Jesus As GOD Θεός and Chart Compare in JesusAsGodWikipedia.htm

Jesus As Θεός Scriptural Fact Or Scribal Fantasy?

· bible.org: Jesus as Θεός: Scriptural Fact or Scribal Fantasy...

Your continued donations keep bible.org serving! ... fourth-century,15 involves a punctuation issue that the earliest NT manuscripts cannot definitely trace ...

www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=5030 - 176k - Similar pages

Jesus as Θεός: Scriptural Fact or Scribal Fantasy?

By:
Brian J. Wright

Editor’s Note: This paper was originally given at the Evangelical Theological Society’s southwestern regional meeting, held at Southwestern Baptist Seminary on March 23, 2007. Brian was one of my interns for the 2006-07 school year at Dallas Seminary. He did an outstanding job in presenting the case that the original New Testament certainly affirmed the deity of Christ.

Daniel B. Wallace

From Aland to Zuntz, every major scholar has explored certain passages in the canon of the NT in which Jesus is called θεός.¹ After reflecting on such texts and prior to endorsing such a claim, many, if not most, discuss their favorite text(s) in support or rejection of this proclamation.² Turning on the tap of literature on this topic immediately provides one with tubs full of exegetical and theological perspectives. On the other hand, the textual certainty of such “Jesus- θεός” passages has escaped this same detailed examination. With many recent challenges to the authenticity of these passages, apparently, mounds of uncultivated soil exist regarding their textual stability.³ On the surface, at least to some, the current textual deposit appears to be what geologists refer to as an erratic: a glacial deposit foreign to the original environment in which it is found. In other words, the notion that Jesus is explicitly called θεός in the NT is foreign to both the autographs and their authors.⁴

At first glance, this undermines the traditional Christian doctrine of the divinity of Christ. For starters, no author of a synoptic gospel explicitly ascribes the title θεός to Jesus.⁵ Moreover, Jesus never uses the term θεός for Himself.⁶ Prior to the fourth-century Arian controversy, noticeably few MSS attest to such “Jesus- θεός” passages, with several scholars assuming Orthodox corruptions in those MSS subsequent to this controversy.⁷ No sermon in the Book of Acts attributes the title θεός to Jesus. No extant Christian confession(s)⁸ of Jesus as θεός exist earlier than the late 50s.⁹ And possibly the biggest problem for NT Christology regarding this topic is that textual variants exist in all potential passages where Jesus is explicitly referred to as θεός.¹⁰ This plethora of issues may provoke one to repeat, for different reasons, what a Gnostic document once confessed, “Whether a god or an angel or what I should call him, I do not know.”¹¹

Why this paper? At least two reasons exist: (1) the ascription of θεός to Jesus is pertinent to NT and Christian Christology and (2) recent textual critics have challenged the authenticity of these ascriptions. This paper, therefore, will examine these textual challenges and assess the likely authenticity¹² of NT ascriptions of θεός to Jesus.¹³

First I will define the textual method used to reconstruct the original text. Second I will examine the textual authenticity of each NT passage regarding its textual certainty. Finally I will organize the examined passages into three categories: certain, highly probable, or dubious.

Textual Method

Though differing methods exist, I will employ a reasoned eclecticism method which incorporates internal and external evidence.

Condensed Examination (Sbt Note- Compare all Verses Quoted to the Simple Truth in Who is I Open-Jesus and 2001BibleTranslation.com/Jesus.htmlWhoWasJesus 2 He was with God - And 1 In an ancient time there was the Word. The Word was with God and the Word was powerful.) Chart 2--in JesusAsGodWikipedia.htm New is The Trinity Compare Chart of Godhead Believers & Non-Godhead Believers-Open-0A1.htm-Includes- Oneness.htm --JesusTestifies about Himself - IMMANUELplus.htm- I-AM.htm+ More)

Condensed Examination—Compare B2.htm Bibles.

