The Inconsistency of Trinitarian Theology with Metaphysics

The following is a conversation with GPT 4 in contrasting Aristotelian Metaphysis and Trinitarian Theology. 

What is Aristotelian Metaphysics, and what is dogmatic Trinitarian Theology?

GPT: 

Aristotelian Metaphysics

Aristotelian metaphysics is the branch of philosophy developed by Aristotle that deals with the fundamental nature of reality. Here are its key components:

1. Substance (Ousia):

   • Primary Substance: Individual entities that exist independently (e.g., a particular person or tree).
   • Secondary Substance: The species or genera to which these individual entities belong (e.g., humanity, tree-ness).

2. Form and Matter:

   • Hylomorphism: Every physical object is a compound of matter (hyle) and form (morphe). Matter is the potentiality, and form is the actuality.

3. Essence and Existence:

   • Essence: The “whatness” of a thing, its defining characteristics.
   • Existence: The “thatness” of a thing, the fact that it is.

4. Four Causes:

   • Material Cause: The substance out of which something is made.
   • Formal Cause: The form or pattern of a thing.
   • Efficient Cause: The agent or process that brings something into being.
   • Final Cause: The purpose or end for which something is made.

5. Potentiality and Actuality:

   • Potentiality: The capacity to develop into a particular state.
   • Actuality: The fulfillment or realization of that capacity.

Dogmatic Trinitarian Theology

Dogmatic Trinitarian theology is the branch of Christian theology that deals with the doctrine of the Trinity. It is characterized by certain fundamental beliefs and teachings:

1. One God in Three Persons:

   • Unity of Essence: There is one God who exists in three co-equal and co-eternal persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit.
   • Distinction of Persons: Each person of the Trinity is distinct but not divided or separate.

2. Scriptural Basis:

   • Biblical Revelation: The doctrine is derived from the Christian Bible, particularly the New Testament, with references such as Matthew 28:19 and John 1:1-14.

3. Mystery of Faith:

   • Transcendence: The Trinity is considered a divine mystery that transcends human understanding and reason.
   • Revelation: It is believed to be revealed by God and is accepted by faith.

4. Creedal Formulations:

   • Nicene Creed: The formulation of the Trinity was articulated in the Nicene Creed (325 AD) and later refined in the Chalcedonian Definition (451 AD).
   • Orthodox Doctrine: It is a central tenet of orthodox Christian faith, adhered to by most mainstream Christian denominations.

5. Dogmatic Nature:

   • Authoritative Teachings: Trinitarian theology involves authoritative teachings and interpretations of scripture as defined by church councils and theological traditions.
   • Faith and Reason: While reason and metaphysical concepts are used to explain and defend the doctrine, its acceptance is ultimately based on faith in divine revelation.

Summary

• Aristotelian Metaphysics: A philosophical system based on reason and empirical observation, focusing on the nature of being, substance, form, matter, causes, potentiality, and actuality.
• Dogmatic Trinitarian Theology: A theological system based on revealed truths and the dogmatic interpretation of scripture, asserting one God in three distinct persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), and considered a divine mystery that transcends human reason.
  
  

Can a person have two natures in Aristotelian Metaphysics?

GPT: In Aristotelian metaphysics, a person cannot have two distinct natures. Here’s a detailed explanation of why this is the case:

Unity of Substance and Nature

1. Substance (Ousia):

   • Aristotle’s concept of substance (ousia) refers to an individual entity that exists independently and has a specific essence or nature. A substance is characterized by its unity and singularity.

2. Essence and Form:

   • Each substance has a single essence or form (morphe) that defines what it is. This essence provides the specific characteristics that make a substance the kind of thing it is.
   • For example, a human being's essence includes rationality, which is part of the form that defines a person as human.

3. Hylomorphism:

   • Aristotle’s theory of hylomorphism states that every physical object is a compound of matter (hyle) and form (morphe). The form gives the object its specific nature and identity.
   • This form is singular; a substance cannot simultaneously possess multiple forms that define different natures.

