FathomFFI

I'm not religious, and am in fact an agnostic. Despite this, I have a great deal of respect and admiration for Jesus, and I do believe he existed historically.

One of the things that has concerned me over the years is all the Christian interpolations of the Gospels. Some are obvious, but others can be so subtle that unless you study the text very closely and indepth you may not see it.

The following is an essay I created regarding the meaining of John 10.30. It comes from years of periodically studying the text, and I finally decided to put my work out there for peer review.

The only think I ask if any of you bother to critique this is that you do so from a position of reason and evidence, and not from a position of faith. Arguments of faith are pointless in my opinion, and resolve nothing.

Nonetheless, here is my essay. Critique it all to hell if you want to, for all I want are good solid informed opinions on it. Thanks in advance.

The following is a paper submitted for peer review from France John.

Some of the Team FFI members know me as someone who intensely studies what I understand to be the words which Jesus actually uttered. The following paper represents years of research into a specific incident Jesus had with the Jews, with the focus upon the words he spoke in John 10.30. I invite all reviews, good or bad, but please present your views not based upon faith, but based upon evidence.

The following is strictly theoretical, and I present it for review.

The Meaning of John 10.30

by France John

One of the key problems with translating the original Koine Greek texts into any other language including English is the translation of what is known as the "idiom." The word "idiom" means a language, dialect, or style of speaking peculiar to a people or culture.

This can lead to serious problems in comprehension which in turn can lead to the translator being mislead in his interpretation of the text. You see, no language is ever truly translated, but instead it must be "interpreted." The word for word translation is not nearly enough for comprehension, therefore an interpretation is also required.

Yet, in the case of ancient texts such as the Koine Greek, another problem which exists with the translation of the Gospels is the fact that the Koine Greek language became all but extinct 1500 years ago, and thus the idiom were all but lost also.. What this means is that the earliest translators of the gospel were faced with the daunting task of attempting to interpret from an extinct language while in possession of minimal knowledge of that language, as well as the idiom of the people of 1st century Jerusalem and Greece.

Yet, due to modern discoveries such as the Nag Hammadi Library and other ancient Greek texts, a greater knowledge of the multiple meanings of specific Koine Greek words and phrases has enabled us to re-examine the translation/interpretation of specific bible verses by virtue of modern scholarship verses 16th century scholarship, such as the King James version translation. The more ancient texts we find, the more we can compare certain phrases which enable us to grasp a better understanding of idiom.

Therefore, I will attempt to provide a theory regarding the idioms for John 10.30 for those of you who read this, and share with you what I have learned over the years. Listed below you will find verses 10.30 to 10.36 from the Gospel of John as seen in the King James modern version:

Joh 10.30 I and the Father are one!
Joh 10.31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him.
Joh 10.32 Jesus answered them, I have shown you many good works from My Father; for which of these do you stone Me?
Joh 10.33 The Jews answered Him, saying, We do not stone you for a good work, but for blasphemy, and because you, being a man, make yourself God.
Joh 10.34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your Law, "I said, You are gods?"
Joh 10.35 If He called those gods with whom the Word of God was, and the Scripture cannot be broken,
Joh 10.36 do you say of Him whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, You blaspheme, because I said, I am the Son of God?

Now we will look at each verse independently and explore for the idioms, particularly for John 10.30.

In John 10.30 some of the context can be used to help us understand what is meant by the use of the word "one" at the end. It is generally agreed among scholars that the word "one" refers to a state of being in which Jesus is claiming that he is of the same essense/nature/substance/purpose of the Father. Yet, the Christian religion uses this verse in their claim that Jesus is saying that he is God, as in the Supreme Deity. They base this belief upon the capitalized use of the word "God" which the Jews used in their accusation against Jesus in John 10.33.

In English, in regards to the Christian religion at least, when the word "God" is capitalized it always refers to the Supreme Deity. English grammar and punctuation developed like any other language, with improvements in grammar and punctuation occuring over hundreds of years. Names became capitalized, as well as places and some other things. It's an innovation which evolved in an effort to increase comprehension and meaning.

However, the original texts of the Gospels did not have this form of capitalization and grammar. The word "God" which we see in the English for John 10.33 has no capitalization in the Koine Greek. If translated totally into lower-case, the Gospel would display every use of the word "God" as "god." Therefore, with this reasoning we can determine that the English capitalized used of "God" in John 10.30 was the effort of Christian scribes to invoke their comprehension of that word as refering to the Supreme Deity.

