We've looked at how the post-apostolic Christian writers have identified the two Gods of John 1:1 and how they used the Old Testament as the basis for their beliefs, so it is now time to look at how the New Testament authors have dealt with this same issue, and we'll begin by looking at how the writings of John factor into this discussion.
As John is the author of the Gospel of John, one would expect that his other writings may shed light upon how he looks at the first verse of his own Gospel. The prologue to the Revelation of John makes the issue clear. As the vison begins, Jesus appears to John as an angel, a human figure with flaming eyes and feet like burnished bronze, appearing in the temple, the dwelling place of Yahweh. The angel introduces himself as: "I am the first and the last and the living one." And by this introduction, He distinctly identifies himself as Yahweh. These are Old Testament titles for Yahweh. Compare the language with that of Isaiah 44:6: "Thus says Yahweh the King of Israel, and his Redeemer the Lord of Hosts: I am the first and the last." Compare also with Job: " I know my Redeemer is the Living One." The titles were the traditional titles of Yahweh.
The angel in John's vision was Jesus, for he had died and was alive again (Rev 2:8), although in other respects He was the ancient Yahweh. He could permit others to eat from the tree of life (Rev 2:7), He had the sharp sword of judgement (Rev 2:12), He was the Son of God (Rev 2:18), He had the seven spirits of God (Rev 3:1), He was the scribe of the Lamb's book of life (Rev 3:5), He sat on a throne and had a Father also enthroned. There are several other examples in Revelation that confirm that the Jesus-angel was Yahweh. The Lamb had seven horns and seven eyes. In Zechariah, the seven eyes were the seven spirits, the seven eyes of Yahweh. The Lamb was explicitly identified as Lord of Lords and King of Kings (Rev 17:14), both Old Testament monikers for Yahweh. He was the Faithful and True who rode out as a warrior judge, linking Him to the language of Deutoronomy 32 orignally describing Yahweh. The Lamb was also depicted as married to the heavenly city, a role identified with Yahweh in Isaiah 54. The bejewelled city wed to Yahweh in Isaiah 54 became the heavenly city and bride of the Lamb in Revelation 21. There can be no doubt that for John, the heavenly Christ was the ancient Yahweh.
In the Revelation of John, the angel figure is identifed simultaneously as Jesus and Yahweh, who is numerically distinct from and His Father, God Most High. In this respect, the writings of John confirm the early Christian teachings regarding God and the Word introduced in John 1:1.
Aside from Revelation, there are other instances in John's Gospel that portray the same reality. In John 8:58 Jesus appears to proclaim clearly to the Jewish leadership that he is Yawheh. "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." Here He is using the same language to refer to Himself that He used to introduce Himself to Moses from the burning bush. Jesus is not merely saying in this passage that He existed before Abraham. In the original Greek text, the 'I am' in the English is translated from the Greek 'ego eimi', which literally means 'I am.' To read it as 'I was' or 'I have been' would require a change in the tense. Additonally, when the Hebrew Bible was translated into the Greek Septuagint, the version used and quoted by the New Testament authors, the name God used to introduce Himself to Moses was translated to 'ego eimi.' Linguistically, the 'ego eimi' in both the Moses account and John's account are contextually linked. To Greek speakers, 'ego eimi' would represent the Great I Am. That is how it was translated from Hebrew into Greek. Furthermore, had Jesus merely stated that he had existed before Abraham, that wouldn't have risen to the level of blasphemy that would cause the mob to want to stone Him in the next verse. As I read it, Jesus was proclaiming Himself to be Yahweh, which is consistent with how he presented Himself to John in Revelation.
In other areas of John's Gospel, he also notes the distinctness between God Most High, or God the Father, and Jesus. I'm not going to list all of the references, they're easy enough to look up and I'll address them in turn as I continue this commentary. As one example I would point out John 14, 16-17, which includes the Great Intercessory Prayer. These chapters make clear the distinctness between the Father and the Son and also that the Father exceeds the Son. In other words, John taught that Jesus was Yahweh, or Jehovah, He was distinct from God Most High and was subject to His Father, which is consistent with what we have previously seen in the teachings of the other early Christian authors.
Next, I'll look at how this issue is addressed by other New Testament authors.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Thursday, June 9, 2011
John 1:1: Analysis from Early Christian Authors
The earliest writings from the post Apostolic Christian leaders (Ignatius, Clement, Polycarp, Aristides, etc.) tended to be directed more toward practical matters and aren't highly doctrinal or theological in content, with the exception of the few apologies which were written to combat heresies that were cropping up within the various Christian communities or to implore the Romans to stop believing lies about Christian beliefs and practices and to, consequently, stop executing them.