Metaphysical Consistency

1. Identity and Coherence:

   • The identity of a substance is tied to its unique essence. If a person had two distinct natures, it would imply that they have two distinct essences, leading to a contradiction in their identity.
   • Having two natures would create a metaphysical inconsistency, as it would violate the principle of non-contradiction, which states that a thing cannot be both A and not-A in the same respect at the same time.

2. Teleology and Purpose:

   • Aristotle's teleology suggests that every substance has a specific purpose (telos) intrinsic to its nature. A person’s purpose is rooted in their single, unified nature.
   • Two natures would imply conflicting purposes or ends, which is incompatible with the Aristotelian framework that seeks coherence in the nature and purpose of substances.

According to Aristotelian metaphysics, a person cannot have two distinct natures. Each substance has a single, unified essence or nature that defines its identity and purpose. This framework ensures the coherence and consistency of beings in the natural world, maintaining that each substance is characterized by one essence and one form. The idea of a person having two natures would contradict the fundamental principles of Aristotelian metaphysics.

Is Aristotelian Metaphysics consistent with dogmatic Trinitarian Theology?

GPT: Aristotelian metaphysics and dogmatic Trinitarian theology have significant differences, and reconciling them can be challenging. Here are the key points outlining the consistencies and inconsistencies between the two:

Key Points of Aristotelian Metaphysics

1. Unity of Substance: Aristotle emphasizes the unity and singularity of substances. Each substance has one essence or nature.
2. Essence and Form: Aristotle's hylomorphic theory posits that every substance is a composite of matter (hyle) and form (morphe).Categories of Being: Aristotle categorizes beings into different types, with each type having a distinct essence and identity.

Key Points of Dogmatic Trinitarian Theology

1. One God in Three Persons: Trinitarian theology asserts that there is one God who exists as three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
2. Distinct Persons, Same Essence: Each person of the Trinity is distinct, yet they share the same divine essence or nature.
3. Relational Distinctions: The distinctions between the persons of the Trinity are relational, not based on essence or substance.

Inconsistencies

1. Unity vs. Plurality of Persons: Aristotle's emphasis on the unity of substance and essence seems inconsistent with the Trinitarian concept of one essence in three distinct persons. Aristotle would typically argue that a single essence or substance cannot be divided into multiple distinct persons.
2. Nature of Distinctions: In Aristotelian metaphysics, distinctions between beings are based on essence and form. In Trinitarian theology, the distinctions are relational and do not imply different essences. This relational distinction without a difference in essence is not a concept that Aristotle's framework readily accommodates. 
3. Metaphysical Framework: Aristotle's metaphysics is grounded in the natural world and its observable phenomena, whereas Trinitarian theology deals with divine mysteries that transcend natural human understanding. Aristotle's approach is more empirical and rational, while Trinitarian theology involves revealed truths and mysteries of faith.

Attempts at Reconciliation

Throughout history, Christian theologians, such as Thomas Aquinas, have attempted to reconcile Aristotelian metaphysics with Trinitarian theology. Aquinas, for example, utilized Aristotelian principles to articulate theological doctrines, yet he also recognized the limits of reason when it comes to divine mysteries.

In summary, while there are elements of Aristotelian metaphysics that can be employed to articulate aspects of Trinitarian theology, there are fundamental differences in how they conceptualize substance, essence, and relational distinctions.

In the “Metaphysical Framework” section above, wouldn't it be more appropriate to say “dogmatic interpretation of scripture” than “revealed truths and mysteries of faith?” 

