The final and correct interpretation of John 1.1

by Hellrider 79 Replies latest watchtower bible

Narkissos

Hi Chemosh,
As I said, there is a long way from "Yhwh son of El" to the fourth Gospel, especially if we follow the scriptural path instead of the popular one.
Is Yhwh in Deutero-Isaiah still a son of El? I don't think so. The most obvious characteristic of Deutero-Isaiah is that Yhwh is the only god (actually, "God," probably for the very first time) and that other gods do not exist. To (over)simplify, it is one step "ahead" of henotheism, which had already merged the El and Yhwh traditions, then two steps ahead of polytheism where El and Yhwh were distinct.
The comparison with Deutero-Isaiah tells us one thing more: GJohn is dependent on the Greek Septuagint (LXX), which brings us several centuries further from the Hebrew Deutero-Isaiah in the history of thought, and in an already settled monotheistic context (again, at a scriptural level if not at a popular one). As has been repeatedly pointed out, the characteristic, absolute use of egô eimi is common to the LXX of Deutero-Isaiah and GJohn.
This is still the case in John 10:34: egô eipa theoi este is, exactly, the LXX wording (Psalm 81:6) -- and the part about "sons of the Most High" (huioi hupsistou) is not quoted. Moreover, I doubt any Greek-speaking Jewish reader of the LXX would still get any hint of the old polytheistic sense of `elyôn in hupsistos. Otoh I agree very much with you when you write:
the Jesus character does not claim to be the “I” in “I said you are gods.”
However I think this really makes sense, not directly from the old "El vs. Yhwh" pattern, but from the proto-Gnostic perspective in which theos is not limited to the original Divine (the speaker who says "I" is ho theos in Psalm 81:1 LXX) but extends to all the believers / elect, and a fortiori to the Revealer "whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world" and who is, par excellence, huios tou theou. This argument, on the other hand, makes no sense at all to a closed, orthodox, monotheistic concept of "God". I agree this is, retrospectively, a fascinating resurgence of the old concept of "El" as "Father of the gods" which was dismissed by official Judaism. But that this resurgence could be deliberate on the part of the author of GJohn, or even understandable to him, is moot imo.
Chemosh

Hey Narkissos.
I guess I am all confused over here. I always thought Deutero-Isaiah was the author of verses 1-39, and that 2nd-Isaiah was the author of 40-66 (or perhaps just 40-55).
It looks to me like Deutero-Isaiah knew who Shachar and El were.
Isaiah 14:12-13
Look how you have fallen from the sky,
O shining one, son of Shachar!
You have been cut down to the ground,
O conqueror of the nations!
You said to yourself,
“I will climb up to the sky.
Above the stars of El
I will set up my throne.
I will rule on the mountain of assembly
on the remote slopes of Zaphon.
I will climb up to the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High!”
Shachar was the god of the dawn and twin brother of Shalim, Right?
El was their dad. Right?
Does this sound monotheistic to you?
It looks to me like 2nd-Isaiah was the ‘poster child for modern monotheism’ that you are thinking of.
Isaiah 43:10
… El was not formed before me, and after me, there will not be.
In any case, thanks again for your comments. I am still looking for a verse where GJohn equates Jesus with El.
Leolaia

Chemosh....FYI "2nd Isaiah" is "Deutero-Isaiah". And the example you gave from Isaiah 14 is an excellent example of how language traditional to El and Baal/Yahweh became mixed together. So "stars of El" (= the sons of El) and the "mountain of assembly" are both traditionally linked to El (i.e. El presided over the divine council at his mountainous abode, which in Ugaritic texts is Mount Hermon), yet the divine council is placed at Zaphon -- Baal's mountain according to Canaanite myth, not El's. And again, Helel is presented as climbing atop the thunderclouds (language reminiscent of Baal), yet he is making himself like Elyon...an epithet of El, not Baal. Mark Smith points out that such a text, dependent it is on traditional Canaanite religious imagery, dates from a time when the distinction between El and Yahweh had been blurred.
Chemosh

Okay. Thanks to both of you.
I did some googling. Now I see that "2nd Isaiah" is "Deutero-Isaiah". My mistake was that I assumed "Deutero-Isaiah" was the “non-2nd Isaiah” part.
Chemosh

Hey Narkissos and Leolaia,
I think you guys are smart. I’d like to solicit your comments on the following verses:
The Bacchantes Lo! I am come to this land of Thebes, Dionysus the son of Zeus … I have put off the god and taken human shape ...
Psalm 89:6 Who among the sons of El is like Yahweh?
John 1:14 Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory—the glory of the unique one, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father. Isaiah 42:8 I am Yahweh! That is my name! I will not share my glory with anyone else …
Matthew 1:21
She will give birth to a son and you will name him Yahweh (saves), because he will save his people from their sins.
Matthew 27:46 At about three o’clock Yahweh (saves) shouted with a loud voice, “El, El, why have you forsaken me? … Why is it reasonable to think GJohn borrowed the “wine” stuff from Dionysus, but not the “son of god incarnate” stuff?
Who told you GJohn needs Philo?
How come GJohn is allowed to rewind 400 years to borrow from a Greek Son of God, but not allowed to rewind 400 years to borrow from a Hebrew Son of God?
Are Christians the only religious group whose god(s) are in question?
And just where did Philo and the Hellenistic Jews get THEIR material?
Narkissos