While they don't deal with the topics of John 1:1 directly, certain concepts can be inferred from the language they employ regarding God. It becomes fairly clear from their appellations for Deity that both God Most High, the Father God and Jesus Christ are deemed God. The phrase 'God the Father who is God, Jesus Christ, who is God and the Holy Ghost, who is God,' appears almost like a mantra throughout the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. Clement of Rome and Ignatius both refer to Jesus Christ repeatedly as 'our God,' or as 'God, who is our Saviour Himself,' and the blood of Jesus Christ is also termed 'the blood of God.' They also, of course, refer to Christ as 'the Son of God Most High,' or 'the Son of the Most High Father,' etc. And Ignatius also refers to Jesus Christ as being 'God Himself being manifested in human form' and as being 'eternal and invisible,' which is language associated with the God of the Old Testament. Likewise, Aristides refers to Jesus Christ as 'he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God Himself came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh.'
While such language would indicate that the early Christians believed that God the Father and Jesus Christ were both in some way God, and that Jesus Christ was somehow God manifest in the flesh, it doesn't on its own allow for a clear interpretation of John 1:1. The writings of Justin Martry, however, provide the theological framework necessary to clearly elucidate and delineate the language of the early Christian authors and make sense of how they understood the references in John 1:1.
Justin Martyr was an early Christian apologist who wrote between about 120-165 AD. Most of his writings are lost to us, but there are a handful that remain. Among these, The Dialog with Trypho is most relevant to this discussion. This is a set piece in which Justin is reporting a dialog he had with a Jewish man named Trypho in which he tries to convince Trypho that Christianity is the new law, and he goes at great lengths to establish this fact using the Old Testament. I'm not going to quote copious amounts of this document. It's available on line should anyone wish to read it in its entirety, but I am going to summarize the relevant portions of it.
During a segment of this dialog, Justin explains very clearly what he believes to be the Christian concept of God, and he supports this concept in detail using portions of the Old Testament. His explanation brings complete clarity to John 1:1, though it is clearly at odds with modern theologians who insist and presume that early Christianity and Judaism subscribed to the same supposition of strict monotheism through which they interpret the Bible.
According to Justin Martyr, God the Father (or God Most High) and Yahweh (or Jehovah) were two, in his words, 'numerically distinct' Gods. God the Father was the supreme God, and Yahweh was the first born and preminent of his Sons. The God who appeared to Moses in the burning bush was not God Most High, but was Yahweh, the Son of God. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was not God Most High, but was Yahweh, the Son of God. The God who oversaw and interacted with and who was worshiped by the House of Israel was not God Most High, but was Yahweh His Son. Yahweh was the Word, and Jesus Christ was literally Yahweh made flesh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob come to earth as a mortal to redeem his people at the behest of his Father, God Most High. This conception of Deity is made very clear by Justin in the dialog, and it is reiterated with equal clarity in his First Apology. This concept of God Most High and His Son, Yahweh, is also consistent with the apellations of God expressed by the Apostolic Fathers and other early Christian authors. Based upon this understanding of early Christian beliefs, John 1:1 could best be written as follows: In the beginning was the Word (or Yahweh), and the Word was with God Most High, and the Word was Yahweh, the God of Israel.
While they don't deal with the topics of John 1:1 directly, certain concepts can be inferred from the language they employ regarding God. It becomes fairly clear from their appellations for Deity that both God Most High, the Father God and Jesus Christ are deemed God. The phrase 'God the Father who is God, Jesus Christ, who is God and the Holy Ghost, who is God,' appears almost like a mantra throughout the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. Clement of Rome and Ignatius both refer to Jesus Christ repeatedly as 'our God,' or as 'God, who is our Saviour Himself,' and the blood of Jesus Christ is also termed 'the blood of God.' They also, of course, refer to Christ as 'the Son of God Most High,' or 'the Son of the Most High Father,' etc. And Ignatius also refers to Jesus Christ as being 'God Himself being manifested in human form' and as being 'eternal and invisible,' which is language associated with the God of the Old Testament. Likewise, Aristides refers to Jesus Christ as 'he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God Himself came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh.'
While such language would indicate that the early Christians believed that God the Father and Jesus Christ were both in some way God, and that Jesus Christ was somehow God manifest in the flesh, it doesn't on its own allow for a clear interpretation of John 1:1. The writings of Justin Martry, however, provide the theological framework necessary to clearly elucidate and delineate the language of the early Christian authors and make sense of how they understood the references in John 1:1.
Justin Martyr was an early Christian apologist who wrote between about 120-165 AD. Most of his writings are lost to us, but there are a handful that remain. Among these, The Dialog with Trypho is most relevant to this discussion. This is a set piece in which Justin is reporting a dialog he had with a Jewish man named Trypho in which he tries to convince Trypho that Christianity is the new law, and he goes at great lengths to establish this fact using the Old Testament. I'm not going to quote copious amounts of this document. It's available on line should anyone wish to read it in its entirety, but I am going to summarize the relevant portions of it.
