https://peternagel.co.za/publications/articles/
Peter Nagel has written some interesting articles about Christ's "deity." I'm not sure what his religious background is, but I think he teaches at the Stellenbosch University in South Africa. If you read nothing else by Nagel, see "Problematising the Divinity of Jesus: Why Jesus Is Not θεός." Peter Nagel. Neotestamentica, Volume 53, Number 3, 2019, pp. 557-584 (Article).
25 comments:
Have you read Thomas Gaston’s paper on”proto-trinity”
I have not.
Thanks, I found it.
That's a good article. The author does a good job revealing some of the difficulties with how to render and understand Hebrews 1:8. He didn't give John 20:28 enough attention, though, IMO. He names two possibilities:
1. Jesus is called Lord and God.
2. Jesus is called Lord and God is called God.
But left this one out:
3. The Father is called both Lord and God.
And he didn't get into the fact that John 20:28 is missing a verb, and therefore is an incomplete sentence. Is "my Lord and my God" the subject or the predicate, and what was omitted via ellipsis?
In my judgment, the complete thought may have been something like this:
"My Lord and My God truly has raised you!"
~Sean
Sean, what you point out is valid and helpful. I think he's working with the presumption that Thomas was referring to Jesus in John 20:28, but we know that he was possibly referring to the Father as Max Zerwick even noted.
If possible, check out Robert Mounce's comments regarding John 20:28: he surprised me by not completely toeing the Trinitarian party line.
His handling of John 1:1 and approximation of the Logos with Jesus conceptually would leave me to believe he holds to a "Socinian" biblical unitarian theology.
At a guess.
Iv seen challengers on John 20:28 say it must be applied to Jesus but I’m fairly sure a similar direct address is sued when Peter is called “Satan”
Should have known that he's Socinian Terence. Thanks that makes sense.
Anonymous that's in Matthew 16
Hi Edgar,
About Mounce, I don't know if you're referring to the same article that I have in mind, but it was he who unintentionally got me thinking that maybe John 20:28 is calling the Father both Lord and God. In a brief article at the link below, he points out that if Jesus is called "Lord" there, then this would be the only text in the New Testament in which Jesus is "directly addressed in the nominative κυριος as opposed to the vocative κυριε..."
To clarify, he's not saying that Jesus is never referred to as "Lord" in the nominative case, but that he is otherwise never *directly addressed* as "Lord" in the nominative case. Did John really break with standard NT practice, or has John 20:28 been misunderstood?
Mounce also mentions the missing verb and asks, "If it is not the vocative, then the question is, what has been dropped out of the sentence"? He suggests these two options:
“It is my Lord and my God.”
“My Lord and my God has indeed risen."
In my judgment, that's just his orthodox presupposition talking. The concern that tortured Thomas' wasn't whether Jesus was God, but whether he had indeed been raised from the dead. So, I would suggest that the following is much more likely complete sentence in light of context:
"My Lord and my God has indeed raised you!"
https://www.billmounce.com/blog/%CE%BA%CF%85%CF%81%CE%B9%CE%BF%CF%82-nominative-or-vocative-john-20-28
~Sean
Hi Sean,
Thanks for the info from Bill Mounce. I should have specified that I had Robert Mounce in mind and his John commentary. He does not say much in his remarks, but what he does articulate is not what I expected since he holds firmly to the deity of Christ.
Hi Edgar,
Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't even aware that Mounce had written a commentary!
~Sean
Hi Sean,
Both Robert and William Mounce have written commentaries. Here's the link for the GJohn commentary by Robert Mounce: https://www.amazon.com/Expositors-Bible-Commentary-Robert-Mounce-ebook/dp/B01MV7W55C
I've got his commentary on Revelation too.
Edgar,
Hmmm... it looks like we're talking about two different Mounce's. I need a good night's sleep!
~Sean
I see what you mean, Edgar:
“Thomas responds, ‘My Lord and my God!’ Though the words are in the nominative case, many commentators understand them as vocative. This yields a direct address to the Lord. It is probably better to take them as nominative and translate, ‘It is my Lord and my God!’ In either case, Thomas is expressing his new faith in language that goes beyond anything that had been used by his fellow disciples (cf. Bruce, 394).” (Robert H. Mounce, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, John), pp. 501-502
This brings me back to what I suggested above: If we're going to favor the nominative view and fill in what is missing via ellipsis, then why would we not fill in what is more likely based on context? Thomas was not in a state of doubt about whether Jesus was God, but about whether Jesus had been raised, so why would *that* not be the subject of his utterance upon realizing that Jesus *had* been raised? I don't know the definitive answer, but I think the question deserves to be taken seriously.
