To simwitness:
: If Jesus was just claiming to be "really, really old" why did the Jews start to stone him? It was allways explained to me that it was for blasphemy, or for his claim to be the "I AM".
The Jews were looking for any and all excuses to kill Jesus. His claim to be older than Abraham was obviously a claim to be more than human, and that was all the Jews needed to begin to try to kill him. He certainly didn't claim to be God in the context of John 8:58. The Jews simply trumped up a false charge against Jesus, just as they did on other occasions.
One of these other occasions is related in John 10:22-40. The Jews demand that Jesus tell them plainly if he is the Christ, and he gives them an answer ending with "I and the Father are one." The Jews try to stone him but he asks why they want to. They tell him that they want to stone him, not for the miracles he performed, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." (NIV)
That the charge of blasphemy was false is easy to see from several standpoints. First, all Christians must admit that Jesus did not actually commit blasphemy, so the Jews' charge was false. If false, then it was a trumped up charge, just as implicitly occurred with respect to John 8:58. Second, Jesus himself argued that their charge was false. He quotes Psalm 82:6 and argues that if that scripture called mere human judges "gods", "to whom the word of God came", then why would they object to him calling himself "God's Son"? He says, "Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, `I am God's Son'?" Instead of answering the rebuttal, the Jews tried to seize him.
An excellent set of resources for translators and anyone else interested in details of Bible translation is the "Translators Handbook Series" from United Bible Societies. The handbook on John is A Handbook On The Gospel of John, Barclay M. Newman and Eugene A. Nida, UBS Handbook Series, 1980. While this handbook is generally objective, the biases of the authors come out clearly in their comments on John 10:33, even while they make some very good observations. Here's what they say about blasphemy:
In most languages there is no technical term for blasphemy in the sense of a person insulting God by means of preempting some of the qualities or attributes of God. However, blasphemy may be rendered in some languages "the way in which one insults God." Accordingly, one may translate the statement of the Jews "We do not want to stone you because of any of the good works which you have done, but because of the way in which you insult God." In Jewish thought blasphemy consisted primarily of speaking evil against God, though the word could also be used of abusive speech against people or sacred objects. In the present context Jesus is accused of insulting God because, although merely a man, he is trying to make himself God.
The
Handbook neglects to explain just how Jesus is supposed to have blasphemed, or insulted God, by claiming to be God's Son or claiming to be the Messiah. It also neglects to explain the key point: How is Jesus supposed to have made himself God just by claiming to be God's Son? Similarly, I have yet to see an argument in support of this claim that is not blatantly self-serving in the sense of ignoring common sense in order ultimately to support a nonsensical translation of John 8:58.
Let me give you an example of this kind of self-serving argument from this handbook with respect to John 8:58:
Here again I Am is used in the absolute sense in which it identifies Jesus with God the Father. The same distinction is made in this verse between Jesus and Abraham as was made in the prologue between the Word and the created order (John 1.1-2).In many languages it is impossible to preserve the expression I Am in this type of context, for the present tense of the verb "to be" would be meaningless. To make sense, one must say "Before Abraham existed, I existed" or "...I have existed." It may be useful to introduce a marginal note calling attention to the special form of the Greek text and its relation to other passages containing I Am.
Note that the objective is first and foremost to preserve that precious "I am" relation with Exodus 3:14 -- implicitly invoking a particular trinitarian assumption. Even while admitting that "To make sense, one must say `Before Abraham existed, I existed' or `...I have existed.' " -- which is certainly the case in English -- they still want to connect the verse with Exodus in a marginal note. Why not just admit that the
sensible translation is what the Greek meant, too, and forget that silly "I am" business?