During a segment of this dialog, Justin explains very clearly what he believes to be the Christian concept of God, and he supports this concept in detail using portions of the Old Testament. His explanation brings complete clarity to John 1:1, though it is clearly at odds with modern theologians who insist and presume that early Christianity and Judaism subscribed to the same supposition of strict monotheism through which they interpret the Bible.
According to Justin Martyr, God the Father (or God Most High) and Yahweh (or Jehovah) were two, in his words, 'numerically distinct' Gods. God the Father was the supreme God, and Yahweh was the first born and preminent of his Sons. The God who appeared to Moses in the burning bush was not God Most High, but was Yahweh, the Son of God. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was not God Most High, but was Yahweh, the Son of God. The God who oversaw and interacted with and who was worshiped by the House of Israel was not God Most High, but was Yahweh His Son. Yahweh was the Word, and Jesus Christ was literally Yahweh made flesh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob come to earth as a mortal to redeem his people at the behest of his Father, God Most High. This conception of Deity is made very clear by Justin in the dialog, and it is reiterated with equal clarity in his First Apology. This concept of God Most High and His Son, Yahweh, is also consistent with the apellations of God expressed by the Apostolic Fathers and other early Christian authors. Based upon this understanding of early Christian beliefs, John 1:1 could best be written as follows: In the beginning was the Word (or Yahweh), and the Word was with God Most High, and the Word was Yahweh, the God of Israel.
Beyond Justin Martyr, there were other early Christian writers in the first three centuries of Christianity that described God similarly. El Elyon had become for them God the Father, and Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel, the Son had become identified with Jesus Christ. I will now take a moment and review some of these. However, most of their arguments begin with a reference to Deuteronomy 32:8-9, and we must begin with a brief discussion of how these passages have been preserved for us in order to understand their viewpoint, so I will do that first.
In the King James Bible and other versions which are based largely upon the Masoretic Texts (MT) or the Septuagint, Deutoronomy 32:8-9 is rendered as follows: "When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he seperated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the Lord's portion is his people."
This version is based upon the later Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible, and it is distinctly at odds with the early verisons of the Hebrew texts uncovered at Qumran. It is believed that the earlier Hebrew versions of the text are more correct and the later version was an editorial modification. The older version reads as follows: "When the Most High (El Elyon) divided to the nations their inheritance, when he seperated the sons of men, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the sons of God. For the Lord's (Yahweh's) portion is his people."
Note the difference, the later version changing 'sons of God' to 'children of Israel,' which has significant implications. In the older version, El Elyon divides the nations among the sons of El, allocating Israel to his son Yahweh. It is believed that this passage within Deutoronomy is one of its oldest components, and it hearkens back to the early Hebrew beliefs that weren't defined by the strict monotheism attributed to later Israelite beliefs, but that is a discussion for another time. Suffice it to say that the oldest parts of the Old Testament contain implications that God Most High, the Father God, was literally a Father and had sons (sons of El or sons of the Elohim), among whom was Yahweh, the God of Israel.
The book of Job provides another example of this. In the prologue to Job we see how the sons of God (sons of Elohim), one of whom is Satan, came to Yahweh to test the loyalty of Job. As this passage is usually rendered in English, it seems to imply that Yahweh was superior to the sons of God; however, that isn't what is connoted by the original Hebrew. The Hebrew can be read as either 'to present themselves before Yahweh' or 'to set themselves against Yahweh,' and it doesn't automatically imply superiority. Thus we are presented with a situation where Yahweh is one among many of the sons of God, and he is challenged by another of the sons of God to test the loyalty of his servant. The sons of Elohim also appear in Job 38 where Yahweh asks Job: "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth...when the morning stars shouted together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" Yahweh is the creator and the sons of God are there as well, linked to the morning stars, which are another symbol of the sons of El from antiquity.
Psalms 29, 58, 82, and 89 also carry on the theme of the sons of Elohim or the sons of Elyon. The most interesting of these is 82 which describes the council of God comprised of the sons of Elyon. The setting is less clear in most English translations, but the Psalm describes a scene where God passes judgement upon the sons of God (sons of Elyon). "You are Elohim, sons of Elyon all of you." The sons of Elohim appear again in Psalm 89: "none among the sons of Elohim is like Yahweh who is a God feared among the council of the Holy Ones." These types of scenes are observed repeatedly in the oldest portions of the Bible, and they are describing situations where the sons of Elyon are sitting in a holy council with God Most High, and Yahweh is among the sons of Elyon. Later portions of the Hebrew Bible seemed to try and distance themselves from these old traditions, mostly, in my opinion, at the behest of the Deutronomic factions and the post exilic reformers, but the same types of imagery and scenes were prevalant in the theophanies of the prophetic authors, nonetheless.
