Zerwick writes: "The repetition of the article
distinguishes two coordinated notions, while on the
contrary the use of but one article before a number of
nouns indicates that they are conceived as forming a
certain unity, if not as identical" (Biblical Greek
Illustrated by Examples. Roma: Editrice Pontificio
Istituto Biblico, 2001. Pp. 59-60.
However, while there are clear examples such as 1
Thess 2:12 that seem to support this grammatical
principle, 2 Cor 8:4, 19, 24; 9:13; 1 Pet 4:14 seem to
militate against it. Zerwick adds:
"On the other hand, we are perhaps warned not to
insist too far by such examples" as those cited above.
See Zerwick, ibid., p. 60.
Wednesday, September 06, 2017
More Thoughts on Article-Noun-Kai and Noun Constructions (Zerwick)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
To me, the most interesting thing about Sharp's Rule is what it reveals about human nature, esp. as reflected by believers. Trinitarians typically assume, and Unitarians often assume, that if applicable to 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13, then "the deity of Christ is affirmed". Other than the sheer number of people who've made such an assumption, there doesn't appear to be anything going for it.
~Kas
Hi Kas,
I know we've talked some about agency in the past, and I guess the Sharp Rule passages could be understood that way if one is so inclined. But if the rule unreservedly applies to 2 Pet 1:1 and Titus 2:13, then IMO, that would suggest that Christ is identical with Almighty God (i.e., the early Christians understood him to be God the Son. However, one Trinitarian (well, he is supposed to be) writes that 2 Pet 1:1 does not identify Christ as Almighty God. He bases this thought on the context of 2 Pet 1:1. Many--if not all--of the post-Nicenes interpreted these verses as prooftexts for Christ's divinity, even before Sharp. I guess my point is that Sharp's rule, if successfully applied to Peter and Titus, would lead me to believe that the most likely explanation of the verses is that Christ is deity. However, I find Sharp's Rule largely self-serving and less than absolute.
Hi Edgar,
Well, as I said, even some non-Trinitarians assume that 2 Pet. 1:1 and Titus 2:13 would support "the deity of Christ" if one person is in view, but I don't personally see any reason for that assumption.
To me, in light of (a) the totality of what the Bible teaches about God and His Son, (b) the flexible use of divine titles in the biblical period, and (c) the contexts in which the application of such titles was appropriate, I would say that for *any* verse that may apply a divine title to the Son, the _least_ likely interpretation would be that the writer thought he was God Himself.
If Thomas could call Jesus "My Lord and my God", then why couldn't Peter or Paul do something comparable, esp. in light of the inclusion of "Savior"? In the DSS Melchizedek is probably referred to as "your God", where the implied antecedent of "your" is the community of faithful Jews (probably the hyper-devout Essenes, no less!). Interestingly, that context too deals with salvation.
In his book "Melchizedek And Melchiresa", from the Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series, Paul J. Kobelski explains why such language could be applied to one who is not YHWH:
“Melchizedek is presented as the heavenly redeemer of the sons of light and the agent of God’s judgments against Belial and his lot during the final jubilee.” (p. 138)
And
“Melchizedek [is presented in 11QMelch] as the king of the final age (2:16, 23-25), executor of God’s judgments (2:10-16), and leader of the angelic forces of good in the defeat of Belial.” (p. 141)
~Kas
Hi Kaz,
thanks for explaining your position. You've done it before, but I had forgotten all the reasons you take that stance. First I will say that one's overall understanding of Scripture and his/her presuppositions will determine how likely one would be inclined to think GS constructions support the deity of Christ belief. For example, a Trinitarian usually will think that the Bible as a whole teaches Christ's deity. But what about a unitarian?
For me personally, I acknowledge that someone other than God can be called God and it's true that exalted predications were made about Melchizedek in the DSS. Even angels are called elohim or Metatron is identified as the lesser YHWH. Moses and others have similar remarks made about them.
However, it seems that if Christ is identified as QEOS within certain settings and with particular kinds of language, and if the GS constructions do what Sharp said they do, then I would think that would be evidence in favor of Christ's deity. True, the evidence would not be apodictic--thus is could always be questioned. Yet I believe it would be probative evidence nonetheless.
"From Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ, have been granted a faith just as precious as ours."(2 Pet 1:1 NET)
Yes, a unitarian could read that translation and come away thinking Christ is not Almighty God, but it seems that our hypothetical unitarian might also be justified in reading this text as proof for the deity of Christ unlike the NWT rendition.
Yet compare 2 Pet 1:2.
