Imagine if John 1:1 was rendered correctly...

@Pages asked:

So, with that in mind, let me ask you directly: when Jesus states, “No one is good—except God alone.", is Jesus excluding himself from being good?

@Pages posted:

Hi Bill – no disruption, good to hear your thoughts.

Two things on "good" – one, where we agree that Jesus isn't excluding himself from being "good" in his statement; two, we part company fully at the suggestion of the text having introduced different degrees of "good"; since "good" is in reference to an absolute good of God himself. 

In my estimation of Mk. 10:18, Jesus is simply pointing out the meaning of good as was applied to him by the young man. In other words, only God is good and this goodness was credited to Jesus by the young man. There is no denial by Jesus of being good, or God, in this text of scripture. 

To equate, as proposed above, a lesser than "God good" to Jesus carries the theological premise that Jesus is not without sin. This is how the use of this text is historically framed in regard to where either Jesus is said to deny he is God, or that Jesus was not without sin. If Jesus is not "good" then he is not the perfect and ultimate sacrifice for sin of all who believe.

The "what is impossible for humans is possible for God" (Lk. 18:27) is in reference to "who then can be saved" (Lk. 18:26). And, I agree with you that Jesus doesn't say "what's impossible for humans is possible for him" at any point in that discourse. 

@Pages posted:

Do you at all find this man's question to be somewhat odd given he is a Torah observant Jew?

This form of address to a teacher seems extremely rare, almost non-existent within Judaism. Other than this verse and its parallel, including sometimes Matt. if that translation is following certain Byzantine witnesses, becomes the sum total of occurrence within scripture. I can find two other instances of this; once, in the Apocryphal Acts of Andrew 14:4, and once in the Babylonian Talmud in the recounting of a Rabbi's dream. 

My view of "why call me good" reflects on how Jesus was formally addressed which would be expressed why do you say Good Teacher as Good and Teacher are functioning together as a unit – think honorary title. It is this form of address, "Good Teacher", that is being questioned here – not the state of moral and ethical quality of himself

Additionally, this same question "Teacher, what must I do so that I will inherit eternal life?” is asked of Jesus (Lk. 10:25) using a proper address, with the resulting answer "Do this and you will live.” (Lk. 10:28); which, lends further textual support to the view I hold.

It simply is not necessary to read this account as Jesus comparing his goodness to God's goodness, or as a denial of being good, or God; none of which, in my view are addressed by this text.

@Brother Rando posted:

The reason Jesus responded in the manner he did was in regards to His Father based on Isaiah 48:17

@Brother Rando posted:

You address me as ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and you are correct, for I am such. (John 13:13)

@Brother Rando posted:

Okay, that's a very different request. Let's start with the scriptures.

@Brother Rando posted:

Now to the point of calling Jesus good teacher. Jesus response them is quite evident.

Like the man, most are unwilling to follow or even learn. According to "This is what Jehovah says, your Repurchaser, the Holy One of Israel: “I, Jehovah, am your God, The One teaching you to benefit yourself, The One guiding you in the way you should walk." (Isaiah 48:17)

Not only was the man unwilling to follow the instructions of the Messiah for eternal life, but he did not know the One who sent him either.

@Pages December 5  This form of address to a teacher seems extremely rare, almost non-existent within Judaism. Other than this verse and its parallel, including sometimes Matt. if that translation is following certain Byzantine witnesses, becomes the sum total of occurrence within scripture. I can find two other instances of this; once, in the Apocryphal Acts of Andrew 14:4, and once in the Babylonian Talmud in the recounting of a Rabbi's dream. 

ELEAZAR OF HAGRONIA: Babylonian scholar of the fourth amoraic generation (fifth century); junior of Aḥa b. Jacob and Raba (b. Joseph). He is mentioned twice in the Babylonian Talmud, and both times in connection with extraordinary circumstances. Once he incurs divine punishment for assuming rabbinic authority at a place over which extended the jurisdiction of Aḥa b. Jacob (‘Er. 63a); and then again he is represented as having dreamed an ominous dream. It was a season of drought at Hagronia (Agranum; Neubauer, “G. T.” p. 347) when Raba happened to visit the town. He ordained a day of fasting and prayer, but no rain came. Then he inquired, “Did any one have a dream last night?” Eleazar had had one, and at Raba’s request he told it as follows: “There was said to me in my dream, ‘Good greetings to the good teacher from the good Lord who, in His goodness, doeth good to His people.’ ” On hearing this Raba remarked, “This betokens that Heaven will be propitious.” Thereupon prayer was again offered, and soon rain descended (Ta‘an. 24b).

