It is interesting how many different ways that Mark 15:39 is translated:
"Surely this man was the Son of God!" (NIV)
"Truly this man was a son of God" (BBE).
"Truly this man was Son of God" (Darby).
"This man positively was the son of God" (Byington).
"Truly, this man, was God's son!" (Rotherham EB)
“Certainly this man was God’s Son.” (NWT 2013)
Compare NET Bible.
This is an interesting text in terms of demonstrating how one's theological presuppositions can influence one's preferred translation.
ReplyDeleteHere are what I take to be the possibilities based on the Greek:
1. this man was the son of God
2. this man was God’s son
3. this man was a son of God
4. this man was the son of a god
5. this man was a god’s son
6. this man was a son of a god
Most translators have historically favored #1, which I find rather curious, given that the words were uttered by a Roman Centurion. By choosing #1, it would seem that their decision process was either:
a. shaped by their own Judeo-Christian understanding of who Jesus was; or
b. shaped by the assumption that the utterance is non-historical, and that Mark placed a Jewish understanding on the Centurion’s lips for Christological purposes.
What happens, though, if we take the utterance to be historical, and allow the Roman cultural context to shape what the Centurion likely said? In my judgment, we would then have to favor number 4, 5, or 6, as it would seem unlikely that 1, 2, or 3 would have occurred to him, unless he was sneaking out at night to hang out with Jesus and his disciples;-)
Interestingly, David Bentley Hart went with #5 in his translation of the NT:
“Truly this man was a god’s son.”
This is one of the reasons I often prefer the renderings of different texts done by individuals, who can complete their work without having to defer to a majority, and in doing so get it right.
The Greek phrase used in Mark 15:39 is “υἱὸς θεοῦ” (huios theou), which directly translates to "Son of God." There is no indefinite article "a" in Greek, and the lack of a definite article does not necessitate the indefinite article "a" as Jehovah's Witnesses or other critics suggest. The nominative construction strongly suggests a qualitative or definite meaning, “the Son of God,” as in a title of divinity and not a generic term.
ReplyDeleteThe Roman centurion's exclamation can still reflect a profound realization, even from a polytheistic background. Romans often used religious language to express awe or recognition of divine intervention. Given the centurion's role in overseeing Jesus' crucifixion and witnessing extraordinary signs (darkness, earthquake, etc.), it is reasonable to conclude that he was acknowledging something uniquely divine about Jesus, possibly influenced by his exposure to Jewish monotheism or the gravity of the moment.
Early Church Fathers and Christian traditions have always understood this phrase as a declaration of Jesus' divine sonship, aligning with the broader Christological focus of Mark's Gospel. Rendering it as "a son of a god" diminishes the theological import Mark clearly emphasizes through the centurion's declaration, which occurs at the climactic moment of the crucifixion.
The argument for rendering it as “a god’s son” seems to be driven more by an anti-Trinitarian bias than linguistic accuracy. Scholars such as David Bentley Hart may adopt unconventional translations for stylistic reasons, but mainstream scholarship, consistent with Greek grammar and Christian theology, supports the traditional interpretation: “the Son of God.”
Footnote: While the NWT reference Bible doesn't offer all of the possibilities, it does offer more than most, i.e. "a son of God" and "a son of a god.”
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, while many have focused on the view that "son" is "qualitative" here (and most promote a sense that is clearly anachronistic), the context shows that it was the quality of God's reaction to the son's death that led the Centurion to realize who Jesus was. There is no reason to infer that "son" is ontological here, and the corresponding account in Luke shows that it was Jesus' character, not his ontology, that was recognized by the soldier.
ReplyDeleteThe one point I don’t dispute Harner or Dixon on.. Mark 15:39 undeniably has some form of qualitative meaning - Luke’s account confirms this
Delete( and ironically doesn’t work in a trinitarian favour)
@Anonymous
DeleteTo address your point, while Mark 15:39 might suggest a qualitative aspect regarding Jesus' sonship, this does not diminish the ontological significance, especially in a Trinitarian context. The qualitative nature—highlighting Jesus’ unique relationship with God—can coexist with the ontological reality of his divine sonship.
Luke’s account, emphasizing Jesus' righteousness, complements rather than negates Mark’s message. Both qualities—his righteousness and divine sonship—are essential in understanding Jesus' full identity, aligning with Trinitarian theology that affirms his unique, divine nature.
