Would a definite article prove that Jesus is God?

by solafide 164 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Earnest,

    I meant "imply" in exactly the same constraining sense as you use "have to imply" (the latter sounds pleonastic to me, but then maybe I am influenced by the French impliquer which strictly... has to imply a necessary implication ;)). Of course the double article and/or possessive can apply to two referents (as in "my dog and my cat") or just one ("my Lord and my Master").

    In 20:28 I don't think a difference in referents is seriously arguable from the context but the titles kurios and theos are kept separate unlike v. 17. It's not one title (as in Titus 2:13 or Jude 1:4 for instance). There is a shift from the common Christological title (kurios) to that which is (so far) specific (if not exclusive) to the Johannine faith (theos). If I can risk an interpretation, Thomas finally "sees" what is really to be seen in Jesus; the revealed One in the Revealer. Cf. 14:8f and the thematic of seeing and believing throughout the Gospel, which also occurs in v. 4-8 (both Peter and the Beloved disciple see, only the latter believes -- hence really sees).

    I took Revelation 4:11 as the first example that came to my mind and didn't care about the variant readings, let alone the NWT rendering. But it's good you bring it up because I now see that the NWT here ruins the construction, where the possessive applies to both terms (which could not happen with a personal name in either Biblical Hebrew or Greek: you don't say "our Yhwh" or "my Jesus" of "your Moses"). So as you noticed the first article is simply suppressed along with kurios) and the embarrassing kai which follows becomes an awkward intensive "even"... that would be worse (if possible) in the Sinaiticus reading as the remaining possessive would be incomplete without the article (unless you take it in the sense of "Jehovah, even a god of ours").

    Btw according to the NA27 critical apparatus (I have lost your link to the ms facsimile, but you might check it up) the Sinaiticus actually reads kurie ho kurios kai theos hèmôn, where the first kurie (vocative) is a clearer functional substitute of the DN (not "implying" that the DN itself had to be there in some edition of Revelation in any other form than a substitute of course).

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Again I can't see my own post...

  • Earnest
    Earnest

    Narkissos,

    In 20:28 I don't think a difference in referents is seriously arguable from the context but the titles kurios and theos are kept separate unlike v. 17.

    Perhaps not. It is certainly not the obvious meaning of the phrase. But I raised the contrast between vss 17 & 28 more in an effort to encourage less dogmatism and more thinking outside the box than as "proof" of a particular interpretation.

    Narkissos : Btw according to the NA27 critical apparatus...the Sinaiticus actually reads kurie ho kurios kai theos hèmôn [at Revelation 4:11], where the first kurie (vocative) is a clearer functional substitute of the DN...

    Yes, quite right...the online Sinaiticus shows that as well.

    Narkissos : ...(not "implying" that the DN itself had to be there in some edition of Revelation in any other form than a substitute of course).

    Of course... ...but if it was there, then it would have originally read "You are worthy O Jehovah, our Lord and God,...etc." which I think is a superior and more likely reading than NWT. I'm sure they would have translated it that way if Westcott & Hort had followed Sinaiticus in this verse, which is odd when you think of it because W&H had such a high respect for that manuscript.

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    I suppose it was not retained because its attestation is extremely weak (apparently it was not even discussed by the UBS Textual Committee which produced the GNT, since Metzger doesn't mention it in the TCGNT, and it doesn't seem to have been retained by any critical edition): actually it is unique to the Sinaiticus and conflates two distinct variant readings attested elsewhere: kurie ho theos hèmôn (ms 1854, 11th century, MA = the section of Byzantine tradition which includes the commentary of Andreas of Caesarea, and the Harklensis Syriac edition of 616 AD), "Lord, our God"; ho kurios kai theos hèmôn (046 [Xth c.], 1006 [11th], 1611 [Xth], 1841 [IX-Xth], 2050 (1107 AD) etc.), "our Lord and God". (A third variant reading adds ho hagios, "the Holy One".) All other witnesses to the text, including the Alexandrinus, seem to support the generally accepted reading, ho kurios kai ho theos hèmôn (our Lord and our God).

  • solafide
    solafide

    Earnest,

    "So as you are suggesting that this verse teaches that Jesus is the God to whom he is ascending then he must also be the Father to whom he is ascending. It is either both or neither. Why is this? Because the definite article encapsulates the entire phrase (my Father and your Father and my God and your God)."

    If "ton" applies to all the nouns in verse 17, and if this is a correct rendering of the Greek grammar, then I conclude that the Father is God. But I even concluded this before hand, even when I was arguing that the definite article might not have applied to all! If you go back and read my original argument, I stated that I still believe that this is the Father and that He is God granted what the whole of Scripture teaches us!!! I was trying to make an argument (from my limited understanding of the Greek) that this passage left itself might make one think those things. But my conclusions have always been the same and have never changed! Namely, that the Father is God and that Jesus ascend to God.

    I NEVER said that the Father is not God or that Jesus doesn't acsend to God. I believe this. But I also believe MORE then this! Namely, that the same passage reveals Trinitarian theology because Jesus is called God. My overarching response to you in regards to verse 28 was:

    You are making the context more confusing and in depth then what is presented. Like I said, Thomas simply wants proof that Jesus rose, not that He is God. He calls Him God after the proof. I think you're trying to fit in this non-existent confusion into Thomas' mind, as though too much was going on for him and he didn't have his inhaler with him thus started spouting off weird things like calling Jesus God. Oh, but on the other hand, Jesus never denounces his statement!

    "But, as you observe, in verse 28 there is a definite article before each noun (Lord and God) which means that "the Lord" is not necessarily the same as "the God"."

    No, it doesn't mean that they are distinct in verse 28, and that wasn't my original point. I only assumed that verse 17 may have allowed for a possible distinction given the grammar, or that clever counterfiets may try to bend it that way like they do with many Trinitarian verses. Now looking at verse 28 I don't think he grammatically needs to use a possessive with "God" just because he is also calling Jesus "Lord". I think that's a leap. You could argue, and I've heard it argued that Thomas calls Jesus "the God" because he's speaking in the possesive.

    But like I've said, Jesus is referred to as being God with a definite article without the possesive in the NT. The definite article is there even in KIT. And John 1:49 says that Jesus is the Son of God, the King of Israel. And Zeph 3:15 says that Yahweh is the King of Israel. And John 12:41 says that Isaiah say Jesus' glory in reference to Isaiah 6 when Isaiah saw Yahweh's glory.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit