Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ John

[Tommy]

So I've been listening to a lot of Alan Watts talks on YouTube recently, and came across one talk he did called 'Jesus, and His Religion.' Now, for some context, Alan Watts is a philosophical talker (he calls himself an entertainer, but talks mostly about religion and philosophy) who is heavily influenced by eastern religions and ideas. He is, however, very well educated in Judeo-Christian philosophy too having been an Episcopalian priest at some point in his career too. Now in this particular portion of this particular talk, he attempts to make a point about Jesus' original message. I'd recommend listening to the talk to get the full idea; it's fairly heavy! In it, he refers to a John chapter 10:

He says,

“Many good works I have shown you from the Father, and for which of these do you stone me?” And they say, “For a good work we stone you not, but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” And he replied, “Isn’t it written in your law, ‘I have said you are Gods?’ – he is quoting the eighty-second Psalm – ‘Is it not written in your law I have said you are Gods?’ If God called those to whom He gave His word Gods – and you cannot deny the scriptures – how can you say I blaspheme because I said I am a son of God?”

There is the whole thing in a nutshell. Because if you read the King James Bible – that descended with the angel – you will see in italic in front of these words “Son of God,” “the Son of God,” “because I said I am the Son of God”. And most people think the italics are for emphasis, but they are not. The italics indicate words interpolated by the translators, you will not find that in the Greek. In the Greek [it] says “a son of God.”

My question is whether there's any validity to the issue of this translation. I'm not here to discuss the message he's putting forward, I'm just interested in what sources people could provide that would explain all this. I'd really appreciate anyone's help, and apologies for the long post.

[jimwalton]

Here's what some of the expert grammarians say:

Craig Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, p. 291: "This is a qal vahomer argument: 'How much more…!' If (as you read it) Israel was loosely called 'gods,' how do you object to me saying that I am God’s Son, without even understanding my point?"

Marvin Vincent, Word Studies of the New Testament, Vol. 2 p. 198: "There is no article. Its absence directs us to the character rather than to the person of Jesus."

Leon Morris, NICNT, John, p. 469 and n101: "There is no article. Some wrongly interpret it to mean 'a son.' Instead, this is surely another example of the definite predicate preceding the copula and therefore being without the article. ... It is sometimes said that this verse classes Jesus as a man among men, and shows that his claims to divinity are not to be taken seriously. But we should notice that his argument is not 'Psalm 82 speaks of men as gods; therefore I in common with other men may use the term of myself,' but rather, 'If in any sense the Psalm may apply this term to men, then much more may it be applied to him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world.' Jesus is not classing himself among men. ... A minor difficulty arises from the fact that Jesus has not previously in this Gospel told the Jews that he is 'God’s Son.' But this is no more than a question of terminology. He has spoken of himself as “the Son,” and referred to God as His Father in such a way as to leave no doubt that he claims a special relationship. It is his way of accepting the charge made against him in v. 33. He doesn’t deny the charge of blasphemy, but he denies that the Jews are right in their understanding of the situation. They thought he was making himself God. He held he wasn’t making himself anything. He was what he was, and it was the Father who in the first instance sent him into the world, and in the second instance testified of him (5.37)."

Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 8 p. 379n323: "One must say that what is meant is not 'a son of God' but 'the Son of God' (cf. Mt. 27.54). The article is not used with the predicate when it precedes the verb."

Raymond Brown, The Anchor Bible Vol. 29, The Gospel According to John I-XII, pp. 408, 409: "Jesus has not made himself God; He is God who has become man. It was the Father who consecrated Jesus. ... To the Western mind, this line of arguing sounds like a deceptive fallacy. The Jews are not objecting that Jesus is raising himself to the level of a god in the sense that the judges were gods; they are objecting that he is making himself God with a capital 'G'. Jesus was arguing according to the rabbinic rules of hermeneutics, which were often different from modern attitudes."

A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. 5 p. 189: "This Jesus had implied long before as in 2.16 (my Father) and had said in 5.18-30 (the Father, the Son), and virtually in 10.30. They will make this charge against Jesus before Pilate (19.7). There is no answer to this question with its arguments."