@Earnest
You wrote that you agree with me regarding nomina sacra and that
they do not imply that every single use of the term "God" should be
capitalized in modern translations. However, the distinction you're trying to
make here—particularly regarding John 1:1—is incomplete. While nomina sacra
were applied to both the Father and the Son, these sacred abbreviations
indicate reverence for the divine name, and this same reverence was applied
consistently to both the Father and the Son in the manuscripts. The use of nomina
sacra signals that the Word (Logos) shares in the same divine status as the
Father.
You claim that context and meaning should determine how the word
"God" is translated in John 1:1, and I fully agree. But the context
of John 1:1 does not support the idea that the Logos is a lesser god or merely
has "qualities" of divinity. John 1:1c, where it says, "and
the Word was God" (καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος), uses the qualitative form of
the noun theos, meaning that the Word possesses the full nature of God,
not just divine characteristics. The absence of the article before theos
does not imply that the Word is merely "a god" in the sense of a
subordinate deity but highlights the essential, divine nature of the Word.
Your assertion that people confuse the Word with ton theon (the
Father) because of the traditional translation ("the Word was
God") is a misunderstanding of Trinitarian theology. The doctrine of
the Trinity teaches that the Father, the Son (the Word), and the Holy Spirit
are distinct persons who share the same divine essence. John 1:1 makes it clear
that the Word is distinct from the Father ("the Word was with [the] God")
but is also fully divine ("the Word was God"). It’s not a
matter of confusing the persons of the Trinity but rather affirming the unity
of the divine essence and the distinct persons within the Godhead.
Your claim that first-century Jews were henotheistic is historically
inaccurate. While archaeological finds, such as the synagogue at Dura-Europos,
might suggest some degree of syncretism or pagan influence in certain Jewish
communities during the third century, this does not reflect the mainstream
monotheism of first-century Judaism. Judaism was firmly monotheistic by the
time of the Second Temple period, and the idea of henotheism had been largely
eradicated, particularly in Palestinian Judaism. The Shema, the central
confession of Jewish faith, states: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God,
the Lord is one" (Deuteronomy 6:4). This confession of monotheism
remained foundational to Jewish thought in the first century.
Margaret Barker’s argument in The Great Angel that early Judaism
retained vestiges of a "second god" is a minority position among
scholars and is not widely accepted. Barker’s thesis is speculative and does
not reflect the dominant Jewish monotheism at the time of John’s Gospel. Even
if there were remnants of earlier polytheistic or henotheistic beliefs in
isolated Jewish communities, they were not representative of mainstream Jewish
belief in the first century, especially in the context of John's Gospel, which
was written within a strongly monotheistic framework.
You reference Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho, claiming that
Justin acknowledges the existence of "another god" besides the
Creator. However, Justin does not suggest that this "other god" is a
separate or lesser deity in the way that JWs argue about Jesus. Justin, like
many early Christian writers, uses the term "god" to refer to
Christ’s divinity, but always within the context of monotheism. He
distinguishes between the persons of the Father and the Son, but not in a way
that implies Christ is a separate, subordinate god.
When Justin refers to "another god," he is using the language of
divine agency to describe Christ's role in the economy of salvation, not to
imply a belief in multiple gods. Justin’s theology, like that of the New
Testament writers, upholds the belief that Christ shares in the divine essence
with the Father. Thus, Justin’s reference to Christ as "another god"
is in line with the doctrine of the Trinity, where Christ is distinct from the
Father in personhood but shares fully in the divine nature.
You argue that John's audience would have had no problem with the concept
of the Word being "a god" or having god-like qualities. This
interpretation, however, misunderstands both the linguistic structure of the
Greek and the theological intent of the text.
If John's
intention in John 1:1 had been to attribute a lesser, ontologically subordinate
divinity to the Logos in relation to the Father, he would have likely chosen
different terminology. Considering the cultural background of a Hellenic
polytheistic audience, there were numerous Greek terms available that could
have conveyed the idea of a being with a lower form of divinity or a godlike
creature rather than full deity. Words such as θεῖος (divine-like), ἡμίθεος
(demigod), ἥρως (hero), θεϊκός, θεϊνός (godlike), or even θεώτερος (more
divine) would have been appropriate to signify a lesser status. Additionally,
the term δαίμων originally referred to a lower deity, whether good or bad, and
not exclusively to an evil spirit. By using θεός (God), John unmistakably
communicates the full divinity of the Logos, placing Him on the same
ontological level as the Father.
The phrase "καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος" (and the Word was God)
does not imply that the Logos is merely "a god." The lack of an
article before theos emphasizes the divine nature of the Word, not a
lower or subordinate status. As I mentioned earlier, the qualitative use of theos
indicates that the Word shares fully in the divine essence. This understanding
is consistent with Trinitarian theology, which holds that the Father and the
Son are distinct persons who share the same divine nature. To translate this as
"a god" would be a misunderstanding of both the Greek grammar
and the theological intent of the passage.
In summary:
- The use of nomina sacra in early Christian
manuscripts reflects the same reverence with which early Christians
regarded both the Father and the Son, affirming their shared divine
status.
