If Bauer is correct should John 10:33 be rendered "a god"?

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
BDAG μονογενὴς -i.e. uniquely divine as God’s son and transcending all others alleged to be gods) or a uniquely begotten deity (for the perspective s. J 10:33-36), another rdg.ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός is found. MPol 20:2 in the doxology διὰ παιδὸς αὐτοῦ τοῦ μονογενοῦς ᾽Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Some (e.g. WBauer, Hdb.; JBulman, Calvin Theological Journal 16, ’81, 56-79; JDahms, NTS 29, ’83, 222-32) prefer to regard μ. as somewhat heightened in mng. in J and 1J to only-begotten or begotten of the Only One, in view of the emphasis on γεννᾶσθαι ἐκ θεοῦ (J 1:13 al.); in this case it would be analogous to πρωτότοκος (Ro 8:29; Col 1:15 al.)
 

John Milton

Well-known member
BDAG μονογενὴς -i.e. uniquely divine as God’s son and transcending all others alleged to be gods) or a uniquely begotten deity (for the perspective s. J 10:33-36), another rdg.ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός is found. MPol 20:2 in the doxology διὰ παιδὸς αὐτοῦ τοῦ μονογενοῦς ᾽Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Some (e.g. WBauer, Hdb.; JBulman, Calvin Theological Journal 16, ’81, 56-79; JDahms, NTS 29, ’83, 222-32) prefer to regard μ. as somewhat heightened in mng. in J and 1J to only-begotten or begotten of the Only One, in view of the emphasis on γεννᾶσθαι ἐκ θεοῦ (J 1:13 al.); in this case it would be analogous to πρωτότοκος (Ro 8:29; Col 1:15 al.)
He didn't make a singular claim. That's what "or" means in the first sentence.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
What the heck is “a uniquely begotten deity” ? I’m aware of the Nephilim / Greek “gods” ( like “Achilles” who were born from the unions of fallen angels and the daughters of men), but the God of Israel does not traffic in such sin.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
What the heck is “a uniquely begotten deity” ? I’m aware of the Nephilim / Greek “gods” ( like “Achilles” who were born from the unions of fallen angels and the daughters of men), but the God of Israel does not traffic in such sin.
The only legitimate thing I can think of is that angels are called elohim.

###
So I started searching and found this very interesting thesis that Edgar Krentz signed!

 
Last edited:

Gryllus Maior

Active member
How fun, a 60 year old student thesis. I like the way the Hebrew and Greek is handwritten -- by the time I was writing such things, we could switch out the typing ball in an IBM selectrix and type it in.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
How fun, a 60 year old student thesis. I like the way the Hebrew and Greek is handwritten -- by the time I was writing such things, we could switch out the typing ball in an IBM selectrix and type it in.
I had no idea that there was such a controversy as to the identity of those in Psalms 82. It appears that BDAG not only advocates they include angelic beings but also considers Jesus as a part of them, albeit uniquely begotten.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
I had no idea that there was such a controversy as to the identity of those in Psalms 82. It appears that BDAG not only advocates they include angelic beings but also considers Jesus as a part of them, albeit uniquely begotten.
Jesus understand the “gods” in John 10:34-35 to be those to whom the word of God came, i.e. the prophets, that is human beings in the service of God and not to angelic beings. Ref.
εἰ ἐκείνους εἶπεν θεοὺς πρὸς οὓς ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ οὐ δύναται λυθῆναι ἡ γραφή,

see Isaiah
38:4 38:4 καὶ ἐγένετο λόγος κυρίου πρὸς Ησαιαν λέγων
etc.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
w
Jesus understand the “gods” in John 10:34-35 to be those to whom the word of God came, i.e. the prophets, that is human beings in the service of God and not to angelic beings. Ref.


see Isaiah

etc.
I tend to hold your view but it's been shaken up a bit by that paper.

One point it makes is that the word of God never came to a group of judges. You said prophets but that's not the same thing.

On the other hand in Scripture we are told that the law was given by angels (plural) and so that part fits.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
I tend to hold your view but it's been shaken up a bit by that paper.

One point it makes is that the word of God never came to a group of judges.


I'm not saying "judges" though but "prophets of God."

You said prophets but that's not the same thing.

Yep.

On the other hand in Scripture we are told that the law was given by angels (plural) and so that part fits.

Precisely. Jesus did not say the messengers of the Word of God are called "gods" but the recipients of it. The word of God came to be with (ἐγένετο) the prophets (presumably via the messengers of God). Look at the Greek of John 10:35 and of verses like Isaiah 38:4 on this score. It's virtually identical.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
I'm not saying "judges" though but "prophets of God."



Yep.



Precisely. Jesus did not say the messengers of the Word of God are called "gods" but the recipients of it. The word of God came to be with (ἐγένετο) the prophets (presumably via the messengers of God). Look at the Greek of John 10:35 and of verses like Isaiah 38:4 on this score. It's virtually identical.
I see. You base your view on the similarity of an English translation of the Greek of the NT and the English translation of the Hebrew?

This is phenomenal usage being viewed as as ontological.

The Psalms passage speaks to a group who are judging Israel which is why they are universally viewed to be judges. It's a functional title, not an honorary one.

Isaiah was not called a judge nor did he function as a judge in Israel. "Prophet" is also a functional title and a different one than "judge."

I see the word coming to these judges as they are addressed directly by God in Psalm 82:2.

In John 10:33-36 the word coming to these wicked judges with προς can also have a negative connotation that means "against" and certainly those negative words were spoken against that group.
 

The Real John Milton

Well-known member
I see. You base your view on the similarity of an English translation of the Greek of the NT and the English translation of the Hebrew?

This is phenomenal usage being viewed as as ontological.

The Psalms passage speaks to a group who are judging Israel which is why they are universally viewed to be judges. It's a functional title, not an honorary one.

Isaiah was not called a judge nor did he function as a judge in Israel. "Prophet" is also a functional title and a different one than "judge."

I see the word coming to these judges as they are addressed directly by God in Psalm 82:2.

In John 10:33-36 the word coming to these wicked judges with προς can also have a negative connotation that means "against" and certainly those negative words were spoken against that group.
Im basing my argument on the similarity of the Greek of John 10:34-35 and the LXX of verses like Isaiah 38:4. I thought this would be obvious to anyone . My fault, I assumed that you could read the LXX Greek and the GNT Greek.
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
Im basing my argument on the similarity of the Greek of John 10:34-35 and the LXX of verses like Isaiah 38:4. I thought this would be obvious to anyone . My fault, I assumed that you could read the LXX Greek and the GNT Greek.
I understand your process. I have seen it before. But it's not proper exegesis to transfer a context from the use of one word to another even if it's the same language, let alone translation from two or three different languages.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
I understand your process. I have seen it before. But it's not proper exegesis to transfer a context from the use of one word to another even if it's the same language, let alone translation from two or three different languages.
You should understand it; you do it yourself!
 

Roger Thornhill

Well-known member
I have repeatedly in our discussions about John 1:3-4. Specifically, you have said that the prologue says that the word received life from the Father when the text doesn't say that. What say you?
I was quoting BDAG, not using it as a proof-text.

My analysis is that the later punctuation has life coming into existence in the Word which is a grammatical argument.
 

John Milton

Well-known member
I was quoting BDAG, not using it as a proof-text.

My analysis is that the later punctuation has life coming into existence in the Word which is a grammatical argument.
But "life coming into existence in the Word" is not the same as "the word received life from the Father." You are proving my point.

Also, what are you calling the later punctuation, the NA 28 or the other?
 
Top