But what if it actually does not refer to the Supreme Deity? Is it possible that it could refer to something other than the Supreme Deity? Before we examine that possibility, let us go back and have another look at John 10.30 to seek out if the idiom currently agreed upon infers anything else.

When we examine the context we see two distinct entities being referenced; The Father and Jesus. Therefore, let us reason:

a) With the current agreed upon idiom, Jesus is saying that he and the Father are of the same essence/nature/substance/purpose.

b) In the same Gospel of John, Jesus states that the Father is greater than he is in John 14.28.

c) With John 14.28 considered, Jesus distinguishes himself as not being equal to the Father, and in fact regards himself to be less.

d) Therefore, the logic concludes that Jesus is not saying that the is the Father or the Supreme Deity in John 10.30, otherwise we must acknowledge a contradiction.

e) We are left with only two choices; 1.) Jesus is not saying he is the Supreme Deity; 2.) Jesus has contradicted himself.

So now in an effort to determine which 1 of the 2 in e) is the truth, we will examine the accepted idiom for John 10.30 to see what it infers.

In John 10.30, the Koine Greek word used for Father is transliterated as "pater." This means a parent or father either physically or figuratively. Since Jesus is referring to God as Father, then he is making a distinction between himself and the entity of Father. So let us reason:

a) Jesus distinguishes himself from the Father in John 14.28, and therefore we have evidence to support that he may also be doing it in John 10.30.

b) Since Jesus regards God as a Father in John 10.30, it infers that Jesus is a son of God the Father.

c) Since Jesus lays claim to be of the same essence/nature/substance/purpose of the Father, yet distinguishes himself from being the Father, then it infers that Jesus regards himself to be a god, since the idiom describes the same qualities as that of the Supreme Deity, but yet is distinguished from the Supreme Deity.

d) If you are son of an elephant, you would be an elephant. If you are the son of a lion, you would be a lion. Therefore, if you are the son of a God, then you would be a god.

(please forgive the d) analogy above, but it was required to get the point across.)

Therefore, with reason we can determine what the idiom from John 10.30 infers as so:

1.) Jesus claims God as a Father, and that they are of the same essence/nature/substance/purpose.

2.) Therefore since Jesus claims God as a Father, it follows that he claims he is a son of God the Father.

3.) Therefore it follows that Jesus claims to be a god, since a son is a product of its father consisting of the same essence/nature/substance/purpose.

So now let's test this again with John 10.33 while using a small-case "god" in place of the interpolated upper-case "God:"

John 10.30 - I and the Father are one!
(I am the essence/nature/substance of the Father, so therefore that makes me a son of the Father (God), and hence therefore I am a god.)

John 10.31 - Then the Jews picked up stones to stone him again.

John 10.32 - Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many good works from my Father, for which of these do you stone me?"

John 10.33 - The Jews replied to him, "We are not stoning you for any good works, but instead for blasphemy because you, being but a man, have presented yourself as a god."

With the lowercase "god" in place of the uppercase, we still have the reason why the Jews would want to stone him. The reason is still identical as it would be with the uppercase God; it breaks the Jewish first commandment as far as those Jews were concerned. So far this appears to be working without any problems, but what else can we determine to help verify that the lower-case "god" is the intended meaning of John 10.33? Let's take a close look at what Jesus says in John 10.34 as a response to the accusation of him presenting himself as a god in John 10.33:

John 10.33 - The Jews replied to him, "We are not stoning you for any good works, but instead for blasphemy because you, being but a man, have presented yourself as a god."

John 10.34: - Jesus answered back to them, "Is it not written in your books, 'I have said, you are gods?'

What we see above is very interesting. When the lowercase use of "god" is used in John 10.33, Jesus replies to it with a lowercase use of "gods" in John 10.34. This completely follows the accusation of him regarding himself as a god. However, when we examine John 10.33 with the uppercase use of God, then Jesus' use of the lowercase "gods" in John 10.34 is markedly non sequitur. It simply does not follow because if the Jews are accusing him of presenting himself as the Supreme Deity, then why does Jesus defend himself with a partial quote of a Psalm 82.6 which mentions lowercase "gods" which does not refer to the Supreme Deity?

It would appear that if Jesus had understood the Jews as accusing him of presenting himself as the Supreme Deity, then he would have used some scripture which would have supported any claim he supposedly made of being the Supreme Deity. But the scripture he did use does not defend against any accusation of him presenting himself as a Supreme Deity at all. In fact, when we fully look at the Psalm Jesus used to defend himself, we see this:

Psa 82:6 I have said, You are gods; and all of you sons of the Most High.