As a side point, while the Jews clearly referred to creatures as "God" (elohim) and so forth, they usually seemed to know when the God of Israel was meant. Therefore, even though such language addressed to creatures was permissible at times, they evidently had a way of maintaining the Creator/creature distinction.
Best regards,
Edgar
Hi again, Kaz. Time is fleeting for me with work and hurricane prep. But I was also thinking that Jn 20:28 is less than clear, IMO, about Jesus' status as God. Thomas could have been ascribing a) both titles to the Father; b) been calling Jehovah "God" and Jesus "Lord"; c) or he could have been referring to Jesus as God and Lord in the sense that Moses is called God/like God; d) he could have been ascribing full deity (God and Lord) to Christ. Who knows for certain? But many Trinitarians see d) as the most likely understanding in view of John's overall Gospel message (i.e., they believe 20:28 is the climax of John's Gospel or at least semi-climactic).
Hi Edgar,
I'm open to any understanding of John 20:28 that can be shown to be compelling. I personally suspect that AUTWi favors the understanding that Jesus is the sole referent of both titles, but I don't claim to speak with any authority on the matter. Perhaps those who favor two referents would be helped if they could provide another statement from the period with the same grammatical structure in which two referents are obviously in view.
I previously asked the following on two different forums:
Are there any parallel statements in the known Greek corpus where we find the same structure and naturally understand that the two titles are to be applied to two different persons? In other words, plug in whatever pronoun and titles you'd like, and tell me if you find a sentence with this structure where the two titles are applied to two different persons, one of which is not an antecedent of AUTWi:
APEKRIQH [answered] QWMAS [replace Thomas with any name of your choosing] KAI [and] EIPEN [said] AUTWi [to him/her] hO [the] KURIOS [replace Lord with any title of your choosing] MOU [of me] KAI [and] hO [the] QEOS [replace God with any title of your choosing] MOU [of me].
Whether one sees a challenge there or not, I think we'd both have to concede that it's certainly possible that Jesus is called "My Lord and my God" at John 20:28. Does our theology collapse if Jesus is the referent of both titles? If not, then why should our theology collapse if Jesus is referred to as QEOS at 2 Peter 1:1 or Titus 2:13? I guess I'm just having a hard time understanding your hesitancy to shed whatever presuppositions may be influencing your understanding in light of the historical evidence involving the flexible application of divine titles and the contexts in which such applications were apparently deemed appropriate.
The fact that saviors such as Melchizedek can be called "your God", where the antecedent of "your" is faithful Jews, as apparently understood by a community as strict as the Essenes, suggests (very strongly to me) that a context where one is the agent of God's salvation is precisely the sort of context in which we can expect such applications to be appropriate in an ancient Jewish setting.
~Kas
Hi Kas,
Harris has one of the most thorough discussions for all the hermeneutical possibilities of 20:28. I've read those pages of Jesus As God, but don't recall everything he said. However, he might give examples from antiquity that support the two referent understanding. But since we're talking about Sharp's Rule, if the rule applies, one would expect that two referents would be in view. Yet I think Sharp thought 20:28 was an exception to one of his rules. That is apparently why he did not find the text applicable for two referents. By the way, I don't find the two referent interpretation compelling, but I just mentioned it since the GS Rule is the focus here.
My own personal view is that Jesus is the referent of 20:28. One verse in Psalms leads me to that conclusion along with the grammar of Rev 4:11. But if 20:28 does apply to Jesus, then what we likely have is a nominative for a vocative or a subject nominative as most grammarian explain. And if the verse applies to Jesus alone, then we also have a clear exception to one of Sharp's rules. On the other hand, I cannot discount the possibility that both titles could apply the Jehovah, our Father.
No, our theology does not collapse if Jesus is the referent of both titles in 20:28. I also don't want to say that 2 Peter or Titus would make it collapse either, but things might become more problematic for our theology, if 2 Pet 1:1 or Tit 2:13 applied to Jesus. Yet that should not be a reason to exclude either verse as evidence (support) for Sharp's Rule.
A difference I see with John 20:28 is that if it does apply to Jesus, then the use of QEOS and KURIOS for Christ is restricted to Thomas: Thomas affirms that Jesus is God and Lord to/for him--possibly. Nevertheless, 20:28 must also be read in the light of Jn 1:1 and 17:3.
Now you might say that 2 Pet 1:1 restricts the deity of Christ--if it applies to him--but that would be a large/larger restriction, applying to all of Peter's addresses and likely beyond--unlike Jn 20:28. As for Tit 2:13, it uses the expression "our great God." Would that be a fitting title for Christ, if he were not truly God? How would 1st century readers have understood such an acclamation referred to Christ? What kind of evidence is needed for us to say, okay, that passage shows that Christ is fully deity? :)
These answers have gone is numerous directions, so I will quickly summarize my position.