But I can't resist mentioning at this point one of the most unique scenes of the Heavenly Council that I have read among the early Christian texts. The pseudepigraphal work The Ascension of Isaiah, relates how Isaiah was escorted up to the highest heaven, passing angelic sentinals along the way. When he reaches the highest heaven, he is clothed with robes of glory and welcomed into the heavenly council of God. He is met by three personages in human form. The one in the middle is identified to him as God Most High, the one upon the right is identified as the Son of God, the Lord who had lived his life upon the earth and who had returned to take his place upon the right hand of Glory and the third personage is identified as the Holy Spirit. At one point, the angel of the Holy Spirit approaches Isaiah and converses with him, and, to my recollection, it is the only account I am aware of that depicts the person of the Holy Spirit speaking to another face to face as one man speaks to another. Interestingly enough, Origen also reports that his Hebrew teacher identified the two six-winged seraphim in Isaiah's theophany as the only begotten Son and the Holy Spirit. This seems to suggest that this concept of Deity was not singular to early Christianity, but had its roots in ancient Hebrew beliefs as well, and we see such ideas appearing in parts of the Old Testament, the writings of Philo, ect., but that will be a topic for another time.
But anyway, let's end that tangent and get back to the teachings of the early Christian writers on these subjects. Returning to the concept of God proposed by Justin Martyr, it can be demonstrated that the other prominent Christian authors that followed him preserved this idea that God Most High was distinct from Yahweh, and that Jesus Christ was identified with Yahweh. Here is a quick preview of what was taught regarding this topic.
Origen: There may be some individuals among the multitudes of believers who are not in entire agreement with us, and who incautiously assert that the Saviour is the Most High God; however, we do not hold with them.
Origen: But even in regard to those who, either from deficiency of knowledge or want of inclination for from not having Jesus to lead them to a rational view of religion, have not gone into these deep questions, we find that they believe in the Most High God and in His only-begotten Son, the Word and God....
In The Clementine Recognitions during the purported debate between Peter and Simon Magus, while the debaters disagree regarding the exact nature of God, both take the passage of Duetoronomy 32 to mean that there is a distinction between God Most High and Yahweh, the God of Israel. Peter claims Christians worship the God of gods, which is an Old Testament appellation of Yahweh, and then states plainly that Jesus is the God of gods, equating him with Yahweh.
In Eusebius' Proof of the Gospel, it can be seen that this distinction between the two deities is still remembered. I won't quote the entire passages since they are long and tedious. Feel free to read them yourself if you are so inclined. But to sum them up, in Eusebius' views, Yahweh the God of Israel was the Son, the Christ, the Word of God who called people to worship the Father.
Iraneus of Lyons used the same arguments for the pre-existent Christ in his Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, though the distinctions had begun to blur. According to him, it was the Word who said to Moses at the burning bush 'I am He Who is,' a clear indication that the God named with the sacred name was the second God and not God Most High. It was the Son who was the agent of creation, the Son who appeared to Abraham at Mamre, the Son who appeared to Jacob at Bethel and the Word who spoke to Moses and led Israel out of Egypt.
A contemporary of Iraneus, Clement of Alexandria was expounding the Old Testament in the same way. In his treatise, The Instructor, he introduced his instructor as 'The Holy God Jesus, the Word who is the guide of all humanity.' The instuctor led his people out of Egypt, appeared to Abraham, appeared to Jacob, gave the law to Moses, lead his people to the promise land. Clement knew that his instructor was the second God.
The first theologian of the Roman church, Novatian, wrote a treatise on the trinity, and he read the Old Testament the same way. He pointed out several texts in which he found the second God, Yahweh. For example, Hosea 1:7 "I will deliver them by Yahweh their God.' The 'I' in this passage, according to Novatian, was God Most High who was going to deliver his people via Yahweh. Yahweh, this second God, was Christ, the agent of creation, the one appearing in the theophanies, the one who appeared to Abraham, etc. Is it starting to get repetitive yet? While these teachings were abandoned and replaced by the later creeds, they were the original doctrine, and they are consistent with and developed from the ancient and unbroken tradition of reading the Old Testament in this manner. It wasn't until the third and fourth century Christian leadership began to really embrace the Neo-platonic concepts of God and its attendant strict monotheism that their began to arise the conflicts between the concept of God handed down to them from the early Christians and the Greek conception of Deity they had become partial to. But that is a discussion best reserved for John 17. (Foreshadowing. The sign of quality literary works).
The evidence that first Christians identified Jesus with the God of the Jews is overwhelming. It was their customary way of reading the Old Testament. The appearances of Yahweh or the angel of Yahweh were read as manifestations of the pre-existent Christ. The Son of God was their name for Yahweh, and this will be examined more in the following post that examines these concepts within the framework of the New Testatment authors, including what John himself wrote pertaining to this topic.
Of course, I can't end this without referring to one of my favorite little vignettes from the early writers. A little passage from The Discourse on Abbaton that relates part of the creation account, depicting God the Father and His Son languishing over the newly created body of Adam. The account is written as if the Son were speaking, and it goes like this:
In the King James Bible and other versions which are based largely upon the Masoretic Texts (MT) or the Septuagint, Deutoronomy 32:8-9 is rendered as follows: "When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he seperated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the Lord's portion is his people."