Chemosh
Literary influences are never "simple" or "pure". Always moving, merging, separating again.
Why is it reasonable to think GJohn borrowed the “wine” stuff from Dionysus, but not the “son of god incarnate” stuff?
First, show me the "son of god incarnate" in GJohn. What is characteristic of the Prologue is the logos made flesh, whose glory is like an only son's from the father (1:14). Here the subject, the "character," is the logos (not really a dionysian keyword btw), and the "son" image works as a comparison... moreover it is not huios but monogenès, which doesn't exactly point to a polytheistic tradition.
Now the Gospel of Mark, to which all others are probably tributary, reflects many of the topoi of the Hellenistic stories about epiphanies and metamorphoses of gods and heroes. Jesus is pictured, sometimes as a semi-divine hero, sometimes as a god walking incognito among humans. And here a reminiscence of Yhwh-Baal, among others, is quite plausible (the tempest, walking on the sea, revelation on the mountain, resurrection in the third day, etc.)
That such stories lied in the back of Christian minds is shown by the clear reference to the Philemon and Baucis legend in Acts 14:11f: "When the crowds saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, "The gods have come down to us in human form!" Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes, because he was the chief speaker."
Who told you GJohn needs Philo?
At least it needs a very similar logos concept, which can be found in the 1st century in many popular philosophies reflecting a diversity of influences (Platonic, Stoic, etc.). This is in principle distinct from mythoi about gods and heroes -- although, as I already said, both influences are present.
How come GJohn is allowed to rewind 400 years to borrow from a Greek Son of God, but not allowed to rewind 400 years to borrow from a Hebrew Son of God?
Nobody "rewinds": this is a mistake (anachronism) we are prone to do because we look back (or imagine we can do so). We can put the Ugaritic texts in front of the Gospels and find interesting correspondences, but the question is: what was available to the author? When people who are familiar with the Bible visit a medieval cathedral, they think they will understand the symbols because they know the "source". They don't. What matters is not what the Bible says, but what the medieval stories and legends said.
And just where did Philo and the Hellenistic Jews get THEIR material?
Again, from an indefinite number of sources: the Septuagint; popular Greek literature, mythology and philosophy; and this certainly included some of the old Israelite material, for instance in the Phoenician form (cf. Philo of Byblos). But there is never one source.
Chemosh

Is Yhwh in Deutero-Isaiah still a son of El? I don't think so. The most obvious characteristic of Deutero-Isaiah is that Yhwh is the only god (actually, "God," probably for the very first time) and that other gods do not exist.

This type of thinking seems very narrow minded. I think you’re overlooking something big.
Here in late 2005 there are Jehovah’s Witnesses, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and Mormons (who btw, believe that Yahweh was a son of El), and all kinds of religions who hold an opinion about Yahweh.
Why do you think things were any different back in GJohn’s day or Deutero-Isaiah’s day?
Deutero-Isaiah wrote polemics against El and emphasized that other gods do not exist.
Why was this necessary?
Why did he write this stuff?
Who were these El-worshippers he was talking about?
Why did he single out El?
Why not criticize other gods?
These polemics indicate the presence of different opinions about Yahweh.
Your arguments appear to be based on the premise that at any single instance in time there can only be ONE unified way of looking at Yahweh.
How did you arrive at your conclusion?
Chemosh

First, show me the "son of god incarnate" in GJohn.

John 1:14
Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory—the glory of the unique one, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father.
The “Word” exhibited Yahweh’s “glory”. Yahweh does not share his glory with anyone else.
Isaiah 42:8
I am Yahweh! That is my name!
I will not share my glory with anyone else …
GJohn is telling us that a prophecy has been fulfilled.
Isaiah 40:5
And the glory of Yahweh will be revealed, and all mankind together will see it. For the mouth of the Yahweh has spoken.
There are of course billions of explanations for this. We can make up stuff all day. But the good explanations are the ones that answer more questions than they ask.
Chemosh

Nobody "rewinds": this is a mistake (anachronism) we are prone to do because we look back (or imagine we can do so). We can put the Ugaritic texts in front of the Gospels and find interesting correspondences, but the question is: what was available to the author?

It looks like the Bacchantes was available to GJohn.
That story is about a god (who is also the son of another god) who becomes human.
Are you asking us to believe that GJohn kept the “wine” part but discarded the “son of god becomes human” part?
Chemosh

Here the subject, the "character," is the logos (not really a dionysian keyword btw), and the "son" image works as a comparison...
Why are you arguing that this is a “comparison” and not a “description,” when a “description” seems simpler and answers more questions than it asks?

The final and correct interpretation of John 1.1

Share this