 Isidore Singer, ed., The Jewish Encyclopedia: A Descriptive Record of the History, Religion, Literature, and Customs of the Jewish People from the Earliest Times to the Present Day, 12 Volumes (New York; London: Funk & Wagnalls, 1901–1906), 99.

3. Although it is true that the orthodox occasionally corrupted the Scriptures (just as the nonorthodox occasionally corrupted the Scriptures), the emerging Christology of the proto-orthodox was not the major force behind most of the intentional changes to the NT MSS. The larger impetus was harmonization, especially in the Gospels. As Ehrman recognizes,

[t]his scribal tendency to “harmonize” passages in the Gospels is ubiquitous. Whenever the same story is told in different Gospels, one scribe or another is likely to have made sure that the accounts are perfectly in harmony, eliminating differences by strokes of their pens.

Although Ehrman overstates the point, it is true that narrative harmonization was a stronger impetus than a high Christology. To put it bluntly, to the early Christian scribes, the historicity of Christ was more important than their doctrine of Christ. Virtually all Gospels MSS harmonized passages between Matthew, Mark, and Luke.89 They even did so in such a way that would, at times, turn a high Christology into a highly suspect Christology.

As an example, consider the story of the rich young man who asks Jesus how to obtain eternal life:

“Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.” (Mark 10:17–18)

Matthew changes this passage in a couple of key ways:

“Teacher, what good thing must I do to gain eternal life?”

He said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good.” (Matt 19:16–17)

In Mark’s story, the reader is confronted with the question of Jesus’ identity in a startling way: Is Jesus suggesting that he is not God? Vincent Taylor argued that “[Jesus’] use of the question along with [his] statement that God alone is good implies a contrast of some kind between Jesus and God.” But in Matthew’s version, “good” is no longer attached to “teacher” in the young man’s question. This allows Jesus’ response to be less of a threat to an orthodox Christology.

As we would expect, many scribes—especially the later orthodox scribes—harmonized these two passages. But what they changed was not Mark’s Gospel but Matthew’s. In the hands of these scribes, the young man now says in both Gospels, “Good teacher,” and Jesus says in both Gospels, “Why do you call me good?”

Why would these scribes change Matthew’s wording instead of Mark’s? The most likely reason was because the story in Luke’s Gospel already conformed to the wording in Mark’s, and it was easier to change one story rather than two. But this clearly illustrates that the scribal tendency to harmonize the Gospels could trump their tendency toward a high Christology. What seems to drive much of Ehrman’s text-critical method is the belief that the least orthodox reading is to be preferred. But the story of the rich young man shows that there are other factors that need to be weighed and that this criterion clearly is not the most important.

 Daniel B. Wallace, “Lost in Transmission: How Badly Did the Scribes Corrupt the New Testament Text?,” in Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence, ed. Daniel B. Wallace, Text and Canon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2011), 52–54.

EXTENDED EXAMINATION

John 1:1

According to Aland’s Kurzgefasste Liste, the Gospel of John has more papyrus fragments than any other book of the NT.30 Surprisingly, though, neither UBS4 nor NA27 list any variants for John 1:1c. Only three major published NT Greek texts—those of Tischendorf, Merk, and von Soden—even list textual variants in their apparatus (with 100 percent unanimity as to its Ausgangstext: καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος). No textual debates on John 1:1c exist in any standard work on Jesus-θεός passages, and until eighteen years ago, NT textual critics were unanimous in their certainty of John 1:1c. This scholarly agreement continues today even though one textual critic, Bart Ehrman, stated his reluctance to dismiss the testimony of a single eighth-century Alexandrian manuscript, L. To Ehrman, an articular θεός gives him the “distinct impression” that the orthodox party changed it due to the Arian controversies. In other words, Ehrman points out that an articular θεός possibly makes this otherwise implicit identification (Jesus as simply divine) an explicit one (God himself).