This version is based upon the later Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible, and it is distinctly at odds with the early verisons of the Hebrew texts uncovered at Qumran. It is believed that the earlier Hebrew versions of the text are more correct and the later version was an editorial modification. The older version reads as follows: "When the Most High (El Elyon) divided to the nations their inheritance, when he seperated the sons of men, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the sons of God. For the Lord's (Yahweh's) portion is his people."
Note the difference, the later version changing 'sons of God' to 'children of Israel,' which has significant implications. In the older version, El Elyon divides the nations among the sons of El, allocating Israel to his son Yahweh. It is believed that this passage within Deutoronomy is one of its oldest components, and it hearkens back to the early Hebrew beliefs that weren't defined by the strict monotheism attributed to later Israelite beliefs, but that is a discussion for another time. Suffice it to say that the oldest parts of the Old Testament contain implications that God Most High, the Father God, was literally a Father and had sons (sons of El or sons of the Elohim), among whom was Yahweh, the God of Israel.
The book of Job provides another example of this. In the prologue to Job we see how the sons of God (sons of Elohim), one of whom is Satan, came to Yahweh to test the loyalty of Job. As this passage is usually rendered in English, it seems to imply that Yahweh was superior to the sons of God; however, that isn't what is connoted by the original Hebrew. The Hebrew can be read as either 'to present themselves before Yahweh' or 'to set themselves against Yahweh,' and it doesn't automatically imply superiority. Thus we are presented with a situation where Yahweh is one among many of the sons of God, and he is challenged by another of the sons of God to test the loyalty of his servant. The sons of Elohim also appear in Job 38 where Yahweh asks Job: "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth...when the morning stars shouted together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" Yahweh is the creator and the sons of God are there as well, linked to the morning stars, which are another symbol of the sons of El from antiquity.
Psalms 29, 58, 82, and 89 also carry on the theme of the sons of Elohim or the sons of Elyon. The most interesting of these is 82 which describes the council of God comprised of the sons of Elyon. The setting is less clear in most English translations, but the Psalm describes a scene where God passes judgement upon the sons of God (sons of Elyon). "You are Elohim, sons of Elyon all of you." The sons of Elohim appear again in Psalm 89: "none among the sons of Elohim is like Yahweh who is a God feared among the council of the Holy Ones." These types of scenes are observed repeatedly in the oldest portions of the Bible, and they are describing situations where the sons of Elyon are sitting in a holy council with God Most High, and Yahweh is among the sons of Elyon. Later portions of the Hebrew Bible seemed to try and distance themselves from these old traditions, mostly, in my opinion, at the behest of the Deutronomic factions and the post exilic reformers, but the same types of imagery and scenes were prevalant in the theophanies of the prophetic authors, nonetheless.
But I can't resist mentioning at this point one of the most unique scenes of the Heavenly Council that I have read among the early Christian texts. The pseudepigraphal work The Ascension of Isaiah, relates how Isaiah was escorted up to the highest heaven, passing angelic sentinals along the way. When he reaches the highest heaven, he is clothed with robes of glory and welcomed into the heavenly council of God. He is met by three personages in human form. The one in the middle is identified to him as God Most High, the one upon the right is identified as the Son of God, the Lord who had lived his life upon the earth and who had returned to take his place upon the right hand of Glory and the third personage is identified as the Holy Spirit. At one point, the angel of the Holy Spirit approaches Isaiah and converses with him, and, to my recollection, it is the only account I am aware of that depicts the person of the Holy Spirit speaking to another face to face as one man speaks to another. Interestingly enough, Origen also reports that his Hebrew teacher identified the two six-winged seraphim in Isaiah's theophany as the only begotten Son and the Holy Spirit. This seems to suggest that this concept of Deity was not singular to early Christianity, but had its roots in ancient Hebrew beliefs as well, and we see such ideas appearing in parts of the Old Testament, the writings of Philo, ect., but that will be a topic for another time.
But anyway, let's end that tangent and get back to the teachings of the early Christian writers on these subjects. Returning to the concept of God proposed by Justin Martyr, it can be demonstrated that the other prominent Christian authors that followed him preserved this idea that God Most High was distinct from Yahweh, and that Jesus Christ was identified with Yahweh. Here is a quick preview of what was taught regarding this topic.
Origen: There may be some individuals among the multitudes of believers who are not in entire agreement with us, and who incautiously assert that the Saviour is the Most High God; however, we do not hold with them.
Origen: But even in regard to those who, either from deficiency of knowledge or want of inclination for from not having Jesus to lead them to a rational view of religion, have not gone into these deep questions, we find that they believe in the Most High God and in His only-begotten Son, the Word and God....
