Posts by Earnest

164

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

Earnest

@ peacefulpete

ho ho

164

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

Earnest

aqwsed12345 : While the uncial manuscripts do indeed capitalize all instances of the word "god" (ΘΕΟΣ) or "lord" (ΚΥΡΙΟΣ) due to the nature of their script, context and meaning determine how the word should be understood and translated in modern languages.

aqwsed12345 : Thus the use of nomina sacra in early Christian manuscripts reflects reverence for divine names, but it does not imply that every use of the term "god" should be capitalized in modern translations.

I am pleased to see you agree on this. My point regarding nomina sacra was specifically that they do not imply every use of the term "god" should be capitalized in modern translations. And that applies to John 1:1 as much as any other scripture. Context and meaning should determine how the word is translated in modern languages.

aqwsed12345 : The traditional translation ("the Word was God") does not confuse the Word with the [God] ... The Greek construction makes this clear...

You have to be joking. Certainly the Greek construction makes the distinction clear, but we are talking about the English translation. You refuse to address the fact that most English readers do confuse the Word with the God. This is well known to all JWs who get to discuss the trinity from door to door. The first scripture the person will point to, and usually the only scripture, is John 1:1 and will say that proves that Jesus is God. In fact, you say the same thing (to peacefulpete) : "the New Testament's portrayal of the Logos (John 1:1) presents the Logos as not only preexistent but as God Himself". And then you don't think people confuse the Word with ton theon (God Himself).

aqwsed12345 : The claim that John's audience, particularly the Jews of the time, were henotheists is historically inaccurate.

Of course it is accurate. Archaeological finds in the form of oil lamps, coins and mosaics show there were other gods alongside the Jewish god, although most Jews did not worship them. Amazingly, there is a synagogue built in the first half of the third century, in Tiberias, which include the zodiac and sun god. The Dura-Europos synagogue which also dates to the third century includes a number of Greek gods as well as biblical scenes.

To refer to a second god would not be strange to John's audience. In Margaret Barker's book The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God, she argues that prior to the rabbinic Judaism that emerged after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., the Jewish concept of God was not as monolithic as is understood today. Many in first century Palestine retained a world view derived from the more ancient religion of Israel, in which there was a High God and several Sons of God.

In Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, Trypho first asks "show us that the spirit of prophecy admits another god besides the Maker of all things", and Justin answers "there is, and that there is said to be, another god and lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an angel, because he announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things (above whom there is no other god) wishes to announce to them.". Whatever you may argue about Justin, he is answering a question about another god.

The first century audience of John's prologue would have had no problem with the concept that the Word was with God and also had his qualities, who was by nature a god. Indeed, this has always been a Jewish understanding since God said "let us make man in our image", although it was often attributed to an angel (or angels).

164

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

Earnest

aqwswed12345 : You argue that the use of nomina sacra for both "God" and "the god of this world" implies that no special reverence or distinction was intended for these terms in the original manuscripts.

On the contrary, my argument was that the use of nomina sacra for the word "god" does not justify capitalising it in English, unless we are consistent and capitalise all instances where nomina sacra occur. As you know, in the uncial Greek there is no distinction whether it refers to true or false gods, they are all capitalised.

aqwsed : Grammatically, the lack of the article before theos [in John 1:1c] prevents a misunderstanding that the Word is numerically identical to the [God] (ton theon)...

It does in Greek but not in English, because the English of John 1:1 does not reflect the Greek article. You think the English should include the article, as in "the Word was with the God", but the fact is it doesn't. This is why the REV (and Francis Moloney) translate it as "what God was the Word [also] was". That avoids the misunderstanding you refer to, but it is a paraphrase. It may be what the text means but it is not what it says.

As we are discussing how JWs arrived at a clearer understanding, let's consider a number of ways the text could be translated which would reflect the Greek.

(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

(2) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God.

(3) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [the] God, and the Word was god.

(4) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [the] God, and the Word was a god.

(1) and (2) can easily convey to the English reader that there is no distinction between the Word and God. You may read it and say of course there is a distinction, because you know the underlying Greek. But most people do not, and a translation should convey the sense of the original language without requiring people to learn it in order to understand plain English.

(3) and (4) introduce "henotheistic overtones", suggesting the existence of multiple gods, which (you suggest) is incompatible with the monotheism that undergirds John's Gospel.

For the sake of discussion, let me distinguish monotheism, polytheism and henotheism (using theopedia).

monotheism is "the belief that there is but one God. The term comes from the Greek monos "only", and theos "god". Monotheism opposes polytheism, the belief in more than one God, and atheism, the belief that there is no God.

polytheism is "belief in, or worship of, multiple gods or divinities. The word comes from the Greek words poly+theoi, literally "many gods."

henotheism is "the belief that many gods exist, yet the worship of only one of these gods is appropriate. A henotheist would admit that many gods may exist and are able to be worshipped. However the henotheist chooses to worship only one of these gods."

Now I would like to consider the REV translation of John 1:1 "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and what God was the word was", with the footnote

"The absence of the article (“the”) before “God” in the Greek makes the word “God” qualitative, which can be understood as “the Word had the character of God,” meaning that it was godly."