1) My personal view is that John 20:28 applies to Jesus, but that is not what we should expect is Sharp's Rule holds. Additionally, 20:28 is not vocative, so it must be a nominative for a vocative if the words apply to Jesus. Yet we cannot exclude other grammatical possibilities including the nominative of exclamation (so Zerwick).
2. Our theology would not collapse if Sharp's Rule applied to 2 Pet 1:1 and Tit 2:13, but it could become more problematic. A similar case could be made for 20:28 and Trinitarians do indeed launch that criticism at Witnesses. At the end of the day, I think we must seek to read the NT from the 1st century perspective and what they might have believed after reading such texts, or after hearing them read.
3. I grant that divine titles could be flexible and I allow for the possibility that Christ is the God of 2 Pet 1:1; Tit 2:13. But that would mean that Sharp's Rule is likely correct, and I am quite suspicious of that proposition.
4. I believe the agency interpretation is sometimes applicable, but I take each verse/passage on a case-by-case basis. One other presupposition I hold is that groups like the Essenes or DSS community cannot be held as the norm for all Jews, a view that I am not imputing to you. Finally, we must have a way of separating cases of agency from occurrences of divine ascriptions that strictly refer to the God of Israel. IMHO, context is the chief determinant for handling such issues.
Best regards, Kaz. Hope I've clarified my position and not muddied it with many words. :)
Without getting into grammar, but just overall context.
A comparison is instructive:
The words of Thomas: ὁ Θεός μου John 20:28
The words of Jesus, John, Paul:
Θεέ μου Lit., “God of me” “my God” Matthew 27:46(A)
Θεέ μου Lit., “God of me” “my God” Matthew 27:46(B)
ὁ Θεός μου Lit., “the God of me” “my God” Mark 15:34(A)
ὁ Θεός μου Lit., “the God of me” “my God” Mark 15:34(B)
ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν Lit., “the God of us” “our God” Mark 12:29
ὁ Θεός σου Lit., “the God of you” “your God” Hebrews 1:9(B)
τῷ Θεῷ καὶ Πατρὶ αὐτοῦ Lit., “to the God and the Father of him” “to his God and Father” Revelation 1:6
τὸν Πατέρα μου καὶ Πατέρα ὑμῶν καὶ Θεόν μου καὶ Θεὸν ὑμῶν Lit., “the Father of me, and Father of you, and God of me, and God of you” “my Father and your Father, and my God and your God” John 20:17
Context: “this is what the Son of God says...” Revelation 2:18(B)
τοῦ Θεοῦ μου Lit., “of the God of me” “my God” Revelation 3:2(D)
τοῦ Θεοῦ μου Lit., “of the God of me” “my God” Revelation 3:12(A)
τοῦ Θεοῦ μου Lit., “of the God of me” “my God” Revelation 3:12(B)
τοῦ Θεοῦ μου Lit., “of the God of me” “my God” Revelation 3:12(C)
τοῦ Θεοῦ μου Lit., “of the God of me” “my God” Revelation 3:12(D)
Thanks, Mt13weedhacker:
I believe you, I and Kas agree that the Son is not Jehovah. There is a question as to whom Thomas' words refer. Grammatically, it could go either way and by examining overall context (as you note) that might tip the scales too in the direction of the Father. Now John records these words:
ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ
So it seems clear that the words are addressed to Jesus, but they still might refer to the Father, according to Zerwick. Lots of factors as the verses you quote also show.
One thing I will do apart from this thread is post what Henry Alford wrote regarding 2 Pet 1:1.
Best regards!
Kas,
you might recall this old link about Casey's view of ancient Judaism.
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2010/08/maurice-casey-on-term-god-in-second.html
All the best!
Hi Edgar,
"I believe the agency interpretation is sometimes applicable, but I take each verse/passage on a case-by-case basis. One other presupposition I hold is that groups like the Essenes or DSS community cannot be held as the norm for all Jews, a view that I am not imputing to you. Finally, we must have a way of separating cases of agency from occurrences of divine ascriptions that strictly refer to the God of Israel. IMHO, context is the chief determinant for handling such issues."
I agree that each verse must be taken on a case-by-case basis. However, I think that there would have been an unstated assumption shared by all that anytime a person who was perceived to be an agent of God is referred to using a divine title, the reason would have been something other than to identify the individual as God or Jehovah ontologically. Why would anyone identify someone as God or Jehovah ontologically if that person is not God/Jehovah? So such identifications were made for other reasons, e.g. to emphasize conferred authority or power. Was Jesus perceived to be an agent of God? Unquestionably, yes!