In The Clementine Recognitions during the purported debate between Peter and Simon Magus, while the debaters disagree regarding the exact nature of God, both take the passage of Duetoronomy 32 to mean that there is a distinction between God Most High and Yahweh, the God of Israel. Peter claims Christians worship the God of gods, which is an Old Testament appellation of Yahweh, and then states plainly that Jesus is the God of gods, equating him with Yahweh.
In Eusebius' Proof of the Gospel, it can be seen that this distinction between the two deities is still remembered. I won't quote the entire passages since they are long and tedious. Feel free to read them yourself if you are so inclined. But to sum them up, in Eusebius' views, Yahweh the God of Israel was the Son, the Christ, the Word of God who called people to worship the Father.
Iraneus of Lyons used the same arguments for the pre-existent Christ in his Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, though the distinctions had begun to blur. According to him, it was the Word who said to Moses at the burning bush 'I am He Who is,' a clear indication that the God named with the sacred name was the second God and not God Most High. It was the Son who was the agent of creation, the Son who appeared to Abraham at Mamre, the Son who appeared to Jacob at Bethel and the Word who spoke to Moses and led Israel out of Egypt.
A contemporary of Iraneus, Clement of Alexandria was expounding the Old Testament in the same way. In his treatise, The Instructor, he introduced his instructor as 'The Holy God Jesus, the Word who is the guide of all humanity.' The instuctor led his people out of Egypt, appeared to Abraham, appeared to Jacob, gave the law to Moses, lead his people to the promise land. Clement knew that his instructor was the second God.
The first theologian of the Roman church, Novatian, wrote a treatise on the trinity, and he read the Old Testament the same way. He pointed out several texts in which he found the second God, Yahweh. For example, Hosea 1:7 "I will deliver them by Yahweh their God.' The 'I' in this passage, according to Novatian, was God Most High who was going to deliver his people via Yahweh. Yahweh, this second God, was Christ, the agent of creation, the one appearing in the theophanies, the one who appeared to Abraham, etc. Is it starting to get repetitive yet? While these teachings were abandoned and replaced by the later creeds, they were the original doctrine, and they are consistent with and developed from the ancient and unbroken tradition of reading the Old Testament in this manner. It wasn't until the third and fourth century Christian leadership began to really embrace the Neo-platonic concepts of God and its attendant strict monotheism that their began to arise the conflicts between the concept of God handed down to them from the early Christians and the Greek conception of Deity they had become partial to. But that is a discussion best reserved for John 17. (Foreshadowing. The sign of quality literary works).
The evidence that first Christians identified Jesus with the God of the Jews is overwhelming. It was their customary way of reading the Old Testament. The appearances of Yahweh or the angel of Yahweh were read as manifestations of the pre-existent Christ. The Son of God was their name for Yahweh, and this will be examined more in the following post that examines these concepts within the framework of the New Testatment authors, including what John himself wrote pertaining to this topic.
Of course, I can't end this without referring to one of my favorite little vignettes from the early writers. A little passage from The Discourse on Abbaton that relates part of the creation account, depicting God the Father and His Son languishing over the newly created body of Adam. The account is written as if the Son were speaking, and it goes like this:
And He took the clay from the hand of the angel, and made Adam according to Our image and likeness. and He left him lying for forty days and forty nights without putting breath into him. And He heaved sighs over him daily, saying, "If I put breath into this [man], he must suffer many pains." And I said unto My Father, "Put breath into him; I will be an advocate for him." And My Father said unto Me," If I put breath into him, My beloved Son, Thou wilt be obliged to go down into the world, and to suffer many pains for him before Thou shalt have redeemed him, and made him to come back to his primal state." And I said unto My Father, "Put breath into him; I will be his advocate, and I will go down into the world, and will fultill Thy command."
I just think the scene sums up nicely the early Christian vision of God Most High and his Son, Yahweh, and the dynamic between the two as depicted in John 1:1 who were, in the words of Justin Martyr, 'two numerically distinct Gods.'
But for now, I'm tired, and I'm going to bed.
Friday, June 3, 2011
John 1:1 - Introduction to Analysis
King James Bible: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
New Jerusalem Bible: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
NIV: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Expanded Translation: In the beginning, the Word was already in existence. And the Word was in fellowship with God. And the Word was as to His essence absolute diety.
This is a verse that has little controversy regarding its translation from the original Greek texts, and nearly all versions of the Bible examined are in very close agreement regarding the correct English rendition, so much so that they could be assumed to be identical in meaning and intent. However, there are some minority renderings that translate the end of the verse as "and the Word was divine," or as "and the Word was a god." Personally, I find the linguistic arguments for these renditions unconvincing, as do each of the Greek scholars I have looked to regarding this topic. The discussion revolves around Greek grammatical rules, and it is fairly tedious, so I won't rehash them here. If you are interested in reviewing this information, I would refer you to the following individuals: Daniel Wallace, A.T. Robertson, R.C.H. Lenski, Henry Alford, J.A. Bengel, Albert Barnes, B.F. Westcott, and F.L. Godet. What I would not recommend, and I cannot emphasize this enough, is to Google the topic and trust what you might read on a variety of the websites. In many cases, they are written by individuals with just enough knowledge of Greek to become dangerous. Much of the information on such sites are not accurate or complete, and they are not to be trusted. If you want to research this, stick with the books or articles written by actual experts in Greek.