Although the most probable understanding of the anarthrous θεός is qualitative (the Word has the same nature as God), three points concern us here textually:

1. Both 𝔓75 and Codex B attest to the absence of the article in John 1:1c. This is significant since “[t]hese MSS seem to represent a ‘relatively pure’ form of preservation of a ‘relatively pure’ line of descent from the original text.”37 Kenneth W. Clark concludes, “[I]t is our judgment that 𝔓75 appears to have the best textual character in the third century.” Ehrman concurs, “Among all the witnesses, 𝔓75 is generally understood to be the strongest.” Thus this evidence significantly strengthens our initial external examination in favor of an anarthrous θεός.

2. Only two MSS (L and Ws) contain the articular θεός in καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. In addition, these two MSS are late (eighth century) and have never produced a reading that has found acceptance into the base text of the NA or UBS without the support of better and earlier MSS. In fact, as Matthew P. Morgan points out regarding Regius (L), the article with θεός in John 1:1c represents the only sensible variant involving a single letter in all (53) of this scribe’s singular readings. The best explanation for the addition of the article is the sloppy scribal behavior evident in every aspect of this manuscript (i.e., the Gospel of John portion of Regius). As for Ws, Morgan points out the following:

1. There is no evidence to establish a direct relationship between these two eighth-century manuscripts. As a result, the occurrences of the article with θεός found in John 1:1c in both MSS should be considered isolated readings.

2. Alignment of Codex L and Ws never merits inclusion in the accepted text of NA27 without support from other key MSS (א, B, C, D, 𝔓66, 𝔓75).

3. There are no known instances where a combination of Ws with a single other witness finds credibility as a potentially “original” reading.

Therefore, the inclusion of Ws as a subsingular reading in John 1:1c does not negate the egregious nature of the scribal behavior in Codex L, and it further demonstrates that this combination possesses insufficient testimony to consider the reading καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος to be a plausible original.

This scant evidence, at best, struggles to gain any viability in going back to the Ausgangstext. In addition, it is highly improbable that this was a deliberate corruption by the Orthodox Church five centuries after the Arian controversy.

Sahidic Coptic MSS,44 usually considered decent representatives of the Alexandrian form of text, offer an intriguing clue to the textual certainty in John 1:1c. In short, Sahidic has both an indefinite and a definite article (whereas Koine Greek only has a definite article). What gives this fact significance is that John 1:1c has the indefinite article in Sahidic (and Bohairic) MSS46: ⲀⲄⲰ ⲚⲈⲨⲚⲞⲨⲦⲈ ⲠⲈ ⲠϢⲀϪⲈ. It should come as no surprise, then, that the occurrence of the indefinite article (ⲞⲨ, which has contracted) before “God” (ⲚⲞⲨⲦⲈ) in this passage suggests that the Coptic translator was looking at a Greek Vorlage with an anarthrous θεός. In other words, the fact that θεός was translated into Sahidic (and Bohairic) as an indefinite noun strongly suggests that the translator was translating a Greek text without the article.

To flesh this out a little more, Horner translates John 1:1c into English as follows: “and [a] God was the Word.” The apparatus, however, states, “Square brackets imply words used by the Coptic and not required by the English, while curved brackets supply words which are necessary to the English idiom.” Unlike English, the Sahidic indefinite article is used with abstract nouns (e.g., truth, love, hate) and nouns of substance (e.g., water, bread, meat).50 An example of this can be seen in Horner’s translation of John 19:34b (καὶ ἐξῆλθεν εὐθὺς αἷμα καὶ ὕδωρ), where there are no Greek articles: “and immediately came out [a] blood and [a] water.” None of the words in brackets are necessary in English, but they are noted by Horner due to the presence of the indefinite article in the Coptic MSS.

Circling back to the textual assessment, the question we must now answer is, did Coptic translators uniformly translate the nominative singular θεός? To answer this, I examined every occurrence of the nominative singular θεός in every potential Johannine writing (i.e., John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Revelation). This examination revealed that John 1:1c was the only time the nominative singular θεός (articular or anarthrous) was translated with a Coptic indefinite article. Putting this in further perspective, of the five NT books examined, there were only four other anarthrous uses of θεός (if one includes the textual variant in Rev 21:3). Still, despite whatever one understands the Coptic translator to have done with the other four potential instances (assuming their Vorlage contained them), John 1:1c is the only text for which we can be certain that the Coptic translator was in fact looking at a Vorlage that contained an anarthrous θεός (i.e., no evidence to the contrary exists to date). As stated already, only two, late eighth-century MSS contain the articular θεός, and both the Sahidic and Bohairic versions were composed prior to then. In other words, until (or unless) new evidence is discovered to the contrary, it is highly probable that the Coptic translator(s) were looking at a Greek Vorlage with an anarthrous θεός, as reflected by the only Coptic indefinite article with a nominative singular θεός in the five NT books previously mentioned.