I also agree that certain ideas shared by groups like the Essenes or DSS community wouldn't necessarily be shared by all Jews. We know they probably held some views were not shared, in fact, which may have been why the Essenes isolated themselves from other Jews, who are apparently often referred to as "The Breakers of the Covenant".
However, as you know, the application of divine titles to individuals who were not God is found in pretty much every form of literature that existed at the time, so the application of such a title to Melchizedek was not unique to the DSS community. It seems to have been common practice when emphasizing an agent's conferred power/authority.
About Titus 2:13, would calling an angel/agent Yahoel (= Jehovah God) be any less striking than calling Jesus "the great God"? True, Jehovah is called "the Great God" in the OT, but he's also called "God" in the OT, and if Jesus can be referred to by the latter title, then why not the former? It's commonly accepted by many that Jesus is given the Divine Name at Philippians 2. If we grant that possibility, which I currently do, then why not "the great God"?
~Kas
Hi Kas,
I agree with youy that the language used for Jesus can be explained by the agency (shaliach) concept. According to the shaliach concept, the agent is equal to the principal from a legal standpoint, as Buchanan among others has explained. Somewhat tangential to this point, I've noticed how carefully the Bible writers identified Moses as God (Exod 4:16; 7:1). Exodus also refers to the angel, who bears God's name.
Addressing your point concerning Melchizedek, we've often been taught that elohim, we've often been taught that elohim is applied to Jehovah, the angels, false gods, and to human judges/representatives of God. Casey also documents numerous places where angels or humans are called "God." So that point has to be conceded. However, again, Exodus 4:16; 7:1 are stated in a hedge-like fashion, and no Bible writer ever comes close to acknowledging the deity of Melchizedek. Therefore, it is interesting how this tradition arose.
Kas, I really have no disagreement with your overall point that agents of God--ones with conferred authority--could be called elohim. Maimonides (a medieval rabbi) writes in Guide for the Perplexed:
"I must premise that every Hebrew knows that the term Elohim is a homonym, and denotes God, angels, judges, and the rulers of countries, and that Onkelos the proselyte explained it in the true and correct manner by taking Elohim in the sentence, 'and ye shall be like Elohim' (Gen. iii. 5) in the last-mentioned meaning, and rendering the sentence 'and ye shall be like princes.' "
I grant that it's possible to acknowledge Jesus as the Great God and certainly possible for him to be given the divine name (like the angel in Exodus and Yahoel), without that meaning he is fully God. But we have to weigh probabilities, sift linguistic/lexical evidence, and take contexts into consideration: that is what Harris putatively tries to do in Jesus As God.
Again, I ask, what would the scriptures then have to say for Jesus to be acknowledged as fully God? There must be a way to separate agentive statements from non-agentive utterances, right?
Best regards,
Edgar
Hi Edgar,
"Again, I ask, what would the scriptures then have to say for Jesus to be acknowledged as fully God? There must be a way to separate agentive statements from non-agentive utterances, right?"
In light of the paradoxes, cognitive dissonance, and disputes that such a proposition would naturally create, I think you'd have to find inspired NT writings that read something like the Quicunque Vult.
Why? As Maurice Casey noted:
“...if there had been a general perception among Jewish members of the communities that other Christians were hailing Jesus as fully God, there would have been disputes severe enough for us to hear about them.” (From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God), p. 115
I think that the potentiality has to be essentially zero percent that early converts all joined the young movement, inferred that Jesus was thought be God ontologically, but no one ever raised his hand in class (so to speak) and said: Ahem, excuse me, but, what? How can Jesus be God's Son and God at the same time?
Those questions and others, once asked -- and surely they would have been asked -- would have flashed through the movement like lightening across a cloudy sky, and like the thunder that follows lightening, the uproar and demand for doctrinal delineation would have been near deafening! The Apostles would have had no choice but to address the issue, directly, and at length, and what they would have written would have necessarily savored of the later creedal statements.
~Kas
Hi Kas,
Let me make it clear that I am still non-Trinitarian and agree with your overall sentiments. However, let me play the other side for a moment.
If the 1st century Christians wanted to communicate the idea that Jesus is God (fully deity), would they necessarily have to craft statements akin to the Quicunque Vult?
Many Trinitarians argue that we should not expect such codifications/credos in the early period. One colleague likened the Trinity doctrine to an acorn that becomes an oak tree gradually, by the fourth century--not in the first century. John L. McKenzie and Hurtado also seem to approach the triune God this way as does the Catholic Church. Remember Cardinal Newman's work about the development of doctrine/dogma?