Now, what I find interesting about the minority renditions of the verse is that, when viewed in light of what the early Christians taught regarding this verse, the minority renditions could describe the situation fairly accurately given a few semantic adjustments, and once I've finished presenting the opinions of the early Christians, this should become apparent. The difference between the majority and minority renditions really only becomes a matter of definitions.
However, the real conflict arises when one begins to compare the modern, conservative interpretation of this verse with the interpretation inferred from the stated beliefs of the early Christian authors. It is important to let the Bible speak for itself within its proper historical context and to avoid coloring its meanings with modern biases. As a product of the exile, the Bible, as currently constituted, has descended to us through a double layer of distortion. Exilic reformers edited much of what we read now in our Hebrew Bible, and this Bible has been explained to us through the lens of modern interpreters with a similar worldview as the exilic reformers. The fact that ancient interpreters read the texts differently than the modern interpreters is seen by them as a puzzle.
What I intend to do here is to ignore how modern theologians interpret this verse and examine it in terms of what can be gleaned from early Christian authors supplemented by further references from The New and Old Testaments. How this interpretation differs from what is to be found in conservative modern theology will be apparent. Before I begin, there is something I must emphasize: I do not know Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew, so any discussions I make of the languages have come from Biblical scholars who are expert in Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew. I'm not preparing a full bibliography, but prominent among the scholars upon whom I rely in this regard are: Margeret Barker, William Dever, Lowell Handy, Mark Smith, Dexter Calendar, Frank Moore Cross, J. D. G Dunn, J. Danielou and M. Werner.
Before delving in to the explanation of the verse, its important to first take a moment and review the Hebrew and Greek words for God and how they are translated into our English Bibles because an understanding of the usage and distinctions between these words will be key to understanding the concept of God depicted not only in this verse but in the Bible and other historical texts as a whole. The Hebrew Bible uses a number of different words to refer to God. In the older parts of the Old Testament, God is referred to as El, El Elyon and Elohim, which refer to God Most High, the Father God. At the burning bush, God introduces himself as I AM, which is the Hebrew word Yahweh (YHWH), another Old Testament designation for God. This is the name of God which was considered sacred and was not to be spoken, it was the name the High Priest took upon himself when performing the atoning rites. Adonai or El Shaddai (which literally means God with breasts, and may refer to the ancient Hebrew belief in a mother God who was a consort to El) were occasionally used. When pronouncing Yahweh, Hashem (The Name) was typically used, and it was occasionally used in written texts in place of Yahweh to avoid use of the sacred name. In many post-exilic portions of the Old Testament, God is referred to as Yahweh Elohim (Lord God).
Yahweh is also the name that became Jehovah in modern vernacular, but Jehovah was not the correct name of deity to the Hebrews. If you traveled back in time and shouted the name Jehovah at the High Priest, he would have been completely unoffended, and you would have remained completely unstoned. The moniker Jehovah first appeared in the Tyndale Bible in the 1500s, and it came about through a process of transliteration of the Hebrew word to pre-Norman English and then to post-Norman English. In pre-Norman English, j made the y sound, so y in Yahweh became a j. Then in post-Norman English, the j picked up the modern j sound and the w picked up the Germanic v sound and by the time Tyndale wrote out the sacred name, it had become transformed from its original Yahweh to Jehovah. For the purposes of this commentary, I will be using the Hebrew name Yahweh.
It is also known from the Septuagint and from Old Testament quotations referenced in the New Testament that Yahweh was represented by the Greek translators and New Testament authors with the Greek word kyrios, which is translated into English as Lord. Generally speaking, when the New Testament authors refer to Lord or the Lord, they are using kyrios in reference to Yahweh, or Jehovah. Another common word for God in Greek is theon, and it can be rather vague in its usage. Depending upon context it can refer to either God or a god, which is the crux of the translation issue with John 1:1 and other verses in John.
While these issues may seem unimportant now, they will become more meaningful as the analysis continues. And now, with that out of the way, I'll close this post. The next post will look at John 1:1 from the perspective of early Christian writers.
New Jerusalem Bible: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
NIV: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Expanded Translation: In the beginning, the Word was already in existence. And the Word was in fellowship with God. And the Word was as to His essence absolute diety.
