Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat 171 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  slimboyfat

  In an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that Revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the Trinity doctrine. This was claimed as evidence that the description of Jesus as “the beginning of the creation of God” in the verse was not understood to mean that Jesus was God’s first creation. The scholarly Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament & Other Early Christian Literature 3e (2001) by Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the Greek phrase.

  But is there really no evidence that the implications of the verse was appreciated during the 4th century? Interestingly, the original scribe of the famous 4th century Codex Sinaiticus removed the description of Jesus as “the beginning of the creation of God” and replaced it with a description of Jesus as the beginning of the church of God. Scholar Juan Hernández Jr. makes these observations about the text of Codex Sinaiticus:

  The first Christological reading to surface is in Revelation 3:14. The title of the risen Christ, 'the beginning of the creation of God', is altered to the 'beginning of the church of God'. The change eliminates the possibility of placing Jesus within the created order and is conspicuous against the backdrop of the fourth century, defined as it was by its pitched theological battles over the precise nature of the Son. In fact, it is remarkable how close the Apocalypse's original title comes to Arius's own musings about the Son. In the Thalia fragments, one of the few primary sources believed to preserve Arius's authentic words, we encounter the following assertion: 'The one without beginning established the Son as the beginning of all creatures', The 'Arian' statement is nearly indistinguishable from the Apocalypse's original title.The eradication of such language in Codex Sinaiticus appears to indicate that the wording was a problem. The title of Revelation 3:14 was thus harmonized to the title of Colossians 1:18, where Jesus is 'the head of the church'.

  Remarkably, two centuries later Oecumenius would use Revelation 3:14 to weigh in on the Arian controversy of his day. Oecumenius's text of Revelation 3:14 is identical to the 'earliest attainable text', and he displays no knowledge of the singular reading in Codex Sinaiticus. Yet, Oecumenius also reads Revelation 3:14 in light of Colossians 1:18 as he attempts to refute the idea that the Son was created. The singular reading of Codex Sinaiticus may therefore represent the earliest use of the Apocalypse (on record) to thwart an 'Arian' threat by reading it in light of Colossians.

  Access the full article can be found online by searching for:

  Hernández Jr, J. (2015). Codex Sinaiticus: An Early Christian Commentary on the Apocalypse?. Codex Sinaiticus: New Perspectives on the Ancient Biblical Manuscript, 107-26.

  
  
• 

  Riley

  I have never really thought the bible narrative was really pointing towards the idea that God created an Angel , who then created everything. It kind of makes God look like a lazy bastard. It seems more like the invisible omnipotent god who can not tolerate sin became a visible touchable manifestation outside of himself to have contact with sinful humanity.

  A verse that has kind of puzzled me was at the end of the bible " 3 No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him.".

  God and the Lamb seems to be referred to as the same person. Weird.
• 

  Samcats

  Rev 3:21

  21 To the one who conquers I will grant to sit down with me on my throne, just as I conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne
• 

  Rattigan350

  "A verse that has kind of puzzled me was at the end of the bible " 3 No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him.". God and the Lamb seems to be referred to as the same person. Weird."
  
  No. This indicate that God has a throne and the Lamb has one also.
  

  Rev 3:21 Indicates that Jehovah has a throne and Jesus was given authority on it. And Jesus says those that conquer (the 144,000) get authority to rule with him.

  Also Rev 2 & 3 are the messages to the congregations. It must be read in that context.
• 

  Wonderment

  Thanks Slim for your contribution!
  
• 

  Riley

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07fprxcX25E

  I don't like posting videos but also hate the idea of an ex-jw board being feed with jw nonsense.
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  Strange that when considering the context of Rev 3:14 the video makes no mention of Rev 3:12 where Jesus refers to God as “my God”.

  Or Rev 1:1 where it states that God gave Jesus the revelation to share with John, demonstrating there are some things God knows that Jesus only knows after God shares it with him.

  Or Rev 1:5 that states that Jesus was dead and is alive again. God cannot die.

  There are so many verses that talk about Jesus having a beginning - Rev 3:14 is just one of them. Micah 5:2 says Jesus’ “origin” is from ancient times. Col 1:15 says he is “the firstborn of all creation”. In Prov 8:22, a phrase that early Christians universally applied to Jesus says that, “Jehovah produced me, the beginning of his way” (or “created me” in the Greek that the early Christians used). In John 6:57 Jesus stated plainly, “I live because of the Father”. God doesn’t live because of anyone else, he is self-existent.

  That’s a whole bunch of verses that seem to say Jesus was created. Or put it another way, if we are not supposed to understand that Jesus was created by God, then that’s a whole lot of verses that need to be explained away. It’s almost as if it’s important for us to realise that Jesus is God’s creation and distinct from God.

  Beyond that there is the fact that Jesus and God are spoken about habitually as two separate beings throughout. Jesus is distinct and subordinate to God, which self evidently makes him part of creation, even if there weren’t all the verses saying precisely that.

  We understand that angels are obviously part of creation even though scripture doesn’t describe them being created. There are far more references to Jesus as a creation than there are to angels being created. Do you know of any?

