Kolibri :
I am too busy for much interaction on the forum and noticed some of the points you made regarding the relationship of Jesus to his Father. You and I have disagreed enough that I wanted to make a very specific point in support of one of your points as it relates to John 17:3. Firstly, I agree with your point that early Christianity did not believe that God the Father and his Son Jesus were the same individuals. that the earliest personal Christian texts, such as diarys, lectionaries, sacred texts, psalms, early Christian fiction, their mishnas and testimonials, etc. describe the Father and the Son as completely separate individuals, (and the later texts started describing the interpretation of a “three in one” God). Still the differing interpretations of modern Christian contextual theory from early Christian contextual theory is intriguing. John 17:3 is one of those interesting examples of ancient usage of koine vs modern interpretations.
For example
John 17:3, “And this is the eternal life, that they should know you the only true God, and Jesus the anointed, whom you sent.”
Katiemygirl used the word for “true” from this phrase into the context of “true or false” and asked you to pick from these two options. Her context was not the only historical context for this word, especially in the formulaic use of it as a distinction; or a superlative or in a familial relationship (since Jesus IS God’s Son). In those instances, the context and usage was different.
The use of the Noun αληθεια (truth) in a prepositional phrase in the N.T. (e.g.) is occasionally idiomatic and even great Koine linguists such as Moulton categorize it as “not translation Greek”. This is partly why, Katiemygirl’s insistence on “the True God” vs “a false God” is not the most likely contextual and historical use or meaning of this phrase.
For example, contractual usage of this term in early Papyri was very different contextually. "πιστιν και αληθ[ειαν ε]χει” in Oxy Papyris (I 70:5) apply it to something that is “is credited and accepted”. The adjective "αληθης" was commonly used in a formulaic fashion. For example, of 42 documents of the Magd Papyri (Ptolemaic period) there are 17 similar instances of the phrase “…και εαν νι αγραφο αληθη” referring to a written statement that is “true in fact”. Milligan give a similar example from Strass Papyri I. 41:18 in 250 a.d.. This sort of general use was in legal documents of ownership or inheritance, etc. This changes the usage and the meaning.
For example, when it is used in P. Tebt II. 285:3, in describing children. It was not distinguishing a “true” infant or child from a “false” infant or child, but from a “legitimate” child or one who is not legitimate. One is not talking in this case about true vs falsehood, but a relationship that is “true in fact”. For example, in P. Tebt II. 293:17, when applying to circumcise a boy the application reads “…αληθη ειναι αυτον ιερατικου [γε]νους…” i.e. “…he is in truth, of priestly family”.
It is not a matter of truth vs falsehood, but of “authenticity” one is discussing and is a point of “distinction” from other individuals or things that may not be apparent. It is often a superlative in it’s use. For example, in speaking of “...true gratitude to the Gods…” (...τοις θεοις εσχομεν [χαριν αληθ]ινον...) from Papyrus Petr II. 2(3) (260 b.c.). They were not speaking of "true" vs "false" gratitude, but of mere gratitude vs a superlative and superior degree of gratitude ("real" gratitude). As to the words use as a point of "distinction", Caracalla’s edict (from Papyrus Giss I. 40:li. 27) speaks of egyptions “distinguished” or “recognized” by their speech ( «...οι αληθιν οι αιγυπτιοι...”) ..."true egyptians...". These are not foreigners speaking "true" and correct egyptian, but it refers to "true egyptians" speaking "true egyptian" (as it should be spoken...)
When redeeming garments from a pawn shop, a document in Papyrus Oxy I. 114:7 (ii or iii a.d.) speaks of a garment having “ …αληθινα πορφυρον…” or “…true purple borders…” (or “real purple” borders ...– however one wishes to render it). This does not mean that other garments did not have "purple" on them, but that this garment had a better purple. The word was not speaking of "true" purple versus a "false" purple, but rather, it had a "superlative" purple.
The point is, that these idiomatic uses are not talking about facts that are “true” or “false” as in Katiemygirl's context, but rather the context is idiomatic and refers to a recognition and distinction placed upon a subject. Even today, when I say someone is a “true athlete" at say, basketball, I am NOT saying that all others are not good or not athletes, but rather I am using the word true, or truly as a superlative inside the act of making a distinction.
This is, I believe, the context of Jesus recognition that his father was the only “true” God and the Context is that his Father is THE superlative God, THE one who is legitimately a God, without other conditions; without being a “begotten God” (as jesus was, Jn 1:18), without limit of power and authority; the one to whom all honor for the plan to save mankind centered for both us and for Jesus himself. In this context, the Father was being recognized as a “legitimate” God, whereas Jesus recognizes his own status as a God is, and was, dependent upon his being given this status by another. Jesus was the κληρονμος, the rightful heir. Whatever kingdom he ultimately is given, comes from someone else.
In any case Kolibri, my point is that this word usage may have given you a bit of headache when confronted with it, but, in actual usage in Koine, your underlying context of God and Jesus as separate individuals is consistent with the earliest context of this text. You and I have had enough disagreements on other things that I felt you should know we agree on this specific point regarding this specific scriptural reference.
Good journey Kolibri
Clear
δρεισετζω