The centurion’s declaration in Mark 15:39, "Truly this man was the Son of God," uses "υἱὸς θεοῦ" (huios theou), which has been consistently understood as “the Son of God” in Christian tradition. The lack of a definite article does not necessitate rendering it as "a son of a god." The Greek construction favors the qualitative meaning of Jesus being uniquely "the Son of God," not just one among many gods.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that the centurion simply recognized Jesus' character rather than his divine nature is incomplete. Mark's Gospel emphasizes Jesus' divinity, particularly in the passion narrative. The signs accompanying Jesus’ death (darkness, earthquake) likely led the centurion to recognize Jesus as having a unique divine identity. This is not merely about Jesus' good character but a profound recognition of his divine sonship.
While Luke 23:47 emphasizes Jesus' righteousness, it complements rather than contradicts Mark’s account. The recognition of Jesus' righteousness could also point to his divine identity, not just his moral character. Both narratives can be seen as acknowledging Jesus’ unique status in relation to God.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFrom Ezra P. Gould, Gospel of Mark (ICC), page 295:
ReplyDelete"The portent (s) accompanying the death of Jesus convinced the centurion that he was huios theou, not the Son of God, but a son of God, a hero after the heathen conception. Lk. says dikaios, a righteous man."
@Edgar Foster
DeleteEzra P. Gould's interpretation in The Gospel of Mark suggests that the centurion's statement refers to Jesus as "a son of God" in a pagan sense, likening him to a heroic figure rather than affirming the Trinitarian "Son of God." However, this interpretation focuses on the centurion's perspective as a Roman, shaped by his cultural understanding. The broader context of the Gospel, alongside the Christological focus of Mark, suggests that Mark intended to convey a deeper theological reality, aligning Jesus' sonship with divine ontology, not merely heroism.
Moreover, while Luke refers to Jesus as "dikaios" (righteous), this does not negate his divine sonship, but complements it. The centurion's recognition of Jesus as a "son of God" in Mark carries theological weight that transcends a purely "heroic" interpretation.
@Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteYou said:
"The one point I don’t dispute Harner or Dixon on.. Mark 15:39 undeniably has some form of qualitative meaning - Luke’s account confirms this
( and ironically doesn’t work in a trinitarian favour)"
Harner's error wasn't in recognizing that nouns can be used to stress the characteristics of a subject. Rather, it was in the absurd and demonstrably false notion that nouns so used are indefinite in some undefined way that supposedly rules out the use of the indefinite article in translation. He made that up out of thin air to serve an ad hoc theological need.
Harner clearly had little to no linguistic training, and it shows. Every relevant example in GJohn in which we find a noun that is comparable to QEOS at John 1:1c is rendered into English by translators with the indefinite article. That means that Harner wasn't just wrong on the aforementioned point, but completely wrong (he could not possibly have been more wrong). This is what happens when a non-linguist submits a poorly argued article to JBL, rather than someone with proper training submitting a rigorously argued article to the proper linguistics journal for peer review, where there are people with the tools to subject such arguments to precise and penetrating scrutiny.
With that said, bear in mind that Luke was giving a paraphrase of what the soldier *meant* in calling Jesus a/the son of a god. It would be comparable to a JW pointing out that the reason the Son was called "a god" at John 1:1c is because he was being described as "a divine being" or as "divine." Finally, notice that more than a few translators opt to convey the descriptive sense of δίκαιος (righteous) with ἄνθρωπος at Luke 23:47 by including the indefinite article:
Surely this was a righteous man ~ NIV, BSB
Certainly this was a righteous man ~ KJV, NKJV, ASV, ESV, MSB, NHEB, Websters, WEB
Jesus must really have been a good man ~ CEV
Indeed this was a just man ~ Douay-Rheims Bible
Certainly he was a good man! ~GNT
~Sean
The critique of Harner's work misrepresents his argument and misunderstands the use of qualitative nouns in Koine Greek. Harner did not invent the idea that the noun "θεός" (theos) in John 1:1c is used qualitatively to express the Word's divine nature. His argument is based on established linguistic principles that show how anarthrous nouns (without the article) can emphasize the quality or essence of the subject, rather than definiteness or indefiniteness.
DeleteFurthermore, examples from John's Gospel support Harner's qualitative interpretation, such as John 1:14, where "σάρξ" (sarx, flesh) is used without the article but refers to Jesus' incarnation as truly human. The qualitative use of nouns is well documented in linguistic studies, and many scholars agree that "θεός" in John 1:1c emphasizes that the Word shares the nature of God without implying that the Word is a lesser "god."