Roger Olson and Christopher A. Hall ("The Trinity," page 2) write that the full-blown Trinity doctrine "developed gradually" in the controversial setting of the fourth century, after the NT was finished. Yet they assert that the church fathers who shaped the creeds felt they were simply articulating divine revelation from scripture. The point is that these details are supposed to explain why we don't find controversy within the GNT over the Trinity or a full-blown doctrine of the tripersonal deity. I know you're also familiar with Hurtado's "historical" explanation of binitarianism's Entstehung.
I would like to close by noting that we Witnesses expend lots of energy trying to disprove that Jesus is called the alpha and the omega in Revelation. But what if the predications in that book did apply to Christ? Would that make our theology collapse? Or could we explain those ascriptions by the Shaliach principle--by agency?
Maybe so.
Best regards,
Edgar
For Harris' thoughts on megas in Tit 2:13, see pages 182-3 of Jesus As God.
Hi Edgar,
No worries, I didn't think that you were seduced by the dark side;-) I'm just sharing my perspective and trying to understand yours better.
"If the 1st century Christians wanted to communicate the idea that Jesus is God (fully deity), would they necessarily have to craft statements akin to the Quicunque Vult?"
I think that the early Christians would have been forced to express something that at least savored of the Quicunque Vult if they believed that Jesus was God (fully divine), yes. It would have been expressed in Jewish categories and with different language, but once you say that the Father is God and Jesus is also fully God in a monotheistic context, then you introduce a paradox that urgently cries out for a solution.
The nature of the paradox suggests that only two solutions are possible: Jesus is the same God as the Father or Jesus is a second fully divine being. The first option would leave everyone scratching his head, demanding further delineation, while the second would have been unacceptable in a Jewish context, therefore also demanding further delineation. Both would have caused dialogue and disputes severe enough that we would hear about them.
Since there is no evidence that a solution was sought by the early Christians, I think that we can safely assume that the early Christians simply didn't "hear" what Trinitarins "hear" when they read various texts. From here I think that we can reasonably assume that *if* Jesus is called "God" at 2 Peter 1:1 or Titus 2:13, this would not have been understood as an ontological identification of Jesus as the one God.
I think that the same could be said respecting Romans 9:5. *If* Jesus is there referred to as "God over all", then the early Christians didn't "hear" that the way Trinitarians do. I'm actually quite comfortable granting that Jesus may be referred to as "God over all", because I see nothing problematic in such an application. If Moses can be the God of Pharaoh in judgement (Ex. 7:1), then why can't Jesus be the God over all in both judgement and in salvation? We naturally understand that, since both Moses and Jesus were not God Himself, then it follows that neither were identified as such ontologically in these texts.
In short, my take is that historical expectation renders the notion that the early Christians could have identified Jesus as fully God without controversy and disputes severe enough for us to hear about them so improbable as to be essentially impossible. If we grant that assumption then it naturally follows that any text in which we find a divine name or title applied to Jesus, the reason can't be to identify him as the one God of Jewish monotheism ontologically.
I agree with the scholars who suggest that Trinitarianism emerged via a sort of theological evolutionary process. Where I disagree with at least some of them is in the assumption that the evolution was necessary and that it lead to truth. What actually happened was that Jewish texts were interpreted without a full understanding of Jewish culture, and so conclusions were reached that would not and could not have been reached by the Jewish Christians who composed the original writings, or the Jewish Christians who originally read them.
Cheers,
~Kas
Hi Kas,
Thought I sent a reply yesterday to the blog, but don't see it now. I do not remember exactly what I wrote, so will not try to replicate it. Not sure what happened.
Instead, I will post Hurtado's position, and the page has an analysis of his views. Please see http://trinities.org/blog/hurtado-on-the-worship-of-jesus/
Cheers,
Edgar
Hi Edgar,
Thanks for the link. Interesting that you bring up Larry Hurtado, because I very briefly pointed out some problems with his thesis, here:
https://kazlandblog.wordpress.com/2016/05/15/on-the-problem-of-expectation/
Here are some points I noted on the Truththeology forum:
1. Hurtado believes that what he calls "Christ-devotion" erupted early, within a few years of the post-resurrection movement. I'm with him on this, though with qualifications.
2. Hurtado believes that this is demonstrated via the constellation of cultic religious practices in which the early Christians engaged, for which there's no analogy (e.g. the Lord's Evening Meal). I'm with him on this too, though with qualifications.
3. Hurtado believes that the constellation of cultic religious practices constitute devotion to and worship of Jesus. I'm still with him to a degree, but most of the cultic practices constitute devotion involving Jesus, not necessarily devotion to Jesus.
4. Hurtado believes that the character of the devotion to/worship of Jesus is such that it could only be appropriately given to God Himself.