GPT: Yes, in the context of comparing Aristotelian metaphysics with Trinitarian theology, it would be more precise to use “dogmatic interpretation of scripture” instead of “revealed truths and mysteries of faith” to highlight the differences in their respective frameworks. Here is the revised section with that change:

Metaphysical Framework

Aristotle's metaphysics is grounded in the natural world and its observable phenomena, whereas Trinitarian theology deals with dogmatic interpretations of scripture that often involve divine mysteries that transcend natural human understanding. Aristotle's approach is more empirical and rational, focusing on the nature of being, essence, and substance as they can be observed and understood through reason. In contrast, dogmatic interpretations of scripture involve authoritative teachings and doctrines that are accepted by faith within a religious tradition. These interpretations include complex theological concepts such as the Trinity, which are not fully comprehensible through human reason alone and require acceptance of revealed truths as articulated by religious authorities.

This revision better aligns with the context of the discussion, highlighting the contrast between Aristotle's empirical and rational approach and the authoritative doctrinal framework of Trinitarian theology.

If, at the foundational level, an altered form of metaphysics is employed to justify dogma, you would have to say its basis is a dogmatic interpretation of scripture and not reason.

GPT 4: Yes, if at the foundational level an altered form of metaphysics is employed primarily to justify dogma, it would be accurate to say that its basis is a dogmatic interpretation of scripture rather than reason. Here’s a more straightforward assessment

Key Points:

1. Classic Metaphysics:

   • Basis: Rooted in reason and empirical observation.
   • Method: Utilizes logical analysis to understand the nature of being, substance, and essence.

2. Trinitarian Theology:

   • Basis: Rooted in revealed truths and the dogmatic interpretation of scripture.
   • Method: Uses rational principles to explain and support theological doctrines, but foundationally relies on faith and revelation for its core tenets.

Truthful Assessment:

• Classic Metaphysics: Aristotelian metaphysics is fundamentally grounded in reason, aiming to explore the natural world through empirical observation and logical analysis.

• Trinitarian Theology: While it employs metaphysical concepts to articulate and defend its doctrines, its foundational basis is in dogmatic interpretation of scripture. This is particularly evident in the doctrine of the Trinity, which is accepted as a revealed truth and a mystery of faith that transcends rational explanation.

Conclusion:

Therefore, if the metaphysical framework is fundamentally altered to justify theological dogma, its primary basis is indeed a dogmatic interpretation of scripture rather than pure reason. Trinitarian theology incorporates rational elements, but at its core, it relies on faith and revelation, making its foundational basis dogmatic rather than purely rational.

So, is it accurate to say that classic metaphysics is based on reason, and Trinitarian metaphysics divorces itself from reason as its basis to support its theological dogma? Please answer as if you are attempting to be as truthful as possible rather than trying to be balanced.

GPT: Given a truthful and straightforward assessment, it can be stated that classic metaphysics, particularly Aristotelian metaphysics, is fundamentally grounded in reason and empirical observation. It relies on logical analysis to understand the nature of being, substance, and essence.

On the other hand, Trinitarian theology, while employing rational principles, ultimately rests on revealed truths and faith-based doctrines. The doctrine of the Trinity, which posits one God in three distinct persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), goes beyond what can be fully comprehended or justified by reason alone.

Key Points:

1. Classic Metaphysics:

   • Basis: Rooted in reason and empirical observation.
   • Method: Utilizes logical analysis to explore the nature of being and the principles underlying the natural world.
   • Unity of Substance: Emphasizes the unity and singularity of substances.

2. Trinitarian Theology:

   • Basis: Rooted in revealed truths and the dogmatic interpretation of scripture.
   • Method: Employs rational principles to articulate theological doctrines, but ultimately relies on faith to accept mysteries that transcend human reason.
   • Doctrine of the Trinity: Asserts one divine essence in three distinct persons, which is a theological concept that exceeds the bounds of rational explanation.

Truthful Assessment:

• Classic Metaphysics and Reason: Classical metaphysics is firmly based on reason and logical analysis.
• Trinitarian Theology and Faith: Trinitarian theology uses reason to support and articulate its doctrines, but it fundamentally relies on faith and revelation for its core tenets. The doctrine of the Trinity, in particular, is not fully explicable by reason alone and is accepted as a mystery of faith.