In sum, it is highly improbable that the Coptic translator was translating a Greek Vorlage containing an articular θεός. Internally (and syntactically), the absence of the article does not necessarily deny the full deity of Jesus. “Neither in LXX Greek nor in secular Greek,” Harris explains, “is a firm or a fine distinction drawn between the articular and the anarthrous θεός. This judgment is confirmed, as far as Hellenistic Greek writings contemporaneous with the NT are concerned, by Meecham, who cites specific examples from the Epistle to Diognetus.”55 Another critic puts it more specifically: “The term θεός appears in some form 83 times. Of these 63 are articular and 20 anarthrous. Still, it is highly improbable that the Fourth Evangelist intends any consistent distinction to be drawn between θεός and ὁ θεός.” At any rate, the scholarly consensus is correct that the text is certain and that every viable MS ascribes the title θεός to Jesus.

 Brian J. Wright, “Jesus as ΘΕΟΣ: A Textual Examination,” in Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence, ed. Daniel B. Wallace, Text and Canon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2011), 235–241.

@Brother Rando October 12 There were times when Jesus answered his enemies and they left him without a response because they recognized his answer was 'the truth'. Who could argue against him? Those who recognized his teachings as truth had a choice to make. Do I humble myself and become a follower of Jesus Christ or do I choose to become an enemy of Christ and scatter his followers? Many are the latter!

IV. The Story of the Rich Young Ruler

Jesus used another example to teach the proper attitude toward the mammon of unrighteousness. In the story of the Rich Young Ruler, Yeshua instructed him concerning the true source of eternal life. This story is found in Matthew 19:16–22; Mark 10:17–31; and Luke 18:18–30.

In the Mark account, chapter 10:17 we read: And as he was going forth into the way, there ran one to him, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?

As Jesus came to another town, suddenly a rich young ruler, meaning he was the ruler of a local synagogue, ran to Yeshua. His running shows a sense of urgency. He knelt before Jesus, showing a posture of respect, and addressed Him. The fact that this man was rich meant that, according to Pharisaism, he had eternal life. However, it is obvious that this wealthy young ruler did not feel satisfied with that teaching. Although he had been taught that the very presence of his wealth was evidence that he had eternal life, he did not feel that he really had it. He came to Yeshua and said, “Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?”

Jesus responded to him by asking a question of His own in verse 18: And Jesus said unto him, Why call you me good? none is good save one, even God.

Critics of the New Testament and those cults that teach that Yeshua was not God, will often turn to Mark 10:18 to show that Jesus never claimed to be God. However, they are missing the point of the passage. A common rabbinic title for God was “the Good One.” Jesus had been claiming to be the Messiah, the Son of God, thereby claiming to be intrinsically good.

Yeshua was asking the ruler a question. If the ruler had answered, “I am calling you good because you are God,” then he would have answered his own question, “How does one receive eternal life?” One receives eternal life by owning Jesus as God.

But the ruler did not answer the question of Yeshua, instead he remained silent. And because the ruler failed to answer the question, Jesus proceeded to turn the man to the Law, as verse 19 states: You know the commandments, Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.

Since the man would not, at that point, own Yeshua as God, Jesus then turned him to the Mosaic Law and quoted some of the Ten Commandments. But Yeshua was selective as to which of these Ten Commandments he chose to quote. He quoted only those commandments which concerned a man’s relationship to other men.

Concerning these commandments the ruler said in verse 20: And he said unto him, Teacher, all these things have I observed from my youth.

Insofar as the commandments which dealt with human relationships were concerned, the man said that he had kept those commandments very well.

But then, according to Matthew 19:20, he said, “… what lack I yet?”

He still felt there was something lacking. What was lacking was the other set of commandments—the commandments that concerned a man’s relationship to God.