  Yet when it comes to a single verse (Rev 22:3) where the pronoun could be ambiguous if you read it as a singular pronoun applied to two different beings this is offered as some kind of proof. If that one pronoun in one verse is proof that Jesus and God are not separate, then what about the hundreds of times that plural pronouns are used? Are they not proof of the opposite? Isn’t the simplest way to read Rev 22:3 to see the single pronoun as a reference to God alone? Nothing says it has to be read as a mysterious and isolated hint in the text about a Trinity doctrine that hadn’t even been dreamt up yet and wouldn’t be formulated for another 300 years.
• 

  KalebOutWest

  Of course it depends on the lexicon, the scholar, the academic, etc., you are reading and why they are saying what they are saying.

  To remind everyone, the Trinity dogma was a response to a heresy as were other creeds and dogmatic statements in the Church. Even the New Testament Canon itself was started as and a reply to the Marcionist threat begun in the 2nd century.

  Unlike what is taught by Jehovah's Witnesses, the apocalypse commonly known as Revelation was unknown until the Canon was closed. Popular reading among the Christians would have included the Shepherd of Hermas of the Apocalypse of Peter if the Canon were chosen by what was commonly used by the majority of disciples.

  The Church Fathers repeatedly have made clear that it was by common revelation or understanding via guidance from the Holy Spirit that Christians came to realize the Jesus and later the Holy Spirit were God. There was no official Biblical Canon set as an authority as this understanding was developing.

  One cannot find in the Canon, for example, where a listing of any books appear, such as Revelation or the Gospels, or that there should be 27 books added to the Hebrew Scriptures--or that there should be Scriptures at all. The idea that truths are based on writings cannot be proven as true.

  Yet, if we are going to satisfy Jehovah's Witnesses and their curiosity and the ideas of conflicting ideas in texts, the book of Revelation says a lot of things about Jesus, God, and reality that isn't meant to be taken literal. It is an apocalypse, a genre that purposefully employs Jewish prophetic tropes to discuss political intrigue and how this is currently affecting the people of God. The books of Enoch and Daniel are of the same genre.

  Cults like Jehovah's Witnesses employ loaded language to attempt to influence their adherents to believe that they have special knowledge, that outsiders do not, that old systems cannot be trusted, and that there is a secret war going on between "us-and-them." All of this creates an ongoing atmosphere of distrust in the minds of followers that I have seen linger in the very souls of exJWs for a lifetime after they leave as well--and it isn't the fault of those who leave. Cults have long lasting, long reaching effects.

  Whatever Jesus might be called is one sentence of a non-literal composition about him is not a means for a theological argument one way or another. However if you want to try, here is what you get. In Revelation 3:14, the "beginning of God's creation" in Greek uses the same word found at John 1:1: ARKHE.

  The word in the New Testament rarely means "first" and does not actually get used as in "first" to be created. It means "primary" or "primacy" as at Colossians 1:18, where it is actually contrasted with the word "firstborn," as ARKHE PROTOTOKOS.

  Thus it cannot mean the 'first to be created' since in Colossians the word combination stands side-by-side. That would be a redundant statement.

  Generally the word ARKHE means "beginning" as in the "start of time" or one's life (Mt 19:4, 8; 24:21: Mk 10:6). It also means a "magistrate" or "ruler" or even the state ruled by a prince, a "principality" (Luke 12:11; 1 Co 15:24; Ro 8:35). And even God the Father is later spoken of like this, using similar language at the end of the book in Revelation at 21:6, called the "beginning."

  The problem is that Watchtower formula of distrust can haunt former believers. We don't have to become Trinitarians. But the fact is that the Trinity is the reality of Christianity, not a conspiracy.

  Christians do not claim a Bible-based doctrine for their faith in most cases. They might claim support, but not foundation. This is a grand, very grand difference.
• 

  slimboyfat

  I am not a Greek scholar and I can’t prove that Rev 3:14 means that Jesus is God’s first creation. But I think it is reasonable to point out the high quality of academic support for understanding this verse to mean that Jesus is God’s first creation.

  Top lexicographers responsible for the Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker Greek lexicon say that “first created” is the probable meaning of the word arche in this verse. They are aware of the range of possible meanings and they select this as the most likely. They also cite an example from the Septuagint where the creature behemoth is described using the same phrase.

  Plus, in terms of the academic study of the apocalyptic genre, scholars hardly come more senior in the field than John Collins and Adela Yarbro Collins. They are professors are Yale and Adela Yarbro Collins is past president of the Society of Biblical Literature. They have published some of the most respected and widely cited academic publications on the topic of apocalyptic literature. What is their take on the identity of Jesus in the book of Revelation? They write:

  In the light of the evidence that the author of Revelation portrays Jesus as the heavenly messiah who is also the principle angel of God, these sayings are best interpreted as associating Jesus with personified wisdom as God’s first creature … In Revelation the evidence suggests that he is God’s first creature, namely, the principle angel.

  John J. Collins and Adela Yarbro Collins (2007). King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature, page 203.

  Just because senior scholars in the field happen to support the JW understanding of this particular point obviously doesn’t prove they are correct. At the same time it does seem reasonable to note that the JW reading has impressive academic support here and is at least a legitimate and reasonable way of understanding the text.
• 

  Riley

  I guess if we isolate verses and pretend we are Greek experts and ignore the Jews wanting to kill Jesus because he was claiming he was claiming God as his father thus making himself equal with god. Or the whole glorify the son as the father, jesus creating the everything in the world etc etc.

  You would think if god created Jesus, the bible would have been more clear on the subject, instead of a proverb, a line in the book of revelation ( which could mean supreme ruler ) or a verse Colossians which more likely means era to humanity.

  Why doesn't the bible start with god created Jesus and Jesus created everything, instead of " let us create man in our image ".