1

I have come across a theological assertion (in conversation with a Biblical Unitarian) that John 10:33 should be understood thus:

The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself a god"

What is the hermeneutical justification for adding or not adding the 'a' or for understanding an 'a' even if it is left out of the translation?

This link below is provided one of the reason why it should be translated as "a god".

https://www.biblebookprofiler.com/the-forgery-of-john-10-33.html

Below are some references for the postulated translation.

The context of John 10:33-36 (and of Psalm 82:6 which is quoted there) and NT Greek grammar show "a god" to be the correct rendering. Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary, p. 62, by the respected trinitarian, Dr. Robert Young, confirms this:

It is also admitted that this is the meaning of Jn 10:33 by noted trinitarian NT scholar C. H. Dodd: "making himself a god." - The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, p. 205, Cambridge University Press, 1995 reprint

A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of John by trinitarians Newman and Nida insists that "a god" would not be "in keeping with the theology of John" and the charge of blasphemy by the Jews, but, nevertheless, also admits:

Purely on the basis of the Greek text, therefore, it is possible to translate (John 10:33) "a god", as NEB does, rather than to translate God, as TEV and several translations do. One might argue on the basis of both the Greek and the context, that the Jews were accusing Jesus of claiming to be "a god" rather than "God". -p.344 United Bible Societies, 1980.

The highly respected (and highly trinitarian) W. E. Vine indicates the proper rendering here: "The word [theos] is used of Divinely appointed judges in Israel, as representing God in His authority, John 10:34" - p. 491, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. So, in the NEB it reads:

" 'We are not going to stone you for any good deed, but for your blasphemy. You, a mere man, claim to be a god.' Jesus answered, 'Is it not written in your own Law, "I said: You are gods"? Those are called gods to whom the word of God was delivered - and Scripture cannot be set aside. Then why do you charge me with blasphemy because I, consecrated and sent into the world by the Father, said, "I am God's SON"?' "

The purported associated questions did not provide any studies or research as the basis for the assertion whereas this question provides sources as to why such a translation is considered.

Alex Balilo
  • 3,447
  • 10
  • 24
  • 1
    Does this answer your question? Should Philippians 2:6 say "in the form of God" or "in the form of a god"? – Nigel J Apr 06 '23 at 23:17
  • 1
    It indeed is a good question, and has one great answer posted on it, but the matter indeed has been addressed elsewhere. If you can supply some reason in the question as to why the text for this question is fundamentally different (not just slightly different) from the other questions that address this matter, I or other mods might be glad to re-open it. But until then, it is a great closed question with links to two others and a wonderful answer. – Jesse Apr 07 '23 at 01:41
  • How is this question similar to the https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/83709/should-philippians-26-say-in-the-form-of-god-or-in-the-form-of-a-god? – Alex Balilo Apr 07 '23 at 02:01
  • @Jesse. The purported associated questions did not provide any studies or research as the basis for the assertion whereas this question provides sources as to why such a translation is considered. – Alex Balilo Apr 07 '23 at 02:14
  • @AlexBalilo yes, the answers to those questions do, which is where that research and study should be. The matter of why a translation is considered is a question for the actual person who did the translation, which is beyond our scope. If we try to answer that, then it is speculation. If we discuss possible reasons, then it is guesswork at best and conjecture at worst. In truth, the reasons behind what any translation "ought" to be are part of the study and research provided in the answers both sought and posted. But... – Jesse Apr 07 '23 at 11:29
  • @AlexBalilo you are more than welcome to edit this to focus on how the text in your question here poses a different matter or different factors from the texts on the proposed dups. If you do, please flag for a mod to review. That would indeed be interesting. Eg, if the sentence pattern of words and/or case and/or verb morphology that Kittel discusses is different from the others in a manner that the others don't address. If that can't be found, then it indeed is a dup. – Jesse Apr 07 '23 at 11:31
  • @Jesse. Sounds like moving the goalposts to me. – Alex Balilo Apr 08 '23 at 09:35
  • @AlexBalilo moving the goal posts from where to where and when? The site has never been about the reasoning of people who do translations without asking those people; the site was ever only about specific texts and/or specific methods of understanding texts. So, what is the move or change that you see? – Jesse Apr 09 '23 at 11:47
  • @Jesse.. You asked me to provide the requirements that you didn't not ask the other OP that ask the question (about phil2:6). – Alex Balilo Apr 09 '23 at 14:58
  • @Jesse., Rules for thee, and not for me. Very obvious. – Alex Balilo Apr 09 '23 at 15:22
  • @AlexBalilo No. 1. that question asks for hermeneutical justification, not the motives or reasoning of the translator. 2. It is similar to, yet slightly different from the John 1 & 8 question, because it looks at special use with "form of"; the John 1 & 8 question is essentially a question about translation accuracy. The John 1 & 8 question also has answers about hermeneutical justification of translation on this same phrase, so an acceptable answer on this John 10 question would already be on the John 1 & 8 question. – Jesse Apr 10 '23 at 04:11
  • @Jesse. "An acceptable answer" Some answer includes "sipping pina colada" but does not tackle the issue. Yet are allowed. It's obvious you have "rules for thee but not for me" – Alex Balilo Apr 10 '23 at 04:41
  • @AlexBalilo The rules are not only for me, but for everyone, as some of my own history with moderators shows. Moreover, these comments are now crossing the line of filling up the comments in order to contend after an explanation has been exhausted. You are welcome to edit this to show how the question has not already been answered, but not a question that is off-topic here. Unlike other posts, this is not deleted, only closed. – Jesse Apr 10 '23 at 04:41
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – Jesse Apr 10 '23 at 04:42

