Not forgetting that Hart is an Orthodox Christian at all, and he himself believes the Trinity doctrine, this is clear. This makes his comments on John 1.1 all the more interesting. His Trinitarianism apparently doesn’t prevent Hart from dropping the traditional rendering “the Word was God”, stating that “the Logos was a god” is a legitimate rendering, and opting for the rendering “god” in his own translation. He further perceives a development in the gospel of John so that John 20.28 contains a fuller expression of Jesus’ divinity than 1.1. However, even on this point, somewhat surprisingly even to me, Hart concedes during the interview that John 20.28 could be read as an exclamation to God and not addressing Jesus as ho Theos. I’m not saying this is my view, but it illustrates that Hart is not even fully committed to a Trinitarian reading of this verse. It may be uncomfortable for you that a Trinitarian can admit that “a god” and “god” are legitimate. This doesn’t appear to trouble Hart, presumably because he believes God guided the church toward a Trinitarian understanding over the centuries. What is not legitimate is for you to claim that Hart’s Trinitarianism means he cannot say what he says about John 1.1, and about Arius representing the orthodox position and Nicaea representing innovation.
Is Jesus the Creator?
by Sea Breeze 405 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
aqwsed12345
@slimboyfat
David Bentley Hart’s Orthodox Christian background is indeed significant, but it does not undermine the theological coherence of his commentary on John 1:1. As an Orthodox theologian, Hart adheres to the doctrine of the Trinity, and his interpretation of John 1:1 ultimately supports the Logos’ divine nature and continuity with God the Father. While Hart opts for unconventional phrasing to reflect the subtleties of the Greek, his theological conclusions align with Trinitarian orthodoxy.
The point is not the words used and the typography, but what the translator means by it. Hart lowercases “god” (without “a”) in John 1:1c because he believes that the Johannine prologue leaves open the question (i.e. does not state it explicitly) whether the Son Logos is fully God (according to Hart, John reserves this revelation for later), while the NWT renders it as "a god" because according to the JWs, John explicitly negates here (and everywhere else) that the Son is fully and properly God, but allegedly asserts that and only that the Son is "a god" in exactly the same way that the word "elohim" is used in Exodus 7:1 or Psalm 82 - i.e., essentially claiming that it doesn't mean anything special.
You are focusing on a superficial similarity (lowercase here and there) and are not addressing the actual difference in interpretation. So you shouldn't focus on what Hart or the NWT wrote, but on what they meant. Hart asserts "John’s prologue does not give us a co-equal Son. John 20 does.", while JWs assert that John’s prologue does give us a non-co-equal Son, and this is a fundamental difference between the two notions.
Hart explicitly critiques and rejects such an understanding as theologically incoherent within John’s monotheistic framework. He argues that John 1:1c emphasizes the Logos’ divine nature (qualitative theos), not an indefinite divine entity. This aligns with the broader Johannine theology, which consistently presents the Logos as fully divine, not a secondary or derivative being. Hart asserts that in John's prologue it is yet unclear whether the Logos is coequal or not, but according to the JW interpretation it is already clear that He is not. I disagree with Hart, as I believe that henotheism (and henotheistic-sounding terminology) is an atavistic remnant from the First Temple era in certain, older OT books (which we shouldn't revert to), and we have known since Isaiah at the latest that one cannot be theos in a positive and affirmative sense without being Yahweh. Hart writes:
“Some other scholars have chosen to render the inarticular form of theos as ‘a divine being,’ but this seems wrong to me on two counts: first, if that were all the evangelist were saying, he could have used the perfectly serviceable Greek word theios; and, second, the text clearly means to assert some kind of continuity of divinity between God the Father and the Logos, not merely some sort of association between ‘God proper’ and ‘a divine being.’”
This explicitly rejects the JW interpretation of “a god” as a lesser divine being, and rules out the introduction of a henotheistic framework incompatible with Johannine theology. Since the JWs understand of the rendering "a god" precisely as "a divine being" (in the very sense of Psalm 82 and Exodus 7:1), I am quite right to point out that Hart disavows this interpretation. While Hart explores the grammatical and syntactical possibilities of the Greek, he ultimately affirms the Logos’ participation in the divine essence, consistent with Trinitarian theology. What does this mere grammatical possibility mean? For example, if a Hellenic mythical literary work said "Zeus en theos", I myself would translate it as "Zeus was a god," but here the theological context is different, because in monotheism there are no minor gods, there is no such thing as "a" lowercased little "god" next to the big One (cf. Isaiah 44:6).