~Sean
Hi Sean,
Sorry my schedule has been brimming over here lately, but Robert Mounce is William Mounce's father.
https://livingwater-spain.com/beduhn.pdf
https://docdro.id/YjyzrLz
Ninc the paper that you cited written by Trevor Allin actually is very dishonest and misleading..
His method on John 8:58 and Hebrews 1:8 is border-line lieing to the general public as he fails to mention many things in regards to those 2 passages alone let alone the rest of his “linguistic analysis”
Anonymous,
Yeah, someone tried to post the link to Allin's attack of BeDuhn on my blog, and I sent it straight to the trash bin. It seems that he's obsessed with JWs, and is definitely motivated by a partisan spirit.
IN an article about JWs and the "cross", he says this:
"The Romans crucified thousands of people, and there is abundant evidence of this means of execution. The English word 'crucifixion' comes from the Latin, the language spoken by the Romans. The Latin word 'crucifixio' means 'to fix to a cross' and it is formed from the prefix 'cruci' from the Latin word 'crux' ('cross') and the verb 'figere' ('to fix or attach'). There is not the tiniest amount of doubt concerning the meaning of these words, nor concerning the form of the cross."
Now compare his assertion with the finding of a Gunnar Samuelsson, who wrote his thesis on the "cross":
"These suggestions become peculiar, especially considering the very sparse information the actual texts really offer. The aim of the scholars was to give a description of the general method of crucifixion in the ancient world. The major problem is that there was no general method of crucifixion in the ancient world, not even in the land of Israel, not even in the days of Jesus. Thus, the vivid descriptions above are in danger of being mere speculations...What they do is to pinpoint randomly occurring features within the spectrum of suspension punishments. They are random in the sense that it is simply not possible to say that a general public suspension, not even in Roman times, usually was constituted by the above-mentioned eight features." (Crucifixion in Antiquity, 1st ed.), p. 294
There is much conjecture presented as though it were demonstrated historical fact, when no such demonstration is found in the historical texts themselves.
Sean
All one has to do is the slightest bit of research in the right place and Allin gets blown out the water.
His claim that Hebrews 1:8 in the Nwt sounds silly or that you “sit on God” is not only a lie but also downright misleading let’s review some facts:
- AT Robertson and others have said both renderings make sense
This includes Edgar J Goodspeed, someone who bowman said was one of the greatest American NT scholars in history.
- if this establishes Jesus as God, it must do the same with the king in psalms ( divinity is besides the point)
- God is also a rock and other things, does that not also sound silly?
- it is not suprising to hear God is the messiahs “throne” as that could be taken as a poetic way as saying God is the source of his authority.
Tho my opinion is low do him: Stafford does a better job than Allin ( tho a lot can’t admit that)
Who has actually successfully challenged Stafford on JWD? To my knowledge no one, there are some online who think they have but going over it with a fine tooth comb, they also are misleading or out and out lie ( whether they are on purpose I will not comment)
Allin is nothing more than theologically motivated with an agenda to prove something by any means - I respect Bowman more
Anonymous,
Ironically, anyone who reads Heb. 1:8 and thinks that "God is your throne" sounds "absurd" is being rather silly himself. It's hard to imagine a sillier counterargument, frankly. Has he never read the Hebrew Scriptures? Describing God as a "rock" is perfectly sensible (Ps. 18:2), but describing him as a throne to idiomatically convey that he is the source of one's ruling authority is "absurd"? Talk about sucking the breasts of kings is sensible (Isa. 60:16), but "God is your throne" sounds "absurd"?
Interestingly, the scribes who wrote three of our most treasured manuscripts, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and P46, would likely disagree with Allin were they here to comment. How do we know? Because they included αὐτοῦ at the end of verse 8, and the rendering "your throne, O God" leaves αὐτοῦ without an expressed antecedent, while "God is your throne" includes an expressed antecedent, namely θεὸς.
Nagel's discussion of Hebrews 1:8 exemplifies a thoughtful approach, while Allin exemplifies an unhealthy partisanship. Worse, Allin is either uninformed about the history of scholarly opinion about Heb. 1:8, or he is simply a liar, for he said this, which is demonstrably false:
"This is called vocative use and it is what is found in Hebrews 1:8, according to all translations other than the one produced by the Jehovah’s Witnesses."
No, the NWT is not alone in rendering verse 8 either "God is your throne" or "your throne is God." You mentioned Robertson's comment, and Goodspeed, and we could add Moffatt, Byington, and The Twentieth Century New Testament. We could also add B.F. Wescott, who favored "God is your throne" in his commentary on Hebrews.
Interestingly, even if we go with the translation he prefers, we should note that it rather clearly and explicitly contradicts a trinitarian understanding of God and Christ. If the Son even as θεὸς has someone who is God to him, then he can't be God almighty. God doesn't have a god, but the Son does even as θεὸς (see verse 9).
Post a Comment