Matt 1:23; John 17:3; Acts 20:28; Rom 9:5; Eph 5:5; Col 2:2; 2 Thess 1:12; 1 Tim 3:16; 1 John 5:20; Jude 4.¹⁴ Although these passages contain textual variants, I will give them less coverage for the following reasons:

1) Romans 9:5, which is one of only four “Jesus- θεός” passages having a manuscript prior to the fourth-century,¹⁵ involves a punctuation issue that the earliest NT manuscripts cannot definitely trace back due to the absence of any type of systematic punctuation.¹⁶

2) Colossians 2:2. Although this verse contains fifteen variants,¹⁷ the issue focuses on syntax rather than the text and is therefore outside the scope of this investigation. The same holds true for Matt 1:23,¹⁸ John 17:3,¹⁹ Acts 20:28,²⁰ Eph 5:5,²¹ 2 Thess 1:12,²² 1 Tim 3:16;²³ 1 John 5:20,²⁴ and Jude 4.²⁵ This leaves seven texts warranting extended examination.

Extended Examination

John 1:1

Until fourteen years ago²⁶ NT scholars were unanimous in their textual certainty of John 1:1c.²⁷ This scholarly agreement continues today with the exception of one recent scholar, Bart Ehrman. He remains unpersuaded by the scholarly consensus because of his reluctance to dismiss a single eighth-century Alexandrian manuscript L which adds an article to θεός:²⁸

καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

To Ehrman, an articular θεός gives him the “distinct impression” that the Orthodox party changed it due to the Arian controversies.²⁹ The real issue, then, makes this otherwise implicit identification (Jesus as simply divine) an explicit one (God himself).³⁰ Without belaboring the point, syntactically, the absence of the article does not deny the full deity of Jesus.³¹ The most probable understanding of the anarthrous θεός is qualitative (the Word had the same nature as God).³²

Further, regarding the Arian Controversies, Arius never had a problem calling Jesus θεός. In fact, he does so in a letter he wrote to Eusebius bishop of Nicomedia, “But what do we say and think? What have we taught and what do we teach? That the Son is not unbegotten or a portion of the unbegotten in any manner or from any substratum, but that by the will and counsel of the Father he subsisted before times and ages, full of grace and truth, God, only-begotten, unchangeable.”³³ The Arian corruption theory, in this case, remains unsubstantiated at its fundamental level.

At any rate, one’s attempt to understand the theological interpretation(s) or motive(s) behind these variants does not change the fact that the text is certain and it ascribes the title θεός to Jesus: καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (and the Word was God).³⁴ This discussion must now enter the realm of grammar.³⁵ For that reason, I will press on to John 1:18.

John 1:18

Although John 1:18 has been lauded, celebrated, and esteemed throughout the history of Christendom, not every manuscript contains the same reading.³⁶ The textual certainty might look like a mountain of muddle with at least 13 variant readings,³⁷ of which three are viable.³⁸ At the outset, all the variants divide into two distinct groups either reading υἱός or θεός. If the latter is chosen, the final decision ultimately depends on the presence or absence of the article.

μονογενὴς θεός

ὁ μονογενὴς θεός

ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός

Let us now turn to the external evidence.³⁹

θεός is present in the earliest and best Alexandrian MSS ( א Ì⁶⁶ Ì⁷⁵ B C). The already widely held opinion that θεός is original is increasing,⁴⁰ and the evidence has been “notably strengthened,”⁴¹ with the discovery of Ì⁶⁶ and Ì⁷⁵ (both attesting to θεός).⁴² Additionally, “[a]mong all the witnesses, P75 is generally understood to be the strongest.”⁴³ Yet θεός still boasts better textual ancestry than υἱός even eliminating these two papyri. Let me explain.

θεός is “the reading of the great Alexandrian uncials ( א B C)” and “attested by the earliest available witnesses [ Ì⁶⁶ Ì⁷⁵].”⁴⁴ On textual critic concludes that the discovery of these two papyri MSS has “done very little (in this instance) to change the character of the documentary alignment,” and in fact, “done nothing to change the picture.”⁴⁵ I wholeheartedly agree. It is inadequate to merely count the MS evidence; one must also weigh it.⁴⁶ The implication of this is that it makes anyone’s use of this text-type a moot point for υἱός if the late secondary Alexandrian texts for υἱός cannot go back to the Alexandrian exemplar.⁴⁷

Next, it has been argued that because “virtually every other representative of every other textual grouping—Western, Caesarean, Byzantine—attests to υἱός” then θεός does not “fare well at all.”⁴⁸ I think this is a slight exaggeration and after reevaluating the evidence, θεός will “fare well.”