So, John 1:1c answers the question "what was the word". The Word was godly. The Word was what God was. The Word was a god. Not the Word was God. That would (incorrectly) answer the question "who was the word".

The objection that "the Word was a god" introduces "henotheistic overtones" ignores John's audience, who were either henotheists or polytheists. The Jews in John's day knew about other gods. How could they not. Caesar was a god. They just didn't worship them. They were henotheists. John's prologue would have made complete sense to them. It wouldn't occur to them to ask, how could theos be with ton theon, as English readers do when faced with the traditional translation.

This translation ("the Word was a god") shows that JWs had a clearer understanding of how the divinity of the Word was understood by John's intended audience.

164

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

Earnest

aqwsed12345 : Early Christian scribes, as evidenced by their use of nomina sacra, understood this dynamic [the relationship between the Father and the Son] and reverently applied the same sacred titles to both the Father and the Son.

In my previous post I said I would give some thought to the fact that John 1:1 uses nomina sacra for both references to God. Surprisingly, there are only two papyri prior to Sinaiticus and Vaticanus which contain this verse, namely P66 (late second or early third century) and P75 (third century). In fact, only P75 contains the verse in full but we can assume that both references to God were treated as nomina sacra in both papyri. However, I noted in my earlier post that these two papyri in particular were quite liberal in applying nomina sacra, applying them to both the sacred and mundane. So I wondered whether these were also applied to "god" in Acts 28:6 (where the Maltese were saying Paul was "a god") and 2 Corinthians 4:4 (where the "god of this world" blinds the minds of the unbelievers). Unfortunately, none of the early papyri contain these two verses so I checked both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. In both manuscripts nomina sacra are used for both verses, so it seems they were always used for "God" regardless of the context. So I don't think any conclusions can be drawn from the fact that they are used in John 1:1. Otherwise Satan must also be in the "dynamic relationship" you describe.

So the nomina sacra do not provide any support for capitalizing "God" in English translations of John 1:1. Rather, as Francis Moloney explains (The Gospel of John,1998,p.35) :

Although the traditional translation is "and the Word was God," there is a danger that this might lead the contemporary reader of the English text to collapse the Word and God into one: they are both God. The author has gone to considerable trouble to indicate that an identification between the Word and God is to be avoided.

164

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

Earnest

aqwsed12345 : Many scholars ... have extensively argued that the use of nomina sacra reflects the early Christian desire to show reverence for the sacred names of God and Christ.

These conclusions seem reasonable. Larry Hurtado, whom you mention, says regarding the nomina sacra, "at a point still earlier than any of the extant manuscripts, one of these four ['Jesus', 'Lord', 'Christ', or 'God'] may have been written in the special manner, from which the subsequent Christian scribal convention developed." (Lord Jesus Christ, 2005, p.626). That seems a more reasonable explanation for the evolution of this practice than to suggest that the original writers all started abbreviating these four names independently and without reference to each other, as slimboyfat points out above. Hurtado thinks it started with the name "Jesus", but it could just as easily (and in my opinion more likely) have started with replacing the tetragrammaton/Iao if the original writers followed the pattern of the first century LXX in their treatment of God's name.

My reason for stating that the original writers did not use the nomina sacra is, first of all, there is no record of nomina sacra being used in the LXX in (or before) the first century (when most scholars believe the majority of the NT was written). If we accept that nomina sacra were a Christian innovation then this is not surprising. But as they were all Jews they would have shared the Jewish view that scripture should not be altered, so especially when they were quoting from the Torah or other writings it would have been anathema to represent God's name in a way different to what they found written. It is more reasonable to suppose that when gentile scribes who did not share this view of sacred writings were tasked with copying, they took it on themselves (or were authorised by some sort of editorial board) to make these changes.

Your suggestion that the use of nomina sacra in John 1:1 for both references to God is a precedent for capitalising both in English is something I will have to give some thought to. However, as we have agreed that the second reference ("the Word was God") is qualitative, my inclination is that capitalising "God" blurs the meaning with that of the first reference ("the Word was with God") for English readers.

164

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

Earnest

aqwsed12345 : The presence of [nomina sacra] for both Christ and the Father indicates that the earliest Christian scribes viewed Christ as fully divine ...
aqwsed12345 : The use of nomina sacra for both the Father and the Son in the earliest manuscripts signals that the early Christians were expressing their belief in the shared divinity of the Father and the Son.
aqwsed12345 : these sacred abbreviations reveal a deliberate and consistent effort to honor Christ as fully divine, in the same way that God the Father is honored.

These are interesting interpretations of the use of nomina sacra, but are necessarily subjective as we have no contemporaneous record for the reason that nomina sacra were standardised. What we can say for sure is that the original writers of the gospels and letters did not use nomina sacra, but that this practice was developed later by copyists.

Colin Roberts identified three classes of words as nomina sacra: (1) 'God', 'Jesus', 'Christ' and 'Lord', whose contractions were early and fairly consistent (2) 'spirit', 'man' and 'stauros', which are contracted relatively early and frequently, and (3) 'father', 'son', 'saviour', 'mother', 'heaven', 'Israel', 'David', and 'Jerusalem', which are contracted irregularly or inconsistently.