Hart does suggest that John 20:28 represents a climactic revelation of Jesus’ divinity, where Thomas addresses Jesus as ho theos (“the God”). However, this does not imply that John 1:1c diminishes the Logos’ divine nature. Instead, Hart views the Gospel as presenting a progressive unveiling of Christ’s identity, culminating in the recognition of Jesus as ho theos in light of the resurrection. Hart writes:
“It seems to me that the withholding of the full revelation of Christ as ho theos, God in the fullest sense, until Thomas confesses him as such in the light of Easter, must be seen as an intentional authorial tactic.”
This literary and theological progression does not negate the Logos’ divinity in John 1:1c. Rather, it reflects the narrative structure of John’s Gospel, which gradually reveals the Logos’ divine identity in its fullness. While Hart acknowledges that some have interpreted John 20:28 as an exclamation directed toward God rather than Jesus, this is a recognition of historical debates rather than an endorsement of such a reading. Hart ultimately affirms the traditional understanding of Thomas addressing Jesus as ho theos, consistent with the climactic theological significance of the passage. Hart explicitly notes the importance of this verse in revealing Christ’s divinity:
“It is there that Christ, now risen from the dead, is explicitly addressed as ho theos (by the apostle Thomas).”
The acknowledgment of alternative readings does not diminish Hart’s commitment to the traditional interpretation. Instead, it demonstrates his scholarly honesty in engaging with historical and theological complexities. The assertion that this is just an emotional expression ("Oh my God!") is ruled out by the term αὐτῷ in John 20:28, and by Christ's response to it in the very next verse.
Hart also does not argue that Arius represents the orthodox position or that Nicaea is a heretical innovation. Instead, he acknowledges the historical diversity of pre-Nicene theological thought and the role of Nicaea in formalizing Trinitarian doctrine. Hart critiques simplistic portrayals of early Christian theology but ultimately affirms the Nicene understanding of the Logos’ divinity. The introduction of new theological grammar, including the term homoousios, was a response to a theological need: to safeguard the Church’s understanding of Christ’s full divinity against interpretations that undermined it. Hart views Nicaea as a legitimate development of apostolic teaching, not an innovation or departure from orthodoxy.
-
peacefulpete
This hyper-analysis, overinterpretation of what clearly began as metaphor or OT parablelike narrative will never produce a universally satisfying conclusion. It can't because it is all detached from empirical evidence. We begin with the clever introduction of an agent into older theophanic narratives because editors understood theology slightly different. Then nearly immediately it is melded with Middle Platonic concepts of a demiurge as emanation of the Principle One. Then these emanations grew in detail and anthropomorphic descriptions to become angels, demons and Logos etc. Within a certain branch of Judaism many of these rose and congealed to become a separate entity.
Then either
1. a person came along that self-identified as this entity,
2.was posthumously associated with this entity or
3. the entity was later cast as a person through euhemerization/historicization.
Whichever of these three you see best fits the evidence, the concept and figure of Christ/Logos is the product of centuries of theological elaboration.
-
aqwsed12345
@peacefulpete
While it is true that Jewish and Greco-Roman cultural influences shaped the intellectual and linguistic framework of the New Testament, this does not mean that the concept of the Logos or Christ is merely derivative of these sources. The Gospel of John, for example, adopts the term Logos from Hellenistic thought but radically reinterprets it within a Jewish monotheistic framework, presenting the Logos not as a demiurge but as the eternal, pre-existent Creator fully united with the one true God (John 1:1-3). This is not a passive borrowing but a deliberate theological innovation rooted in divine revelation. The argument assumes a purely human process of religious development, ignoring the self-understanding of early Christians. The early church did not view the figure of Christ as the product of centuries of theological elaboration, but as the fulfillment of divine revelation rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures and confirmed by Christ’s life, death, and resurrection (Luke 24:27, Acts 2:22-36).
Middle Platonism may have provided conceptual tools (e.g., terms like Logos), but Jewish theology was fundamentally resistant to the idea of a demiurge as an intermediary creator distinct from the one true God. The Jewish Scriptures are uncompromisingly monotheistic, affirming that God alone created the heavens and the earth (Isaiah 45:18, Genesis 1:1). Early Christians, including John, explicitly affirm this monotheism while identifying the Logos as fully divine and the agent of creation (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16). The Logos in John’s Gospel is not a demiurge or an emanation in the Middle Platonic sense. Middle Platonism posits a hierarchical metaphysical system where the demiurge is a lower, imperfect being. In contrast, John’s Logos is fully God (theos), not a lesser divine being or an emanation. The Gospel’s theology is fundamentally incompatible with Middle Platonic cosmology.
