning Him with Yahweh, not with metaphorical or lesser uses of "god."
It is a complete anachronism to translate the Hebrew term “elohim” in the oldest OT books before the Second Temple period, which is clearly used in connection with creatures, into Greek as θεός, θεοί, since here it simply means "mighty ones." In pure monotheism there are no such semi-"divine" beings, but one is either completely uncreated and omnipotent God and always has been, or is not at all and never was and never can be in any sense. But of course, the modernist Christian-bashers and the Arians who abuse their researches assume that this earlier pre-Isaiah usage, the eradication of which was already begun in the LXX (e.g. Psalm 8:5: “elohim” -> ἄγγελοι, and NOT θεοί) is also the guiding principle for the time of the apostles, and that θεός is also such a generic term with no special meaning, which can be boldly applied to the Archangel Michael, without any connotation to the actual deity in the proper sense. This approach ignores the principle of progressive revelation as well, there is no longer any such thing as non-YHWH, non-ominpotent “elohim” or θεός, not at all. God gradually led Israel to monotheism, the first step being that He commanded them to worship YHWH alone. It was not yet established on such a fundamental level that other gods did not exist at all. However, once that became evident, the use of the name YHWH no longer made sense, since it only meant "He who is". When it was already established on a fundamental level that other gods simply do not exist, and whenever we say “God” or “Lord,” we only can mean the One God, the Eternal Creator, the primum movens, since we cannot mean anything or anyone else. Κύριος is no longer just the own national god of the Jewish people, but the only one that deserves the names "God" and "Lord."
To translate the term “elohim” simply as "mighty ones" into Ancient Greek in a way that avoids the monadic sense of θεός (God in the proper, monadic, and monotheistic sense), one might consider using terms that convey strength, power, or divine authority without necessarily implying the exclusive monotheistic connotation. Here are a few possible options:
1. δυνάμεις (dynamis, plural: dynamies) – This term means "powers" or "forces" and conveys a sense of mighty entities or forces without strictly identifying them as gods.
2. ἄρχοντες (archontes) – Meaning "rulers" or "authorities," this could reflect beings with dominion or significant authority, aligning with a henotheistic or monolatrist interpretation.
3. κράτος (kratos, plural: krateis) – This refers to strength or might. While not typically personified, in a plural sense it could convey "mighty ones."
4. ἥρωες (heroes) – In the sense of semi-divine beings or mighty figures from mythology, this could also fit, though it leans more toward human-like entities.
5. ἰσχυροί (ischyroi) – Derived from ἰσχύς (ischys, meaning "strength" or "might"), this word directly means "mighty ones" or "strong ones."
For the specific context of Exodus 7:1 or Psalm 82, δυνάμεις or ἰσχυροί might be the best choices, as they emphasize the aspect of might or power without necessarily connoting formal divinity in the strict sense implied by θεός. ἄρχοντες might work well in a context emphasizing authority or rulership. Colossians 1:16 uses terms like θρόνοι (thronoi), κυριότητες (kyriotētes), ἀρχαί (archai), and ἐξουσίαι (exousiai) to describe a hierarchy of cosmic powers or authorities, which could be very relevant when trying to render "elohim" in Greek with a broader connotation than θεός. These terms provide a nuanced vocabulary for expressing a range of powerful entities without strictly aligning them with monotheistic God (in the θεός sense). Here’s how these terms compare to the "mighty ones" idea of “elohim”:
- θρόνοι (thronoi) – "Thrones," emphasizing a high-ranking or exalted authority, potentially linking to heavenly or cosmic rulers.
- κυριότητες (kyriotētes) – "Dominions" or "lordships," indicating spheres of dominion or powerful rule.
- ἀρχαί (archai) – "Principalities" or "beginnings," often used for primordial or foundational powers, which can connote both authority and a cosmic role.
- ἐξουσίαι (exousiai) – "Authorities," highlighting a legal or delegated power, perhaps akin to divine or cosmic governance.
To reflect the "mighty ones" concept in Exodus 7:1 or Psalm 82, the terms from Colossians 1:16 might work well depending on the context:
- ἀρχαί (archai) could emphasize primordial authority or foundational powers, aligning with the more ancient concept of elohim as significant yet subordinate beings.
- κυριότητες (kyriotētes) could reflect rulership or dominion, especially if the emphasis is on divine governance.
- ἐξουσίαι (exousiai) might convey "mighty ones" in the sense of wielding authority delegated by a higher power, fitting contexts like Psalm 82, where God presides over the assembly of divine beings.
For Exodus 7:1, where Moses is made “elohim" to the Pharaoh, ἐξουσία (authority) or κυριότης (dominion) might convey Moses’ empowered status effectively, as these terms stress the bestowed nature of his power rather than an innate divinity.
Describing Jesus as "a divine Person" fits Trinitarian theology, as the Son is fully God, sharing the divine essence with the Father and the Spirit. However, the Greek text of John 20:28 goes beyond acknowledging Jesus as merely "a divine Person"; it explicitly affirms Him as ὁ θεός (the God), linking Him directly with the monotheistic God of Israel.