Wednesday, January 15, 2020

“The Authentic New Testament”

The Authentic New Testament is a 1958 paperback by Hugh J. Schonfield.[a] This presents the New Testament books in an unusual order, commencing with Mark for instance, and with different chapter divisions—all without verses. However, it is a valuable study Bible, for it contains scholarly footnotes, maps of Jerusalem, and various illustrations, like of coins.

Of particular interest though is how it presents John 1:1, 8:58, and 20:28. The accompanying footnotes for John 1:1 and 20:28 are noteworthy as well. These will be showcased below:

John 1:1-5
Schonfield groups the first five verses, called the Prologue, together in a unique treatment as explained in his footnote:
In the beginning was the Word.
     And the Word was with God.
So the Word was divine.
     He was in the beginning with God.
By him everything had being.
     And without him nothing had being.
What had being by him was Life.
     And Life was the light of men.
And the Light shines in the Darkness
     And the Darkness could not suppress it.
Footnote: The Prologue consists of a hymn interspersed with brief remarks. The hymn is antiphonal, the alternate lines being chanted as a response. Our book was published in Asia Minor early in the second century, and this hymn could well be the one mentioned by Pliny the Younger, when as Governor of Bithynia (c. A.D. 112) he wrote about the Christians to the Emperor Trajan, that ‘they met on a certain fixed day before it was light and sang an antiphonal chant to Christ, as to a god’. See also Acts of John, 94-6.

Schonfield says it was published “early in the second century,” but this is compatible with it being written in the late first century and does not affect his reasoning. First, he uses an oft-missed historical association with a report from Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan that Christians (1) called Christ “a god” in (2) an antiphonal song.

In his report to Trajan, Pliny related the confessions of a group of former Christians where he stated that “They affirmed the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that [when they were Christians] they met on a stated day before it was light, and addressed a form of prayer to Christ, as to a divinity, binding themselves by a solemn oath.” This letter “was preserved by the Christians themselves as a clear and unsuspicious evidence of the purity of their doctrines.”[1]

Pliny wrote in Latin, and the critical words he used are: “carmenque Christo quasi deo.”

The “sang an antiphonal chant” or “addressed a form of prayer” derives from carmenque, which includes the meanings of “a song, poem, verse, oracular response, prophecy, form of incantation.”[2] The other critical word is deo or deus, meaning “a god, deity.”[3] Thus deus in this report about a Christian hymn is the Latin equivalent of the Greek theos in John 1:1. This exposes the usual Trinitarian translation of “the Word was God” as uninsightful and unscholarly, as well as Fundamentalism on par with Young-Earth Creationism.

Corroborating Schonfield’s connection to the antiphonal hymn calling Christ “a god,” he appealed to the “Acts of John, 94-6.” Classified among the “New Testament Apocrypha,” this is dated to as early as the second century. Verse 94 contains an antiphonal hymn, a relevant portion of which reads, with introduction:[4]
He bade us therefore make as it were a ring, holding one another's hands, and himself standing in the midst he said: Answer Amen unto me. He began, then, to sing a hymn and to say:
Glory be to thee, Father.
And we, going about in a ring, answered him: Amen.
Glory be to thee, Word: Glory be to thee, Grace. Amen.
Glory be to thee, Spirit: Glory be to thee, Holy One:
Glory be to thy glory. Amen.
We praise thee, O Father; we give thanks to thee, O Light, wherein darkness dwelleth not. Amen.
Thus, antiphonal praise was sung to the Father, the Johannine Word, and to God’s spirit in line with the Matthean baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19.

Therefore, this scripture that is popularized by Trinitarianism as a “proof-text” does not necessarily support the Trinitarian agenda after all, and is seen to be a very pompous and ignorant, unscholarly Fundamentalist abuse by Trinitarianism.

John 8:58
Jesus told them, ‘I tell you for a positive fact, I existed before Abraham was born.’