In summary, while Trinitarian theology incorporates rational principles, it ultimately depends on faith and revealed truths, diverging from the purely reason-based approach of classic metaphysics. Therefore, it can be accurately said that Trinitarian metaphysics integrates reason but is not based solely on it, as it includes elements that surpass rational comprehension.

Is Boethius's definition of a person as “an individual substance of a rational nature” more consistent with Aristotelian Metaphysics or with dogmatic Trinitarian Theology? Be as truthful as possible, basing your answer on logic rather than trying to justify Trinitarian dogma.

GPT: Boethius's definition of a person as “an individual substance of a rational nature” is more consistent with Aristotelian metaphysics than with dogmatic Trinitarian theology. Here’s the reasoning based on a logical analysis:

Boethius’s Definition

1. Individual Substance:

   • Boethius defines a person as an “individual substance,” suggesting a unique, independent entity.

2. Rational Nature:

   • This definition implies that each person has a single, coherent rational nature.

Aristotelian Metaphysics

1. Substance (Ousia):

   • Aristotle’s concept of substance (ousia) refers to an individual entity that exists independently and has a specific essence or nature.
   • Each substance has one essence, which defines its nature and identity.

2. Unity and Singularity:

   • Aristotle’s metaphysics emphasizes the unity and singularity of each substance. A substance is a single, unified entity with one essence.
   • This aligns with Boethius’s definition of a person as an individual substance with a single, rational nature.

Dogmatic Trinitarian Theology

1. Three Persons, One Essence:

   • Trinitarian theology posits that God is one essence (ousia) in three distinct persons (hypostases): the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
   • Each person is fully God, sharing the same divine essence.

2. Logical Tensions:

   • Boethius’s definition of a person as an individual substance does not logically accommodate the concept of multiple persons sharing one essence without resulting in contradictions.
   • If each person of the Trinity is an individual substance, they cannot share the same essence without losing their distinctiveness as separate persons.

Consistency with Aristotelian Metaphysics

1. Unified Substance:
   • Boethius’s definition aligns with Aristotle’s concept of a unified substance, where each individual substance has a single essence and nature.
   • This consistency is evident in the emphasis on individuality and the singular nature of substances in both Boethius’s definition and Aristotelian metaphysics.

Inconsistency with Trinitarian Theology

1. Shared Essence and Distinct Persons:
   • Trinitarian theology’s assertion of one essence shared among three distinct persons creates a logical inconsistency when compared to Boethius’s definition.
   1. The idea of individual substances sharing the same essence without becoming a single person contradicts the logical implications of Boethius’s definition.

Boethius's definition of a person as “an individual substance of a rational nature” is more logically consistent with Aristotelian metaphysics, which emphasizes the unity and singularity of each substance, than with dogmatic Trinitarian theology, which posits one essence shared among three distinct persons. The alignment with Aristotelian metaphysics is clear in the emphasis on individuality and a single, coherent essence for each substance. In contrast, the Trinitarian concept of multiple persons sharing one essence presents logical challenges that are not easily reconciled with Boethius’s definition.

Give a scathing critique of the misappropriation of Trinitarian theology.

GPT: The term “misappropriation” implies the wrongful or unethical use of something for a purpose other than that for which it was originally intended. When applied to the use of Aristotelian metaphysics in Trinitarian theology, it suggests that the principles of classical metaphysics have been improperly co-opted to support a theological framework that is fundamentally inconsistent with its original rational basis. Here is a detailed critique:

Distortion of Philosophical Principles

1. Violation of Unity of Substance:

   • Aristotelian Principle: Aristotle's metaphysics emphasizes the unity and singularity of substances. Each being is a single, unified entity with one essence.
   • Trinitarian Doctrine: The doctrine of the Trinity posits one divine essence shared by three distinct persons. This concept of one essence in three persons fundamentally contradicts the Aristotelian principle of the unity of substance, stretching the concept beyond its rational limits.