5. Hurtado was asked by Dale Tuggy in a recent interview how the early Christians would have responded if asked whether Jesus was God, and Hurtado replied by stating that they would have found that to be a very strange question. Moreover, Hurtado's writings are peppered with statements about how Jesus was raised to a place next to God, and worshiped with reference to God, statements which clearly imply that God is someone other than Jesus.
So, for Hurtado, Jesus was given worship that he believes is only appropriated to God Himself, yet the early Christians would not have responded with a clear "Yes" when asked whether Jesus was God Himself? Houston, we have a problem! ;-)
Ironically, the most compelling evidence against Larry's view that the devotion Christ received constitutes worship that is only appropriate to God are the actions of the earliest Christians themselves, who engaged in those acts of cultic devotion in which Jesus was a central figure but did not believe that he was God Himself. If they didn't honor the hypothetical boundary, why should we?
~Kas
Hi Edgar,
I thought I should add to my previous post about Hurtado by pointing out that I actually agree with his thesis, broadly conceived, i.e. that 'Christ-devotion' erupted early as evidenced by a constellation of cultic practices for which there is apparently no analogy in the period, and that the "shape" of the devotion formed a sort of binitarian (old term) or diadic (revised term) pattern. Contra Wilhelm Bousset, I agree that Christ-devotion did not emerge in Gentile soil, but that we can find it in early Jewish writings (e.g. Paul).
Where I differ would be:
a. The notion that Jesus received devotion or "worship" that is only due to God alone.
Hurtado leans heavily on the fact that Jesus was a central figure in the context of cultic 'worship' practices, e.g. the Lord's Evening Meal, but doesn't seem to give adequate weight to mitigating features, e.g. that his place in that meal is that of the sacrifice, not the God to whom the sacrifice is offered. In other words, Hurtado would likely say that the Lord's Evening Meal constitutes worship *of* Jesus, whereas I would say that it constitutes worship *involving* Jesus. This is a very important distinction that one must keep in mind when contemplating the nature of the devotion Jesus received by members of the young movement.
b. The notion that the Gospels provide indirect implied evidence of early opposition to Hurtado-ian Christ devotion.
James D.G. Dunn and Maurice Casey both noted that the absence of evidence for opposition to Hurtado-ian Christ-devotion points in a direction contra Hurtado's thesis. Larry felt the force of this argument and attempted to provide an answer, but his answer is not compelling at all, IMO.
c. The notion that the boundary line that Hurtado wishes to draw respecting "worship" still applied in a Christian context.
The very fact that the treatment of Jesus constituted a "mutation" in early Jewish practice strongly suggests that old boundaries may no longer apply in a Christian context. In other words, even *if* Jesus was indeed the object of religious devotion that in a pre-Christian context could only be properly given to God Himself, it does not automatically follow that the same boundary applies in a Christian context.
Hurtado himself provides the solution to the problem: The early Christians treated Jesus the way they did because they came to believe that God required them to do so. Well, if God required it, then that removes the boundary!
~Kas
Hi Kas,
Going from memory, I believe that Hurtado thinks the early Christians offered prayer to Jesus. Maybe you don't find that idea problematic either, but I do understand how you part ways with Hurtado in other respects.
Something I also typed earlier, but it did not go through, was that Owen Thomas (a systematic theologian) claims that the Trinity doctrine is a result of theological reflection on the biblical testimony. Hence, it goes beyond what's written in Scripture, but is still faithful to the biblical witness. His exact words can be found here: https://books.google.com/books?id=OpL8nU0mbKkC&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=trinity+doctrine+is+a+reflection+on+the+biblical+testimony&source=bl&ots=itvWpDQ4lZ&sig=BVqnEAgZUOE9WFJjl1_RUwdyNHg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjx9deU1qPWAhWERCYKHYTDDKwQ6AEIPzAD#v=onepage&q=trinity%20doctrine%20is%20a%20reflection%20on%20the%20biblical%20testimony&f=false
Hi Edgar,
"Going from memory, I believe that Hurtado thinks the early Christians offered prayer to Jesus. Maybe you don't find that idea problematic either, but I do understand how you part ways with Hurtado in other respects."
Yeah, on many particulars I agree with Jimmy Dunn's critique, which can be found in Parting of the Ways. I would say this: *If* Jesus is indeed the recipient of prayer in the NT, then the early Christians felt that God allowed or required this treatment of his Son. In other words, granting that possibility for the sake of argument, the solution is found in Hurtado's own model, not in Trinitarianism: They felt it was acceptable because they believed that God allowed or required them to treat his Son this way. It isn't difficult to see why Christians would come to believe that prayer to Jesus was acceptable: He is the mediator between God and man, so that a request offered to the heavenly Jesus is a request offered to God, legally speaking.