So Mark 10:21 states: And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said unto him, One thing you lack: go, sell whatsoever you have, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

At this point, we come to the root of the problem of this rich young ruler. The reason he did not have eternal life was because he was unable to keep the commandments that controlled a man’s relationship to God. The one thing that kept him from trusting God for his salvation was his wealth. Because he had been brought up to believe that wealth was a sign of divine favor, he was trusting his wealth rather than God. And because he was trusting his wealth rather than God, he failed to keep the commandments that controlled a man’s relationship to God. Jesus said he had to remove the one thing that was a stumbling-block to him. That one thing, which was keeping him from trusting God, was his wealth.

The principle being taught here is not that every rich man must dispense of his wealth to be saved, this would mean that salvation is by works. The principle being taught here is that you must not trust your wealth as a sign of divine favor. If you are trusting your wealth as a sign of divine favor—if that is the object of your trust—then that wealth must be disposed of so that you can learn to trust God, and God alone.

This was something the rich man could not do and walked away sadly, as verse 22 states: But his countenance fell at the saying, and he went away sorrowful: for he was one that had great possessions.

Yeshua responded in verses 23–24: And Jesus looked round about, and said unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus answers again, and said unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!

Again, Pharisaism taught that wealth was a sign of divine favor. Unfortunately, people who are following the teaching of positive confession are also teaching that wealth is a sign of divine favor. As a result, wealthy men trusted their riches as a sign of already having eternal life. The problem was not their wealth; the problem was their trust in that wealth, because trusting their wealth, as a sign of divine favor, kept them from trusting God.

Then in verse 25, Yeshua said: It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Matthew and Mark both use the Greek word that means a “sewing needle.” Luke, however, uses a different Greek word which means a “surgeon’s needle,” reflecting his own medical background. But all the Gospels point out that the disciples were astonished at what Jesus said, because it went contrary to the common teachings of that day.

In Matthew’s account, chapter 19:25 points out: And when the disciples heard it, they were astonished exceedingly, saying, Who then can be saved?

The disciples said, “If the rich can not make it, what chance do we have?”

But Yeshua responded in verse 26: And Jesus looking upon them said to them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

What may be impossible with men and what may be the teachings of men are not necessarily the teachings of Yeshua the Messiah, the teachings of God the Father, or the teachings of the Holy Spirit.

Yeshua pointed out that God could save in any situation whether a man is poor or rich, because that which will save any man is trusting the Lord Jesus the Messiah for their salvation. To trust the Messiah for salvation is to personally believe that Jesus died for our sins; that He was buried; and that He rose again on the third day. If we believe this and accept it, whether we are rich or poor, this is how we have eternal life.

 Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, The Messianic Bible Study Collection, vol. 48 (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 1983), 9–11.

"In my view, the text does not support your view. If Jesus sought to question the role of the term "Good Teacher" in the man's question, I would expect him to then ask, "Why do you call me Good Teacher?" But he doesn't. In his next sentence Jesus has a second opportunity to identify "Good Teacher" as the subject of his concern (e.g. "Only God is the Good Teacher"), but again he doesn't. Each time Jesus limits his spoken attention to the adjective."

"In addition, Matthew's account quotes Jesus as asking the man, "Why ask me about what is good? . . . There is only One who is good." (Matthew 19.17ab, NLT). I grant that the question in Matthew differs from Mark and Luke as to its referent, but the focus of Jesus' follow-up assertion in Matthew is clearly about the adjective "good" and not the noun "teacher." Do you find support for your view in the text of any of the synoptic accounts of this encounter?"

"The questioner in Luke 10 does not call Jesus "Good Teacher," which permits Jesus to address the man's question about eternal life immediately, without first disputing his use of an adjective such as "good."

"I read your previous point to contend that the words "good" and teacher" should be considered as a unit or honorary title whose accuracy/relevance Jesus questions. But the word "good" does not appear in the Luke 10 scene, and neither there does Jesus object to any part of the content of the expert's question, including its labeling Jesus as a teacher. As a result, I don't think said scene supports your view of the Luke 18 passage."  

"I'm intrigued by your phrase, "It simply is not necessary to read this account...." Necessary? I don't know how to respond to that. Justified? There, it's clear, we disagree, at least in part. (I repeat that I do not think Jesus denies his own goodness in the Luke 18 encounter!)"

"I contend that in this scene Jesus reserves for God alone the goodness required to provide the salvation humans cannot provide for themselves. Jesus says only God is good in that way."