Two issues require comment concerning the Western tradition. One, the quality and antiquity of the Western manuscript supporting θεός ( א)⁴⁹ is comparatively greater and earlier than all three Alexandrian MSS supporting υἱός ( Δ Ψ T). This demonstrates that θεός is not isolated in the Alexandrian text-type, as the statement above alludes. Two, when using the “Western text” one must keep in mind that “in the early period there was no textual tradition in the West that was not shared with the East.”⁵⁰ In other words, “the origin of the ‘Western’ text lies anywhere but in the direction its name would suggest.”⁵¹ Moreover, Ehrman concludes, “[a]bove all, it is significant in saying something about the transmission of the so-called ‘Western’ text of the Fourth Gospel. To be sure, we have not uncovered any evidence of a consolidated form of this text that could match the carefully controlled tradition of Alexandria.”⁵²

Adding to the argument above, Ehrman uses the Caesarean textual grouping to strengthen his argument in support for υἱός. Indeed, the overwhelming majority read υἱός (Θ, 565, 579, 700, f¹, f¹³, geo¹). This, however, is problematic for at least two reasons. First, more recent nomenclature moves away from this label (Caesarean) since it has been strongly argued not to be a fourth text-type.⁵³ Admittedly, some merit still exists in using the label Caesarean with the result that further geographical distribution can be exposed. This leads me to point two. Assuming Caesarean does exist as a text-type, θεός does attest in it, albeit scarce (geo²).⁵⁴ Showing again that θεός is present in another text-type resulting in further geographical distribution.

It should also be acknowledged here, as Ehrman rightly claims, that the predominance of υἱός exists in the Latin and Syriac traditions (with θεός still present in several Syriac MSS [syr^h(mg) syr^p]). Unfortunately what often gets overlooked is that a predominance of θεός exists in the Arabic and Coptic traditions (with υἱός absent from both). Even more, the most striking versional witness for θεός is the Peshitta. At first glance, this scant evidence seems irrelevant. What impresses us here, though, is that θεός consistently attests outside the Alexandrian tradition.

To emphasize the early date of υἱός, Ehrman uses three specific church fathers (Irenaeus, Clement, and Tertullian) “who were writing before our earliest surviving manuscripts were produced.”⁵⁵ Unfortunately, he does this without acknowledging any church father supporting θεός around the same period (or Ì⁶⁶). I, therefore, will equally list three here: Irenaeus, Clement, and Eusebius. One may notice that two of the three names also appear in Ehrman’s list.⁵⁶ This redundancy reveals the fact that two of the fathers he uses for υἱός (and the earliest two: Irenaeus and Clement) support θεός in other writings. In the least, θεός shows up again outside the Alexandrian tradition.

Two more critical issues must be argued regarding the church fathers. First, McReynolds warns us that any reference to ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός by a church father is unsubstantiated unless it specifically denotes John 1:18. The citation or allusion could equally apply to any of the other passages in John (1:14; 3:16) or in the NT (Luke 7:12; Heb 11:17; 1 John 4:9) where μονογενής refers to the “son.” On the other hand, the same problem does not apply to μονογενὴς θεός since it occurs no where else. Thus, one can be sure that John 1:18 is in view if μονογενὴς θεός is read (e.g., Arius, Basil, Clement, Cyril, Didymus, Epiphanius, Eusebius, Gregory-Nyssa, Heracleon, Hilary, Irenaeus, Jerome, Origen, Ps-Ignatius, Ptolemy, Serapion, Synesius, Tatian, Theodotus, Valentinius). McReynolds concludes “that patristic evidence for various readings needs to be used much more carefully, and with a full view of the context of the Father being quoted.”⁵⁷