The claim that John 1:1c calls the Son "a god" in the sense of "a lesser divine being" is fundamentally flawed. John's use of "theos" here without the definite article doesn't indicate an inferior, ontologically distinct deity. Rather, as Harner and other scholars argue, the qualitative nature of the term underscores that the Word shares fully in God's divine essence. The context of John's prologue emphasizes the unity and divinity of the Word, not a subordination. To call Jesus a lesser god misinterprets John's theological intention.
Harner's argument was not about denying the indefinite article in English translation arbitrarily, but about understanding how ancient Greek expresses theological truths through nuanced grammar. His insights are supported by scholars with deep linguistic expertise in Koine Greek, refuting the claim that his work lacks academic rigor.
The critique also misunderstands the role of paraphrasing in Luke 23:47, where "δίκαιος" (righteous) is used to describe Jesus. The centurion's declaration can be translated in various ways, but the theological point is that Luke emphasizes Jesus' innocence and righteousness. In contrast, Mark 15:39 focuses on the centurion's realization of Jesus' divine sonship. Neither text diminishes the ontological claims made about Jesus throughout the Gospels, and the qualitative interpretation of "θεός" aligns with the Christology presented in the New Testament. Using Luke’s paraphrase (dikaios) to support a different interpretation of John 1:1c conflates two distinct contexts. Luke 23:47’s emphasis on Jesus as righteous complements the recognition of his divine mission but doesn't contradict John's Christology.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteIf you are who I think you are anon
DeleteNice to see you join this debate!
Massive respect.
Good morning Edgar,
ReplyDeleteCan you please delete my previous response under "Anonymous"? When I submitted it yesterday I didn't notice that my computer logged me out of Google, which is why it showed up as an "Anonymous" post.
Also, I'd like to tweak it a little in terms of diplomacy.
@Nincsnevem,
ReplyDeleteI thought I asked you to stop interacting with me, and Edgar asked you to honor my wishes. Have you forgotten? Like most people who troll the internet looking for people with whom to argue, you seem to have no self-control and no desire to respect peoples' wishes.
Reading your response, I can't help but think of the moment when Luke Skywalker told Kylo Ren that "Every word of what you just said was wrong."
I can assure you that I have not misrepresented or misunderstood Harner, and that I am well familiar with the assertions, which, in my judgment, constitute more of a narrative than a demonstrable linguistic phenomenon. You claim that his assertions are based on linguistic principles, yet it seems that nothing could be further from the truth. He was not a linguist, and clearly didn't have a solid foundation in such principles. If you had a solid grounding in linguistic principles, then you would be able to see that for yourself.
Interestingly, I have yet to see any secular linguist endorse his assertions. Dixon also wasn't a linguist, nor is Dan Wallace, nor are most of the people who have embraced Harner's assertions. I think it's pretty clear that such people embrace Harner's flawed assertions, not because they were linguistically compelling, but because they find them theologically desirable. This is especially the case with the assertion that was intended to rule out the "a god" rendering, an assertion that is proven false by the handling of every comparable noun in John's Gospel. As I said above, he was not only wrong about that, but he could not possibly have been more wrong.
You also claimed that Dixon's thesis was impressive, yet in the course of that old exchange you made comments that strongly suggest that you hadn't read it yourself. If that's the case -- and I won't hold my breath waiting for you to admit it -- then you should be ashamed of yourself for posing as someone who was in a position to speak to the quality of Dixon's thesis when you'd never read it. I think this likely suggests why you don’t post using your real name.
As for σάρξ at John 1:14, you’re once again committing a category error. As I’ve told you before, mass nouns have no bearing on how one should render a singular count noun. Noun function is critical for determining proper translation. You should take those words and make a sign, hang it on your wall, and look at it until the fog has cleared for you. It cleared for me decades ago.
I'm not trying to be rude or dismissive, but I'm not here to mediate quarrels and sideline disputes and my Witness friends will always be welcome and anyone else who wants to follow the rules.
ReplyDeleteI asked that Sean's wishes be respected: it's obvious that he does not want to interact with Nincsnevem, so I'm not approving anymore messages that transgress this line.
By the way, I have 2 secular jobs and serve as an elder and husband. Time is a precious commodity to me.
I've avoided addressing him personally or talking to him directly because I accepted that he can't stand it for some reason. But that I shouldn't even respond to the content of his argument, even by the way, is a different kind of expectation.
DeleteNinc -why Sean doesn’t want to interact with you should be self - evident…
Delete5 words
Catholic way or the highway
+ you lied about reading Dixon a thesis…
Sorry I agree with Sean in that sense, on the other you are also not all too blame either