"Something I also typed earlier, but it did not go through, was that Owen Thomas (a systematic theologian) claims that the Trinity doctrine is a result of theological reflection on the biblical testimony. Hence, it goes beyond what's written in Scripture, but is still faithful to the biblical witness."
This popular notion requires us to believe that the Jewish Christians who wrote the NT writings and the Jewish Christians who originally red and/or heard them didn't understand their implications, but that later Gentiles figured it all out. I don't find that to be compelling. What really happened, IMO (at least in part), is that the early Christians simply didn't "hear" what later Christians and apologists "heard" when reading the texts.
Why did later Christians and apologists "hear" something so radically different? Because (a) their cultural and intellectual mileau was so radically different, (b) they didn't have an adequate understanding of Jewish culture to keep their minds from traversing faulty interpretive paths, and (c) the original writers were no longer alive to correct them.
Cheers,
~Kas
Hi Edgar,
In light of our interaction involving Larry Hurtado, I thought that you might be interested in considering the counter-arguments offered by some of his critics:
1. Crispin Fletcher Louis - A New Explanation of Christological Origins: A Review of the Work of Larry W. Hurtado, Tyndale Bulletin, 60.2 (2009)
Available here:
http://www.tyndalehouse.com/Bulletin/60=2009/1%20Fletcher-Louis.pdf
2. Adela Yarbro-Collins - How On Earth Did Jesus Become a God? A Reply, found in Israel’s God ad Rebecca’s Children (Chapter 4)
The complete chapter can be read, here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=4QIwvdHdrUkC&pg=PA55&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
3. Paula Fredriksen - Lord Jesus Christ, A Review
Available here:
www.bu.edu/religion/files/pdf/Lord-Jesus-Christ-devotion-to-Jesus-in-Early-Christiantiy.pdf
4. William Horbury - Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, A Review
Available here:
http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/content/56/2/531.extract
5. Paul A. Rainbow - Jewish Monotheism as the Matrix for New Testament Christology: A Review Article, found in Novum Testamentum, Vol. 33, Fasc. 1 (Jan., 1991), pp. 78-91
Available, here:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1561199?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
The presentation by Crispin Fletcher-Louis is by far the most complete and much of it is quite compelling. Where he goes astray, IMO, is that, while he recognizes the problems with Hurtado's historical model, he nevertheless wishes to maintain the notion of Hurtado-ian shaped "early high Christology", and so he seeks pre-Christian precedents for this. I think we simply have to go the other way: Abandon the notion that various texts were "heard" the way modern exegetes assume they were "heard" and accept an answer that is more more compelling, historically.
~Kas
Thanks for the references, Kas. I have read some but not all of them. For example, I am almost finished with Hurtado's response to Crispin Fletcher Louis, and he makes it seem like Louis has totally missed the point of Hurtado's position. I am not saying he is right, but just illustrating the copious amount of literature out there. Rainbow's dissertation is equally worth reading: good work on his part.
The original thrust of my remarks concerned Sharp's Rule and we branched out from there, which is fine. But I want to emphasize that while I respect the agency model and see grounds for it in some cases, I also believe that some privileges, ascriptions or offices uniquely belong to Jehovah alone. For instance, he alone should be addressed as the alpha and omega unless I see evidence to the contrary for referring to agents that way. The same principle applies to the title "omnipotent" or El Shaddai. Yes, we find angels sometimes called YHWH (Jehovah), but context normally helps us to see that the ascription is not ontological, but functional. However, in my humble estimation, there is something that it means to be "that than which a greater cannot be conceived" (Anselm).
So, thinking about prayer, I would say along with Owen Thomas (Trinitarian that he is) that prayer should be directed to the Father, through the Son, and in the holy spirit (Jude 19-20). Jesus mediatorial role should be distinguished from the focus addressee of prayer, to wit, Jehovah. Hurtado claims it is possible that the Father required early Christians to offer devotional prayers to Jesus? I find little to no evidence for that claim. Granted, we have debatable passages in the Bible that could be interpreted as prayer to Christ. Nevertheless, Dunn shows alternative ways to read those passages. Rev 8:1-3 illustrates how prayer to the Father in the name of Jesus might work: the prayers ascend from the worshipers to the angel, then to God. The angel could well be Christ.
As always, I respect and appreciate your thoughts, but wanted to make my presuppositions/control beliefs known too.
Best regards,
Edgar
Hi Edgar,
Thanks for your comments.