Jesus used the scripture above to defend against the accusations of the Jews that he had presented himself as a god, but what is interesting about the Psalm is that the rest of it also says "and all of you sons of the Most High." The rest of that Psalm would also address the other inference from John 10.30 that Jesus has claimed to be a son of God the Father. Hense, so far it appears that Jesus' use of that Psalm as a means of defense against the accusation of the Jews addresses all three idioms postulated in John 10.30. But now can we use any other supporting evidence to justify our position on the 3 idioms we postulated in John 10.30, as well as the postulation that the lower-case "god" was to be the intended meaning in John 10.33? Let's now take a look at John 10.33 - 10:36, with the Psalm in its entirety worked in:

John 10.33 - The Jews replied to him, "We are not stoning you for any good works, but instead for blasphemy because you, being but a man, have presented yourself as a god."

John 10.34 - 36 - Jesus answered back to them, "Is it not written in your books, 'I have said, you are gods?' Since God regarded those who had the Word of God with them as 'gods'- and you cannot dispute that scripture- then why do you say to me, whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, "you blasphemy," just because I have said that I am also a son of God?"

When we examine the quote above, we again see that in John 10.35 Jesus continues to use the lower case "gods" as a means against the accusation made by the Jews in John 10.33. Jesus is still not addressing an accusation made against him of him presenting himself as the Supreme Deity, but is clearly addressing an accusation made against him of him presenting himself as a deity; a god. Jesus is arguing to the effect that since the Jews' own book shows where God had previously regarded people in the past as "gods," then why would his accusers have any problem if Jesus also regarded himself as a god.

But what is even more revealing about the quote above is the reason Jesus gave for the Jews' accusation of blasphemy against him:

... because I said I am the son of God?

But where did Jesus previously say he was the son of God in which it caused the Jews to want to stone him for blasphemy?

You will notice that it was not until immediately after Jesus said "I and the Father are one that the Jews picked up stones to stone him. Since we do not see the direct statement of "I am the son of God" anywhere previous to John 10.36, then what we are left with is 10.30 as being the only logical place where the words of I and the Father are one can invoke the understanding as also meaning "I am the son of God." So again, let us reason:

a) In John 10.30 Jesus says that he is of the same essence/nature/substance/purpose of God the Father, which carries the connotations in meaning that he is a son of God the Father and therefore he is also a god.

b) The Jews picked up stones to stone Jesus for the blasphemy of breaking the 1st Commandment because of the connotation that Jesus claimed to be a god.

c) Perplexed by the actions of the Jews, Jesus asks them why they were about to stone him.

d) The Jews explained the blasphemy accusation was because they understood Jesus' words as him claiming to be a god.

e) Jesus defends his position of being a god by quoting a Psalm which demonstrated where God had regarded others as gods and sons of God.

f) Jesus continues to defend his position of being a god with reason by stating that since it was acceptable for God himself to regard persons in the past as gods, then the Jews should have no problem with him regarding himself in like manner.

g) Jesus shows us that the reason the Jews were going to stone him was because he had said that he was the son of God, which completely contradicts the Christian belief that the word "God" in 10.33 refers to the Supreme Deity. The contradiction is explained because Jesus gives the reason of "because I said I am the son of God" at the end of John 10.36, which does not jibe with the Christian claim that the reason was because the Jews had accused him of claiming to be the Supreme Deity in John 10.33.

h) Therefore, the words of "because I said I was the son of God" could only jibe with a lower-case use of "god" in John 10.33, which in turn leads straight back to the connotations of John 10.30 of him being of the same essence/nature/substance/purpose of God the Father, which carries the connotations in meaning that he is a son of God the Father and therefore he is also a god.

So now let us put the verses from John 10.30 to John 10.36 in order to see the final product:

John 10.30 - I and the Father are one!

John 10.31 - Then the Jews picked up stones to stone him again.

John 10.32 - Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many good works from my Father, for which of these do you stone me?"

John 10.33 - The Jews replied to him, "We are not stoning you for any good works, but instead for blasphemy because you, being but a man, have presented yourself as a god!"

John 10.34 - Jesus answered back to them, "Is it not written in your books, 'I have said, you are gods?'

John 10.35 - 36 - Since God regarded those who had the Word of God with them as 'gods'- and you cannot dispute that scripture- then why do you say to me, whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, "you blasphemy," just because I have said that I am also a son of God?"