- The translation "the Word was God"
accurately reflects the qualitative use of theos in John 1:1c,
indicating the full divinity of the Logos.
- The claim that first-century Jews were
henotheistic is historically inaccurate. Mainstream Judaism at the time of
John’s Gospel was firmly monotheistic.
- Justin Martyr’s reference to "another
god" in his Dialogue with Trypho does not imply a belief in a
subordinate or separate god but is consistent with the early Christian
understanding of Christ’s fully divine status within the framework of
monotheism.
The consistent use of nomina sacra and the grammatical structure of
John 1:1 support the traditional understanding that the Word (Logos) is fully
God, sharing in the divine essence of the Father, while remaining distinct in
person.
@peacefulpete
You mention a “lazy default consensus” that assumes there must be evidence
for Jesus’ existence, but this characterization misrepresents the nature of
historical scholarship. The consensus among historians is not based on a “lazy
assumption” but on rigorous examination of available evidence, including early
Christian writings, non-Christian sources, and the cultural context of first-century
Judea. The overwhelming majority of scholars, both religious and secular,
affirm that Jesus existed because the documentary evidence, although not
perfect, is sufficient to establish his historicity. Scholars like Bart Ehrman,
who are critical of Christianity, still affirm Jesus’ existence because denying
it lacks solid evidential support.
It is not simply about “arguing semantics about indefinite articles.”
Historians use established methods, such as textual criticism, comparative
analysis, and historical methodology, to assess the credibility of ancient
sources. To dismiss this as mere assumption without providing substantial
counter-evidence falls short of engaging in serious historical inquiry.
You claim that Paul’s letters and other early Christian writings lack
personal details about Jesus, suggesting that this absence implies Jesus was
not a historical figure. However, this overlooks the nature of Paul’s epistles.
These letters were written to address specific theological issues and practical
concerns within early Christian communities, not as biographies of Jesus.
Paul’s writings focus on the implications of Jesus’ death and resurrection,
which was central to his mission. Furthermore, Paul explicitly mentions Jesus
as a real person, referencing his crucifixion and mentioning people like James,
the brother of Jesus (Galatians 1:19). These references to Jesus’ family and
his death are consistent with a historical figure, not a mythical one.
You mention that the Christ movement was driven by an understanding of Jesus
as an emanation of God and that various Gnostic sects incorporated mystic ideas
into their beliefs. While it is true that early Christianity was diverse and
included various interpretations of Jesus’ nature, this does not mean that
Jesus was not a historical figure. Gnosticism emerged later, and many of its
ideas were in opposition to the mainstream Christian understanding of Jesus as
a human being who lived and died in first-century Palestine.
The existence of differing theological interpretations, such as Gnosticism,
does not disprove Jesus’ historicity. Instead, it shows how early Christians
interpreted his life and teachings in different ways. The Gospels, especially
the Synoptics, provide detailed narratives of Jesus’ life, which were rooted in
oral traditions passed down from those who knew him. This is very different
from the mythological speculations found in later Gnostic texts.
You compare the understanding of Jesus with the way readers might understand
the gods of Plato or the dramatizations in Greek mythology, implying that Jesus
could be a fictionalized character. However, this comparison is flawed. The Gospels
and early Christian writings are not presented as mythological allegories or
philosophical treatises, but as historical accounts of events that occurred in
specific times and places. The Gospels mention real historical figures, such as
Pontius Pilate, Herod, and Caiaphas, situating Jesus’ life within the political
and religious landscape of first-century Judea.
Moreover, the early Christian movement was persecuted and marginalized,
which makes it unlikely that it would have been based entirely on a fictional
figure. The rapid growth of the Christian movement, despite persecution,
suggests that it was rooted in the teachings and life of a real person.
You suggest that the New Testament, including the Pauline letters and the
Gospels, was selectively edited and reworked to fit certain theological
agendas. While it is true that the New Testament canon was formed through a
process of selection, this does not mean that the core message of the texts was
fabricated. Scholars have identified layers of tradition within the Gospels,
including earlier oral traditions, and while redaction occurred, it was not to
the extent that it created a fictional Jesus.
The formation of the canon involved the exclusion of some texts, like those
favored by Gnostics, but the core writings included in the New Testament—Paul’s
letters and the Gospels—were widely accepted in the early Christian communities
long before the formal canon was established. These texts consistently refer to
Jesus as a real, historical figure.
While you mention the concept of the Logos and its connection to Jewish
mysticism, this does not negate the historical existence of Jesus. The Gospel
of John uses the concept of the Logos to describe the divine nature of Jesus,
but it also affirms his incarnation as a human being (John 1:14). The doctrine
of the incarnation—the idea that the eternal Logos became flesh in the person
of Jesus—was a central tenet of early Christian belief and does not undermine
the claim that Jesus was a real historical figure.
In conclusion, while there were diverse interpretations of Jesus in early
Christianity, and while some Gnostic sects viewed him in mystical terms, this
does not disprove his historicity. The consensus among historians is that Jesus
existed as a historical figure, and this view is based on substantial
documentary evidence, not mere assumptions. The existence of theological
diversity within early Christianity, including Gnosticism, actually supports
the idea that there was a real historical figure whose life and teachings were
interpreted in various ways.