If the use of nomina sacra indicated "shared divinity" of "full divinity", it is difficult to explain why it was also used of 'mother', 'Israel' or 'Jerusalem' unless they were also thought to share in "full divinity". Further, your suggestion that nomina sacra were only generalised in later mansuscripts is not altogether correct.

As early as the second half of the second century, wholesale contraction of 'lord', 'spirit' and 'father' occurred, both sacred and mundane. In papyrus P66 (c. 200) every occurrence of 'lord' is contracted, and most occurrences of 'father' including reference to the devil (John 8:44). In papyrus P75 (third century) every occurrence of 'spirit' is contracted, including unclean spirits (e.g. Luke 4:36; 6:18; 8:29; 9:39,42; 10:20; 11:24,26).

You may be right that some understood the use of nomina sacra for 'Jesus' and 'Lord' (when it referred to Jesus) to give him a similar reverence as that given to God. And likely those who accepted the trinitarian doctrine in later years understood it in a similar way that you do. But the widespread use of nomina sacra beyond 'God' and 'Jesus' suggests that you are reading more into it than the early scribes intended.

164

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

Earnest

aqwsed12345 : The phrase [John 1:1c] doesn't say "the Word was the God," which would confuse the Logos with the Father.
aqwsed12345 : John 1:1b should actually be translated as "and the Word was with the God".

Let me try again. I think we can agree that the readers of John's gospel at the time he wrote it would have understood what the Greek meant. Perhaps the Jewish audience would have understood it slightly differently to the gentile audience, but both would have appreciated the relevance of the definite article or lack of it.

Now we are talking about translation into English. You say that John 1:1b should actually be translated as "and the Word was with the God", but it isn't, is it? It is invariably translated "and the Word was with God". Then you have John 1:1c which reads in English that "the Word was God". How does the English reader know that there is any distinction between the God of John 1:1b and that of John 1:1c? If "the God" is implied in John 1:1b "and the Word was with [the] God", how does the English reader know that it is not implied in John 1:1c "the Word was [the] God". They do not, and often assume that the definite article is implied in both cases. This is no fault of the writer, who wrote in Greek. It is the fault of the translator. While you agree that John 1:1c refers to the nature of the Word, you support this misleading translation which most English readers understand to refer to a person rather than a quality. You can do better.

I would also like to touch on your reference to the nomina sacra. You suggest that because Lord is a "sacred name" (i.e. it is abbreviated) when referring to both God and Christ, this shows that the Gospel writers (and Paul) viewed them both the same. First it must be said that while some papyri distinguish between Lord when it referred to God or Christ, and Lord when it referred to others, other papyri treat all references to Lord as a sacred name. Should that cause us to view all lords as equally sacred? I think not. Secondly, we know that the Jews did not use nomina sacra prior to the time it is used in Christian writings, so it is reasonable to believe that the earliest Christian writings also did not use them. We don't know because we don't have those writings, but we do know all the earliest Christian writings were by Jews so it is reasonable they would write in the same way. Some maintain that nomina sacra were first used to replace the divine name, as we know that happened in the LXX. Of course, it then became more difficult to distinguish between Lord when it referred to God and when it referred to Christ. This is the fallacy which you are highlighting.

164

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

Earnest

aqwsed12345 : The traditional rendering, "the Word was God," reflects this qualitative distinction properly without introducing monalatristic henotheism or creating ambiguity. It emphasizes that the Logos is fully divine without confusing the Logos with the Father. The traditional rendering is not definite, it would be "the Word was *the God", but as far as I know, no one has ever translated it that way.

Au contraire. The English translation "The Word was with God and the Word was God" confuses the Logos with the Father, as English readers infer the definite article in both references to 'God'. In saying "the Word was God" there is no distinction between who the Word was and what the Word was. If it was written as the Greek is, namely "THE WORD WAS WITH THE GOD AND THE WORD WAS GOD" that would be a bit less confusing, but in our monotheistic culture that is still subject to ambiguity. The NEB translates this verse as "what God was the Word was" which certainly makes the distinction clearer, but I fail to see the difference between that and saying "the Word was a god" apart from the fact that the second rendering follows the Greek more closely.

164

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

Earnest

Reading through the article by aqwsed12345, it seems he supports the view that John 1:1c ("the Word was God/a god") should be understood qualitatively. In other words, that theos refers to "godness", what the Logos was, not who the Logos was. If that is the case, the question arises whether the translation "the Word was God" conveys that thought to most English readers, as in English it makes no distinction between the God with whom the Word was and the God that the Word was. In Greek the distinction is clear, in English it is not. The NWT is one of the few English translations which accurately reflects that distinction.

42

Two new Governing Body members

by slimboyfat in

jeddoly and rumph???.

who are they?

.

Earnest

slimboyfat : Only joined Bethel in 2020? I wonder what he was he doing before that.

He (Rumph) and his wife graduated from the 132nd class of Gilead in 2012.