This is a verse that has little controversy regarding its translation from the original Greek texts, and nearly all versions of the Bible examined are in very close agreement regarding the correct English rendition, so much so that they could be assumed to be identical in meaning and intent. However, there are some minority renderings that translate the end of the verse as "and the Word was divine," or as "and the Word was a god." Personally, I find the linguistic arguments for these renditions unconvincing, as do each of the Greek scholars I have looked to regarding this topic. The discussion revolves around Greek grammatical rules, and it is fairly tedious, so I won't rehash them here. If you are interested in reviewing this information, I would refer you to the following individuals: Daniel Wallace, A.T. Robertson, R.C.H. Lenski, Henry Alford, J.A. Bengel, Albert Barnes, B.F. Westcott, and F.L. Godet. What I would not recommend, and I cannot emphasize this enough, is to Google the topic and trust what you might read on a variety of the websites. In many cases, they are written by individuals with just enough knowledge of Greek to become dangerous. Much of the information on such sites are not accurate or complete, and they are not to be trusted. If you want to research this, stick with the books or articles written by actual experts in Greek.
Now, what I find interesting about the minority renditions of the verse is that, when viewed in light of what the early Christians taught regarding this verse, the minority renditions could describe the situation fairly accurately given a few semantic adjustments, and once I've finished presenting the opinions of the early Christians, this should become apparent. The difference between the majority and minority renditions really only becomes a matter of definitions.
However, the real conflict arises when one begins to compare the modern, conservative interpretation of this verse with the interpretation inferred from the stated beliefs of the early Christian authors. It is important to let the Bible speak for itself within its proper historical context and to avoid coloring its meanings with modern biases. As a product of the exile, the Bible, as currently constituted, has descended to us through a double layer of distortion. Exilic reformers edited much of what we read now in our Hebrew Bible, and this Bible has been explained to us through the lens of modern interpreters with a similar worldview as the exilic reformers. The fact that ancient interpreters read the texts differently than the modern interpreters is seen by them as a puzzle.
What I intend to do here is to ignore how modern theologians interpret this verse and examine it in terms of what can be gleaned from early Christian authors supplemented by further references from The New and Old Testaments. How this interpretation differs from what is to be found in conservative modern theology will be apparent. Before I begin, there is something I must emphasize: I do not know Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew, so any discussions I make of the languages have come from Biblical scholars who are expert in Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew. I'm not preparing a full bibliography, but prominent among the scholars upon whom I rely in this regard are: Margeret Barker, William Dever, Lowell Handy, Mark Smith, Dexter Calendar, Frank Moore Cross, J. D. G Dunn, J. Danielou and M. Werner.
Before delving in to the explanation of the verse, its important to first take a moment and review the Hebrew and Greek words for God and how they are translated into our English Bibles because an understanding of the usage and distinctions between these words will be key to understanding the concept of God depicted not only in this verse but in the Bible and other historical texts as a whole. The Hebrew Bible uses a number of different words to refer to God. In the older parts of the Old Testament, God is referred to as El, El Elyon and Elohim, which refer to God Most High, the Father God. At the burning bush, God introduces himself as I AM, which is the Hebrew word Yahweh (YHWH), another Old Testament designation for God. This is the name of God which was considered sacred and was not to be spoken, it was the name the High Priest took upon himself when performing the atoning rites. Adonai or El Shaddai (which literally means God with breasts, and may refer to the ancient Hebrew belief in a mother God who was a consort to El) were occasionally used. When pronouncing Yahweh, Hashem (The Name) was typically used, and it was occasionally used in written texts in place of Yahweh to avoid use of the sacred name. In many post-exilic portions of the Old Testament, God is referred to as Yahweh Elohim (Lord God).
Yahweh is also the name that became Jehovah in modern vernacular, but Jehovah was not the correct name of deity to the Hebrews. If you traveled back in time and shouted the name Jehovah at the High Priest, he would have been completely unoffended, and you would have remained completely unstoned. The moniker Jehovah first appeared in the Tyndale Bible in the 1500s, and it came about through a process of transliteration of the Hebrew word to pre-Norman English and then to post-Norman English. In pre-Norman English, j made the y sound, so y in Yahweh became a j. Then in post-Norman English, the j picked up the modern j sound and the w picked up the Germanic v sound and by the time Tyndale wrote out the sacred name, it had become transformed from its original Yahweh to Jehovah. For the purposes of this commentary, I will be using the Hebrew name Yahweh.
It is also known from the Septuagint and from Old Testament quotations referenced in the New Testament that Yahweh was represented by the Greek translators and New Testament authors with the Greek word kyrios, which is translated into English as Lord. Generally speaking, when the New Testament authors refer to Lord or the Lord, they are using kyrios in reference to Yahweh, or Jehovah. Another common word for God in Greek is theon, and it can be rather vague in its usage. Depending upon context it can refer to either God or a god, which is the crux of the translation issue with John 1:1 and other verses in John.
While these issues may seem unimportant now, they will become more meaningful as the analysis continues. And now, with that out of the way, I'll close this post. The next post will look at John 1:1 from the perspective of early Christian writers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)