FYI, Fletcher-Louis definitely didn't miss the point. He nailed the problems with Hurtado's model more thoroughly than anyone else whose interacted with it.
~Kas
Hi Edgar,
A couple quick points of clarification:
1. About this:
"Hurtado claims it is possible that the Father required early Christians to offer devotional prayers to Jesus?"
I don't recall seeing him claim that, though I may have simply forgotten. He does make such a claim indirectly in that he claims that the exalted treatment of Jesus emerged shortly after the resurrection because the early Christians came to believe that God required them to treat his Son that way, and prayer would naturally be part of the exalted treatment. Hurtado believes that dreams played an integral part in this.
I personally made the connection between the issue of prayer and Hurtado's historical model, and came to realize that the perceived problem is solved by that model. In other words, I wasn't attributing that argument to Hurtado, but making that connection on my own.
2. About the title "the alpha and the omega", you're probably aware that George Wesley Buchanan does believe that this title applies to Christ, and that this is done because he is God's agent. I think that Buchanan is brilliant, but I grant that it's not obvious how that title would be applied to an agent of God to denote conferred authority in the context of Revelation.
Believe it or not, in light of this, I've struggled much more with the reference to Jesus as "the first and the last" than I have with any of the verses that may call him QEOS. Why? Because "the first and the last" could quite easily be construed as just another way of saying "the alpha and the omega".
How do I deal with this problem and justify understanding "the first and the last" differently from "the alpha and the omega" when it's applied to Jesus? I do so by deferring to what I call "The Problem of Expectation", i.e. *if* the early Christians thought that Jesus was called "the first and the last" in a way that is synonymous with "the alpha and the omega", and *if* that phrase could only refer to the one God of Jewish monotheism, then this would have caused questions, concerns, and disputes severe enough for us to hear about them. Since there is no record of such disputes, it becomes likely, it seems, that it was understood another way.
Cheers,
~Kas
Hi Kas,
My statement comes from things I've read in Hurtado, including his book on devotion to Jesus. Admittedly, I inferred that if God required the early Christians to offer prayers to his Son, then those prayers were manifestations of their devotion to him, but I checked Hurtado and he seems to describe the prayers as devotional himself.
For example:
"Earliest Christian worship specifies two figures, God and Jesus, as recipients. After briefly defining 'worship' and 'binitarian,' as used in this paper, I analyze the specific actions and phenomena that constitute the cultic devotion offered to Jesus in first-century Christian groups: (1) prayer; (2) invocation and confession of Jesus; (3) baptism in Jesus' name; (4) the 'Lord's Supper'; (5) christological hymns; (6) prophecy as the words of Jesus."
See https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/divinity/rt/conf/jesus98/hurtado/
https://larryhurtado.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/early-devotion-to-jesus2.pdf
More later,
Edgar
Concerning alpha/omega (first/last), I've had a similar struggle for pretty much the same reason. If we compare the LXX language for the first and last when used of Jehovah at Isa 41:4; 44:6; 48:12, it might appear that only YHWH should uniquely bear that title. Of course, contextually, most uses of alpha/omega in Revelation are not problematic. But Christ is called first and last in Rev 1:17; 2:8. Now I'm sure you know the explanation given in the Revelation book: Christ is first and last with respect to the resurrection. That explanation satisfies me, even if I try to build a stronger case for the plausibility of that suggestion.
The lack of disputes explanation makes sense to me. From a scholarly perspective, however, I just don't want to be accused of an argument from silence. On the other hand, it's difficult to understand how such a dispute would have ever been kept under wraps.
Hi Edgar,
"The lack of disputes explanation makes sense to me. From a scholarly perspective, however, I just don't want to be accused of an argument from silence. On the other hand, it's difficult to understand how such a dispute would have ever been kept under wraps."
I can understand that, but then again an argument from silence can be a valid argument, as even Hurtado admitted to me on his blog some time back. Wiki says:
"An argument from silence may apply to a document only if the author was expected to have the information, was intending to give a complete account of the situation, and the item was important enough and interesting enough to deserve to be mentioned at the time."
With the exception of the middle clause, which wouldn't apply in this context, I think we can safely say that those parameters apply to the subject at hand:-)
~Kas
Hi Kaz,
I was enlisted by one school to be the logic instructor--so I've been teaching that class ever since along with other classes. We review logical fallacies in the course, and one thing I've learned is that it is not always clear what makes an argument fallacious, and in this particular case, what makes an argument one from silence. But the wiki criteria prima facie sound correct. IMO, reasonable people will likely accept this line of reasoning: I have not yet examined what the Trinitarian reply would be apart from Hurtado's rejoinders.
All the best,
Edgar
Post a Comment