There is another aspect of the story told in John 10, which is whether in John 10:33 the Greek theon should be rendered "God" or "a god". This is similar to the question of the proper translation of theos in John 1:1c. While most translations have "God" here, a number have something else:
"You, a mere man, claim to be a god." New English Bible
"You, being a Man, make Yourself a God." The New Testment by James L. Tomanek
"You, although You are but a man, make Yourself out to be a god." The Holy Bible in Modern English by Ferrar Fenton
"You, being a human being, are deifying yourself." The New Testament: An Expanded Translation by Kenneth S. Wuest
"You are only a man, but you say you are the same as God!" New Century Version
The above-mentioned Handbook has a few words to say about the proper translation here:
In the clause but you are trying to make yourself God the Greek does not have the definite article "the" before the noun God. Normally in the New Testament when God the Father is referred to, the definite article "the" is used before the noun God. Purely on the basis of the Greek text, therefore, it is possible to translate "a god," as NEB does, rather than to translate God, as TEV and several other translations do. One might argue, on the basis of both the Greek and the context, that the Jews were accusing Jesus of claiming to be "a god" rather than "God." But to do so is certainly not in keeping with the theology of John's Gospel, nor with the accusation of blasphemy brught against Jesus. Jesus does quote from Psalm 82.6, which says "you are gods," (see verse 34) but to assume that Jesus is doing no more than claiming an equal status with the people addressed in that Psalm is to miss the entire point of the passage. Jesus' argument is, in fact, a typically rabbinical one by which the speaker argues from the lesser to the greater. According to the rabbis, Psalm 82 was addressed to Israel when they received the Law at Mount Sinai. Jesus' argument proceeds in this way. If those persons who received God's Law on Mount Sinai could be spoken of as "gods," how much more can the one whom the Father has chosen and sent into the world claim to be "the Son of God." In verse 36 the Greek does not have the article "the" before "Son," and so it is possible to translate as NEB does "I am God's son" ("son" with lower case "s"). However, once again this interpretation is not in keeping with the theology of the Gospel of John. Moreover, it does not fit well with the context. Jesus is not claiming to be a divine being among many others; he is claiming a unique prerogative, and the Jews recognize this. Accordingly, it is best to follow TEV and most other translations.
I want you to note something very important about the above argument: the authors
assume that trinitarian interpretations of various Bible passages are correct, and proceed to dismiss what would otherwise be common-sense arguments based on that assumption. In other words, a goodly chunk of their argument is circular. Note in detail how this is done:
First, it is admitted that "a god" is possible in John 10:33. In fact,
One might argue, on the basis of both the Greek and the context, that the Jews were accusing Jesus of claiming to be "a god" rather than "God."
So the authors are admitting that this argument is basically sound. I mean, what more could one want, when "both the Greek and the context" allow it?
Then they invoke the trinitarian assumption to quash the argument:
But to do so is certainly not in keeping with the theology of John's Gospel,
What "theology"? The trinitarian interpretation of various passages in John, of course.
Next the authors seem to agree with the Jews that blasphemy was a valid charge against Jesus:
nor with the accusation of blasphemy brught against Jesus.
The charge was
false, guys!
Next we find a bit of a strawman argument:
Jesus does quote from Psalm 82.6, which says "you are gods," (see verse 34) but to assume that Jesus is doing no more than claiming an equal status with the people addressed in that Psalm is to miss the entire point of the passage.
Who is saying that "Jesus is doing no more than claiming an equal status with the people addressed in that Psalm"? Certainly not Jesus, because he was claiming to be
the long-awaited Messiah! He claimed that his Father gave him "sheep", to whom he would give "eternal life". He claimed to perform his miracles and to make these other claims, not based on his own initiative, but because his Father told him to do so. In other words, he was claiming to be a prophet. As such, and because of the statement in Psalm 82:6, Jesus could certainly claim to be "a god" in terms of both Jewish and Greek cultural usage. But note that he never actually made that claim to the Jews. He claimed other things that they interpreted as claiming to be "a god". And there is no evidence at all -- aside from the trinitarian
assumption -- that Jesus here claimed to be "God".
Next the authors make a good explanation of Jesus' rebuttal:
Jesus' argument is, in fact, a typically rabbinical one by which the speaker argues from the lesser to the greater. According to the rabbis, Psalm 82 was addressed to Israel when they received the Law at Mount Sinai. Jesus' argument proceeds in this way. If those persons who received God's Law on Mount Sinai could be spoken of as "gods," how much more can the one whom the Father has chosen and sent into the world claim to be "the Son of God."
Then the authors again invoke the trinitarian assumption to dismiss a particular translation:
In verse 36 the Greek does not have the article "the" before "Son," and so it is possible to translate as NEB does "I am God's son" ("son" with lower case "s"). However, once again this interpretation is not in keeping with the theology of the Gospel of John.
Continuing:
Moreover, it does not fit well with the context. Jesus is not claiming to be a divine being among many others; he is claiming a unique prerogative, and the Jews recognize this.
What "unique prerogative"? Are the authors yet again making the trinitarian assumption that Jesus was here claiming to be "God"? If not, then the "unique prerogative" must be a claim to be "God's Son" or the Messiah -- both of which claims are not blasphemous.
I think you can see by now, simwitness, that even arguments presented by good scholars can be terrible, especially when they let their biases, or even the need to play to the audience that pays them, dictate how they interpret the Bible.
AlanF
