In this second of three episodes, we’ll review the rest of Dr. White’s opening statement and the two rebuttals. In several cases I push the discussion past what we were able to do in the confines of the debate.

Topics covered include:

• White’s claim that the correct text of John 1:18 is “unique God” rather than “unique Son” and how his interpretation but not mine requires a decision about the correct text here


• White’s claim that the words ho on in John 1:18 support his interpretation


• White’s claim that the author uses the past imperfect tense of “is” to communicate the timeless existence of the Word

• White’s inability to understand what it could mean for God’s word to be embodied in the man Jesus


• White’s many misunderstandings of the interpretation of John 1 I argued for in my opening statement and why this made the debate less useful for the audience.


• Whether the opening of 1 John 1 supports White’s interpretation of John 1 or mine


• Why I spent so much time discussing 2nd-3rd c. interpretation of John 1 in my opening.


• White’s convenient skepticism about early Christian theologies.


• The misguided idea that competence in New Testament Greek is sufficient to reveal the correct interpretation of John 1.


• White’s appeal to John 17:5 as obviously presupposing Jesus literal pre-human existence.


• How something which isn’t literally a self can be said to be with (pros) God.


• What is meant by “the beginning” in John 1:1.


• Jesus’s argument in John 10


• White’s neglect of the misunderstanding motif in the fourth Gospel


• My argument (below) that White’s interpretation logically implies that there are two gods, and so should be rejected.


• whether in the Bible God exists timelessly or at all times


• White’s irrelevant ad hominem that I only have ever “assumed unitarianism.”

Here’s the argument which I gave against White’s interpretation of John 1 which I give in my rebuttal. The point is that White is committed to 1-3 and that 4 is true by the definition of “divine essence.” The rest follows. My response is to deny premise 2. What is White’s response?

1. The Father has the divine essence. (assumed in Jn 1:1b)


2. The Son has the divine essence. (Jn 1:1c, since Word = Son)


3. The Father ? the Son. (Jn 1:1b, since Father & Word differ and Word = Son)


4. To have the divine essence is to be a god. (true by the definition of “divine essence”)


5. The Father is a god. (1, 4)


6. The Son is a god. (2, 4)


7. There are (at least) two gods. (3, 5, 6)

(Note: on my debate slide there was a typo at the end of the last line – it cited 7 not line 6.)

Links for this episode:

Brent Nongbri’s blog Variant Readings (articles)

God’s Library: The Archaeology of the Earliest Christian Manuscripts

“Reconsidering the Place of Papyrus Bodmer XIV-XV (P75) in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament,” Journal of Biblical Literature 135 (2016), 405-437.

[on P66:] 01:20 14:71 ::139" target="_blank">“The Limits of Palaeographic Dating of Literary Papyri: Some Observations on the Date and Provenance of P.Bodmer II,” Museum Helveticum 71 (2014), 1-35.

podcast 62 – Dr. Dustin Smith on the preexistence of Jesus in the gospel of John

podcast 61 – Dr. Dustin Smith on preexistence in ancient Jewish thought

This week’s thinking music is “Gemini Instrumental” by Pipe Choir.

<figure class="wp-block-embed is-type-video is-provider-youtube wp-block-embed-youtube wp-embed-aspect-16-9 wp-has-aspect-ratio">

</figure>