1 Answers1

0

λέγοντες, περὶ καλοῦ ἔργου οὐ λιθάζομέν σε ἀλλὰ περὶ βλασφημίας καὶ ὅτι σὺ ἄνθρωπος ὢν ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν (John 10:33, Greek TR)

Not having an article that precedes it, the bolded Greek text could be translated as "God" or as "god" or as "a God" or as "a god."

No case distinctions

There was no such thing as lowercase letters when it was originally written, so cross case distinctions off the list of possibilities. Lowercase Greek letters first began to develop as "miniscule" script in the mid-9th century AD.

Greek articles

Biblical Greek has a definite article, but no indefinite articles. The definite article, however, serves a different purpose in Greek than its nearest English equivalent ("the"). Where no article exists, Greek translations may require, for English grammar, an article. Where the article is not required in English, the translation may be ambiguous, and either "a/an" may be supplied or no article at all added to the translation.

John 10:33

In the specific case of John 10:33, either "a God/god" or "God/god" could be a correct translation. Both are grammatically viable. It is up to the translators' subjective interpretation for how to render the Greek meaning in English.

Biblasia
  • 4,923
  • 6
  • 25
  • This is great, but the question is about Greek. Albeit, neither the question nor this answer contain any Greek. If you could put some Greek into it, that might make the answer more valuable, even though the question is closed. It's still a helpful answer though. – Jesse Apr 07 '23 at 01:43
  • 1
    @Jesse There is plenty of Greek on the pages linked. As there are many forms of the Greek article, varying by noun case, it is better to link a resource that shows them than to reinvent the wheel in creating a table of them here. Even if the links change in the future, this is common information that is available from most any Greek grammar and easily obtained with an online search. – Biblasia Apr 07 '23 at 02:25
  • 1
    @Jesse the purported similar question does not contain Greek. https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/83709/should-philippians-26-say-in-the-form-of-god-or-in-the-form-of-a-god. – Alex Balilo Apr 07 '23 at 03:02
  • @AlexBalilo they all really should anyway, but being duplicate is a separate matter not invalidated by the need for Greek on Greek matters. But, point taken. – Jesse Apr 07 '23 at 11:23
  • @Biblasia Thanks for the Greek. Across the SE network, we need to quote at least some of the main-point content from any source linked to, 1. to know the point the source makes for the post and 2. in the event that the linked source becomes unavailable. I just upvoted it on account of the Greek, thanks! – Jesse Apr 07 '23 at 11:24