Second, I find it remarkably striking that Arius supports the reading θεός (according to Epiphanius).⁵⁸ If this is true, it throws into doubt that an orthodox scribe would change the text away from Arius as though θεός bolsters “the complete deity of Christ.”⁵⁹ Even if the reverse is true (Epiphanius’s testimony is wrong), one would have to assume that each scribe that changed υἱός to θεός knew about the Arian controversy and knew how to change the text to the higher Christology. Even then, the evidence shows inconsistency in their alleged corruption(s) (given John 1:1; 20:28). On top of all that, it would also have to be shown that all the evidence originated during or subsequent to this Arian controversy (which the evidence does not).⁶⁰ Otherwise, the earliest and best MSS heighten the argument away from the allegation that this is an orthodox corruption.

To be even more critical, the reading μονογενὴς θεός is not an anti-Arian polemic. Arians again did not balk at giving this title to Jesus (c.f. John 1:1 above).⁶¹ In fact, as Keener points out, “Given the tendency to simplify the sense of the text, the Arian controversy in Egypt, the source of most of our manuscripts, would have led to a later preference for ‘only Son’, since ‘only’ was often read as ‘only begotten’ and ‘only begotten God’ could be pressed into ambiguous support against both Arius and Athanasius.”⁶² The Arians wanted to weaken the sense of “only God” and designate Christ as merely a divine being, which eliminates the word θεός as applied to ὁ λόγος in 1:1. In other words, it is more reasonable to envisage the orthodox party altering “God” to “son” during this controversy than it is to imagine the shift from “son” to “God.”

Finally, it has been said that θεός is a “fairly localized” and “almost exclusively Alexandrian” reading while υἱός is “found sporadically there and virtually everywhere else” and is “almost ubiquitous.”⁶³ Besides being a bit misleading, as I have noted elsewhere, there are still several reasons explaining the wider transmissional survival of υἱός away from the original θεός even if one accepts these statements lock, stock, and barrel. For example, it is highly probable that “son” prevailed as the easier reading before most extant versions were composed. This can also be seen in the fact that “son” has universal agreement in later copies with no observable evidence of a tendency in scribes to alter it. Additionally, “God” is the more difficult reading theologically, statistically, and stylistically (see discussion below), which generally promotes various textual variants.

In sum, both readings enjoy wide geographical distribution, even though υἱός is relatively wider and θεός is primarily Alexandrian. Both readings co-existed in the second century, although weightier MSS support θεός. As a whole, externally, I believe the chips stack much higher for θεός due to the quality and antiquity of the MSS listed above. Nevertheless, this external evidence alone does not make θεός the exclusive heir to the throne.

Now that the camel’s nose is in the tent, let us look at the internal evidence. To a scribe, only one letter in majuscule script differentiates the two readings. These words contract and represent a nomen sacrum symbolized as =u=-s or =q=-s. As mentioned, “God” is the more difficult reading theologically, statistically, and stylistically. This recognition, then, is of decisive significance for our internal considerations. Theologically, this reading is pregnant with implications. Statistically, it is almost unparalleled. Stylistically, it is more difficult. I think, however, that after examining the internal evidence the scales still tip in favor of θεός.

Two major issues seem to negate the nomen sacrum option. First, Metzger points out that it is doubtful with what we know that this transcriptional error occurred in the Alexandrian tradition.⁶⁴ Second, “this ‘accident’ would have had to have occurred very early for both variants to have survived, and one such occurrence seems unlikely to have caused so much support so early.”⁶⁵

To sum up another main internal argument, one scholar believes that μονογενής is never substantival when a noun that agrees with it in gender, number, and case follows.⁶⁶ Not only does he reject it here (1:18), but he also emphasizes that an adjective can never be used substantively (here or elsewhere) when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection (i.e., grammatical concord). In response, another scholar said, “There are many critiques that could be made of his argument, but chief among them is this: his absolutizing of the grammatical situation is incorrect.”⁶⁷ Following this statement he goes on to demonstrate and accomplish at least two things: (1) this statement “is simply not borne out by the evidence” and (2) “if examined carefully” either reading fits “comfortably within orthodoxy.”⁶⁸ To say it another way, this major internal argument has already been debunked.