The Gospels and Pauline letters—written within decades of Jesus’ life—consistently affirm that Jesus claimed divine authority and prerogatives (e.g., forgiving sins in Mark 2:5-7, identifying himself with the divine name in John 8:58). The early Christian belief in Jesus as the Logos was not imposed on him posthumously but arose from his own teachings and actions, which his followers interpreted in light of their Jewish theological framework. The prologue of John’s Gospel (written in the late first century) already presents Jesus as the pre-existent Logos. This is too early for such a sophisticated theological concept to have been artificially imposed on a purely human figure without any basis in his life or teachings. The rapid spread of this belief across diverse Christian communities suggests that it reflects a shared conviction rooted in the apostles’ testimony, not a later theological development. The Gospels provide detailed accounts of Jesus’ life, ministry, and crucifixion, grounded in a specific historical and geographical context. Early non-Christian sources (e.g., Tacitus, Josephus) also affirm Jesus’ historical existence. If Jesus were a fictionalized version of the Logos, it would be inexplicable why his followers would invent a narrative of his humiliating death on a cross—a concept deeply offensive to both Jews and Gentiles (1 Corinthians 1:23). This points to the historical reality of Jesus’ life and crucifixion.
The central claims about Jesus as the Logos are present in the earliest Christian writings, such as Paul’s letters (e.g., Philippians 2:5-11, Colossians 1:15-20). These texts, written within 20-30 years of Jesus’ death, already articulate a high Christology that identifies Jesus as divine and the agent of creation. The theological elaboration of Christ’s identity (e.g., the Council of Nicaea) was not the creation of new ideas but the clarification and defense of apostolic teaching in response to heresies. The Nicene Creed reflects the church’s effort to articulate the mystery of the Trinity, not an invention of the doctrine.
Theology deals with metaphysical truths and divine revelation, which are not subject to empirical verification in the same way as physical phenomena. However, this does not mean theology is arbitrary or baseless. It is grounded in historical events (e.g., the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus) and coherent philosophical reasoning. The resurrection of Jesus, attested by multiple independent sources and the transformative experiences of his followers, provides a strong historical basis for Christian claims about his divine identity. This is empirical evidence in the historical sense, even if it transcends purely naturalistic explanations.
Your argument reduces the Christ/Logos concept to a purely human and philosophical construct, ignoring the historical and theological evidence that supports the divine revelation and historical reality of Jesus Christ. The Gospel of John’s use of Logos reflects a unique synthesis of Jewish monotheism and divine revelation, not a mere borrowing from Middle Platonic thought. The early Christian belief in Jesus as the Logos was not the result of centuries of theological elaboration but emerged from the lived experiences and testimonies of his first followers. The claim fails to account for the historical, theological, and scriptural evidence supporting the divine identity of Christ as the eternal Logos.
-
peacefulpete
You have to be a bot.
I'll throw back that the Platonists themselves had a monotheistic concept of One. The ancient gods (much like Yahweh) were reinterpreted as essentially aspects of a single divine Principle, (Monism). There was no conflict with monotheism.
But seriously is it even humanly possible to read my comment and respond with 1000 words in less than 9 minutes?
-
slimboyfat
Yeah, hundreds of words in a couple of minutes is not humanly realistic. And still claiming that Hart meant the opposite of what he wrote and said. This is a waste of time.
-
peacefulpete
Is it possible to program a bot to regurgitate from a fixed collection of arguments? 970 words 9 minutes after my comment.
-
slimboyfat
I think it must be. Conspicuous absence of typos too. (Probably ask it to add some now)
-
Earnest
A couple of responses back, here, aqwsed12345 responded with 694 words less than three minutes after peacefulpete's post.
Nevertheless, one thought I have often wondered about regarding John 20:28 (where Thomas says "My Lord and my God [ho theos mou = the god of me]" is why trinitarians don't have a problem if this identifies Jesus as God the Father. Isn't that modalism? ho theos is generally used with reference to "the God" i.e. God the Father. Why would Thomas exclaim "my God" with reference to God the Father when he was convinced of Jesus's resurrection? No wonder David Bentley Hart acknowledges it could have just been a fervent expression.
-
slimboyfat
Plus the responses take the form: “X might have said Y, but they didn’t mean Y, considering everything, blah blah, they clearly meant Z.” It’s a mince machine that can turn any facts into an argument for the opposite.
What weird times we live in. Where will it end?