PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

I just posted a new Blog entitled Christianity is Based on Misunderstanding and Taking a Poetical Metaphor Literally

In it, I propose that Christianity began with a metaphor when the writer of the poetical sections of the John gospel text meant to say that the "word of God," was like a God, only unique and different from other Gods *(see John 1:18 and 3:18). He used the unfortunate expression του μονογενους υιου του θεου (uniquely resembling a God) which has since been mistranslated and taken literally as ""only son of God," "begotten son of God," and "only begotten son of God."

We are often told that the expression "son of man" means "resembling or like a man." In that case, the expression "son of God" would mean "resembling or like a God."

Instead of seeing it as a metaphor tossed off in the heat of poetical composition, later Christians created the character and story line of Jesus based on it. This reflects their overwhelming desire to be like the Greeks and Roman around them who enjoyed worshiping sons of Gods and telling great stories about them.

Thoughts and criticisms are welcome.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

avi

Thank you Jay.
I have no criticism, sorry for that.

I do have a question, but, it may be too far removed from the thrust of this thread, if so, please disregard it.....

I am focused on the last two words:

του θεου

which, you have translated, probably correctly, as a God: ("uniquely resembling a God")

So my question, is whether or not, your main argument, i.e. that Christianity began as a misunderstanding of a poetic metaphor, is perhaps slightly skewed, because of this English idea, conveyed by your use of the indefinite article, "a God". I think that the definite article, του, genitive singular, modifying θεου, would more closely correspond to the (very awkward) English:

THE God.

In other words, I am proposing that the author of John was here intending to emphasize and juxtapose Judeo-Christian "monotheism" with the pagan tradition of polytheism. Perhaps the definite article compels that distinction.

Thanks again, Jay, for the interesting thread.

avi

Juststeve

Jay:

Had you written that John's Gospel begins with a metaphor I would not quibble. That's not what you wrote though. It appears to me that Christianity precedes John's Gospel and therefore did not begin with John's Gospel, or any metaphor contained therein.

Steve

DCHindley

That might be true of "son of man" but does it hold true with "son of god"?

In Gen 6:2,4, reference is made to "sons of God" who came upon the "daughters of men" and produced giants. There is debate among Christians about what "sons of God" meant, but in Deuteronomy 32:8 "[God] fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God." This makes it sound like "sons of God" refers to guardian angels over the individual nationalities. In Job 1:6 & 2:1 they (even including Satan - the accuser) assemble "before YHWH," and in Job 38:7 they "shouted for joy" when God laid the foundations of the earth, clearly before any man was present to witness it.

This kind of term is only once applied unambiguously to man or men:

RSV Wisdom 5:1 Then the righteous man will stand with great confidence in the presence of those who have afflicted him, and those who make light of his labors. 2 When they see him, they will be shaken with dreadful fear, and they will be amazed at his unexpected salvation. 3 They will speak to one another in repentance, and in anguish of spirit they will groan, and say, 4 "This is the man whom we once held in derision and made a byword of reproach -- we fools! We thought that his life was madness and that his end was without honor. 5 Why has he been numbered among the sons of God? And why is his lot among the saints? ... 13 So we also, as soon as we were born, ceased to be, and we had no sign of virtue to show, but were consumed in our wickedness." ... 15 But the righteous live for ever, and their reward is with the Lord; the Most High takes care of them. 16 Therefore they will receive a glorious crown and a beautiful diadem from the hand of the Lord, because with his right hand he will cover them, and with his arm he will shield them.

This seems to refer to a time of Judgement, when the unrighteous will fall from power and the righteous will triumph like kings. The omitted parts of the chapter use military terminology, suggesting that the sons of God will participate in a great battle with the unrighteous, like a supernatural army assisting the righteous, toppling the balance of power.

Of course this depends whether υιου ("son") is original, as the earliest witnesses have "του μονογενους θεου" ("the only-begotten God"). The gentitive case makes this a bit of a puzzle, though, at least to me.

DCH

Russellonius

It's interesting that the gospel of John's christology may not actually be so high as we think because of theological bias in our translations. That would not be the only example of this in our English versions.

Here, it would be good to address the concept of Logos and the claim that Caesar was divine. A wide diversity of Jews interacted in many ways with Greco-Roman culture. Could Hellenized, non-Torah adhering Jews have been saying amongst themselves 'we can go this far' - Logos, accommodation by relaxing ethnic customs etc, 'but not that far' - worshiping Caesar as a god?

Elsewhere I think I've seen you state that Paul was in opposition to the group at Jerusalem associated with Jesus. Doesn't it then logically follow that the Jesus stories were assembled and redacted by the opposing Pauline and Johannine factions? How else would we explain the story of a covenant renewal movement resulting, by a miraculous claim and exegesis of scripture, in a brand new covenant?

The gospel authors might have been using the Ezekiel and Daniel threads to construct a response both to the Jesus group and to their allies, the Romans.

I agree with Juststeve that the text cannot precede the story - and you forgot Paul. But it's cool to end a well reasoned essay with a grandiose flourish of overstatement. It gives it personality.

I hope you find this useful.

aeebee50

Things are not as they seem.

bacht

Is there metaphor in these description, usually dated earlier than gJohn?

He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities -- all things were created through him and for him.
He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent.
For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

Colossians

In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power.
When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs.

Hebrews

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.
Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Philippians

show_no_mercy

I think that, traditionally, "son of man" meant someone that is born from a man. Only men (or humans) are born from men, so this implies that someone who is a son of man is also a man. As opposed to a son of god, who would also be a god.

bacht

Isn't there the royal metaphor of the king's adoption by God? Wasn't this a common theme in ANE, eg pharaoh as son of Re? In that sense, doesn't "son of God" mean pretty much the same as "son of David"?

Juststeve

DCHINDLEY:

"Sons of God in Gen 6:2,4, is a mistranslation of the Hebrew common in Christian Bibles. The proper translation is either sons of the nobles, or perhaps sons of powerful men. The gist of the story is that the oppression of the weak by the strong was the last straw before God destroyed the world.

In the Hebrew Bible God has no sons except if a purely figurative sense. As a Rabbi once told me with reference to the Christian doctrine of the trinity, God has no partners. That goes for sons too.

Steve