In conclusion, I believe that the Christian interpolation of a capitalized "God" in John 10.33 confuses the entire meaning of what occurred in the verses from John 10.30 to John 10.36. By accepting the capitalized "God" in John 10.33, it renders all following defenses made by Jesus as being non sequitur, because his defenses do not appear to address the accusation of him claiming to be a Supreme Deity. On the contrary, if John 10.33 is accepted as being a lower-case "god," which does not refer to the Supreme Deity, then all of Jesus' following defense arguments address that accusation perfectly.

Therefore, my official position is that the Jews did not understand the words of Jesus in John 10.30 as a claim of him being the Supreme Deity, but instead understood him as claiming to be a god, and a son of God the Father.

That's the final product of my essay. I invite all to review this paper and to criticize it, condemn it, improve it, reject it, or accept it.

Thanks!

Kharakov

Talk to a logical materialist. Ask them if they and m/e are one.

FathomFFI

How does your response address the essay specifically?

Toto

You say "It is generally agreed among scholars that the word "one" refers to a state of being in which Jesus is claiming that he is of the same essense / nature / substance / purpose of the Father. "

Are you talking about scholars or theologians? Is that necessarily implied in the Greek, or just an attempt to deal with the issue of monotheism - which is the real issue here?

FathomFFI

The idiom is not from just theologians, but from other scholars of Koine Greek. I could dig up my old papers and run through the list, but a quick check on Google will show it to be pretty much the accepted comprehension. They base this upon other texts, but primaily the Pauline text of 1Cor 3.8 which uses the same Greek words of "are one." Paul describes a situation were different people are working towards the same purpose, doing similar lines of work.

One accepted scholarly publication which supports this is:

"A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk)" by Dana & Mantey

Clivedurdle

Another group at the time also claimed to be gods - emperors.

As well as a possible blasphemy, is this not a treason against Rome, or a very sophisticated attempt to get the Jews to accept the emperors are gods?

And the Psalm ye are gods refers to the Most High - the Iranian god.

Toto

First of all, capital letters are a very recent innovation. I don't think that any conclusion about the meaning of the gospels can be based on whether later translations capitalized the word or not.

Secondly, I am not sure of your point. Are you claiming that the Jews wanted to stone him over a misunderstanding? Are you claiming that the gospel Jesus was not a monotheist and thought that there were many gods?

And is this your webpage? http://members.shaw.ca/TeamFFI/

Kharakov

"I and my Father are one"

Jesus posits that he is one with what made him, as do materialists (at least logical ones).

"Believest thou not that I [am] in the Father, and the Father is in me?"

You know, like materialists are in m/e and m/e is in them? M/E being matter/energy, or me.

FathomFFI

My point about the capitalization of the word "God" is that, in English, when "God" is capitalized in regards to the God of the bible, then it can only refer to the Supreme Deity. But when it is in lower-case, it does not refer to the Supreme Deity, but to another god(s)

The innovation of capitalization allowed Christians to capitalize the word "God" in John 10.33 in an effort to propagate their belief that it speaks of the Supreme Deity. However, the arguments Jesus uses against the assertion of the Jews in John 10.33 are non sequitur to the Christian interpolated accusation of Jesus regarding himself as a Supreme Deity.

All of Jesus' arguments following the accusation in John 10.33 address an accusation of him merely being a god, as opposed to the God; Supreme Deity. His use of the lower-case "gods" in 10.34 and 10.35 argue for his position that since God had regarded others in the past as "gods" (lower-case) then the Jews shouldn't have any problem with him doing likewise regarding himself.

His arguments address an accusation of a claim he made of being a god, and not a claim of him being the Supreme Deity.

The reasons I believe that Christians would interpolate a capitalized "God" in John 10.33 would be to help verify their assertion that the words of "I and the Father are one" in John 10.30 mean that Jesus is claiming to be God, as in the Supreme Deity.

If I had to make an argument for what Jesus believed in in regards to monotheism or polytheism, my understanding would be that he was monotheistic in regards to there being only one Supreme Deity, but he demonstrated with Psalm 82.6 that the Supreme Deity regarded people as being "lesser deities" since they were regarded as "gods, and sons of the Most High"

Yes, that website is ours, and is just being put up. Give it a few days. Your website will be listed among the resources section as being one of the more "scholarly" forums.

FathomFFI

What really matters here is what Jesus understood. We can examine things from our advantage 2000 years later and dispute him and his beliefs, but my point is an argument for what he believed for himself, 2000 years ago.