This is a refreshing break from the typical unscholarly, Fundamentalist, and nonsensical translation of “I AM” with the biased and deceptive aim of connecting it to Exodus 3:14. It is also refreshingly similar to scholar McKay’s translation, where he states that John 8:58 “would be most naturally translated ‘I have been in existence since before Abraham was born.’” McKay adds that it would be translated this way “if it were not for the obsession with the simple words ‘I am.’”[5] Thus, the typical and deceptive Trinitarian translation is simply an obsession and not a serious or scholarly translation.

John 20:28
Thomas answered, ‘My Lord and my God!’

Footnote: The author may have put this expression into the mouth of Thomas in response to the fact that the Emperor Domitian had insisted on having himself addressed as ‘Our Lord and God’, Suet. Domit. xiii.

The reference is to Suetonius’ book The Life of Domitian, 13: “With no less arrogance he began as follows in issuing a circular letter in the name of his procurators, ‘Our Master and our God [Dominus et deus noster] bids that this be done.’ And so the custom arose of henceforth addressing him in no other way even in writing or in conversation.”[6]

Thus, John was redirecting attention from Domitian to Jesus. He was the real “lord and god” as opposed to it being Domitian. The Emperor was only “lord and god” for the time being, not eternally like Jesus. This claim that John was modifying Thomas’ actual acclamation to suit his purposes would not sully the Gospel’s canonicity, and other scholars have noticed this parallel to Domitian too.[7] Consequently, applying “my Lord and my God” to support Trinitarianism was always anachronistic, unhistorical, and laughably inappropriate to an extreme degree. It becomes a brazen, shameful example of Trinitarian misuse and abuse of Scripture.

Conclusion
I found these translations of John along with the historical insights to be groundbreaking. How refreshing it is to see a treatment of the text that is not willfully bent towards supporting the failed and deceptive Trinitarian theology!


Footnotes:
[a] Originally published in 1958 as The Authentic New Testament, it was updated and re-published under the title The Original New Testament in 1985. I have both editions. Hugh Joseph Schonfield (London, 17 May 1901 – 24 January 1988) was a British Bible scholar specialising in the New Testament and the early development of the Christian religion and church. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_J._Schonfield
[1] Translated by William Melmoth and noted as Letter XCVII (97).
www.gutenberg.org/files/2811/2811-h/2811-h.htm#linknoteref-1066
[2] Noted as Plin. Ep. 10.96.7,
perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi/citequery3.pl?dbname=PerseusLatinTexts&getid=0&query=Plin.%20Ep.%2010.96.7
www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...
[3] As scholar Jason Beduhn explained: “Latin has no articles, either definite or indefinite. So the definite noun “God” and the indefinite noun “god” look precisely the same in Latin, and in John 1:1-2 one would see the three occurrences of what appeared to be the same word, rather than two distinct forms used in Greek [with or without the definite article].” Thus, it is significant that deus in Pliny’s report is translated as “a god” and “a divinity.” The Father was “the God” the Father, and Christ was “a god” subordinate to him. Thus, in the Greek, theos with the definite article is the Father, and without it is the indefinite “a god.” This is due to Biblical monolatry, Christ being a divine person subordinate to the “only true God” Father per John 17:1-5. Beduhn agreeably elaborates further: “There are different types of “god”—for example, a god of the living as opposed to a god of the dead. One can talk of someone being in the role of “a god” to someone else.” He then adds: “John 1:1c is one of the most significant examples of this explanatory effort, because it deals with the very crucial issue of how Christ can be so central to the Christian faith without violating the Christian commitment to monotheism.” (Truth in Translation, 116, 128.)
[4] Text from: gnosis.org/library/actjohn.htm
[5] K. L. McKay, ‘I am’ in John’s Gospel. The Expository Times, (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, July 9, 1996), 302.
[6] Text from penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/...
[7] See: Did Thomas Teach Trinitarianism at John 20:28? Appendix A. A Common Accolade? jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/11/did-thomas-teach-trinitarianism-at-john.html#App-A

See also:


Labels: ,

posted by JimSpace at 7:03 PM