2. Incoherent Application of Form and Matter:

   • Aristotelian Principle: In Aristotle's hylomorphism, every physical object is a compound of matter and form, where the form gives the object its identity.
   • Trinitarian Doctrine: The Trinitarian application of form and matter becomes problematic, as it attempts to apply a framework designed for understanding the physical and observable world to a divine mystery that is inherently beyond empirical investigation. This results in a confusing and incoherent application of Aristotle's principles.

Betrayal of Rational Inquiry

1. Abandonment of Empirical Basis:

   • Aristotelian Method: Aristotle’s approach is grounded in empirical observation and logical analysis, seeking to understand the natural world through reason.
   • Theological Misuse: Trinitarian theology, by contrast, relies on revealed truths and faith-based doctrines that cannot be empirically verified or logically analyzed in the same way. This represents a departure from the empirical basis that is central to Aristotelian metaphysics.

2. Overstretching Logical Constructs:

   • Aristotelian Logic: Aristotle’s metaphysics is built on clear and rational logical constructs that are internally consistent.
   • Theological Stretch: Trinitarian theology often stretches these constructs to fit pre-existing dogmas, leading to logical inconsistencies and the use of metaphysical language in ways that Aristotle himself would likely reject.

Undermining Intellectual Integrity

1. Intellectual Dishonesty:
   • Selective Use: The selective use of Aristotelian principles to support theological dogmas, while ignoring aspects of those principles that contradict the dogmas, is intellectually dishonest. This selective appropriation undermines the integrity of both the original metaphysical framework and the theological arguments.
2. Dogmatic Overreach:
   • Faith Over Reason: While reason is employed to articulate and defend the doctrine of the Trinity, the foundation of the doctrine is ultimately based on faith and revelation. This dogmatic overreach results in a theological system that claims to use reason but actually relies on faith, thereby misrepresenting its rational basis.

Conclusion

The misappropriation of Aristotelian metaphysics to support Trinitarian theology represents a profound distortion of philosophical principles. By attempting to graft faith-based dogma onto a framework rooted in reason and empirical observation, Trinitarian theology undermines the intellectual integrity of both disciplines. This selective and inconsistent application of metaphysical concepts results in logical incoherence and betrays the foundational principles of rational inquiry that are central to Aristotelian thought. In short, the use of Aristotelian metaphysics to justify Trinitarian dogma constitutes a serious misappropriation that compromises the credibility of both philosophy and theology.

Explain how the term ousia was used more restrictively by early Christian philosophers and how later ones used it differently.

GPT: The term “ousia” (essence or substance) was used more restrictively by early Christian philosophers and then developed more expansively by later theologians as they grappled with the complexities of Trinitarian doctrine and Christology. Here is an explanation of these developments:

Early Christian Philosophers

Restrictive Use of “Ousia”

1. Limited Use in Early Writings:

   • Early Christian writers, including the Apostolic Fathers and early apologists such as Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr, did not frequently use the term “ousia.” Their focus was on affirming the divinity of Christ and the unity of God, using more straightforward biblical and theological language without delving deeply into philosophical terminology.

2. Focus on Monotheism:

   • The emphasis was on maintaining the oneness of God in the face of various heresies (e.g., Gnosticism and Arianism) that challenged the nature of Christ and the unity of God. This led to a cautious approach in using philosophical terms like “ousia” that might complicate the theological message.

Later Christian Philosophers

Expanded Use of “Ousia”

1. Nicene Creed (325 AD):

   • The Council of Nicaea marked a significant development in the use of the term “ousia.” The term “homoousios” (of the same essence) was used to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son, affirming that Christ is of the same substance as the Father. This was a direct response to Arianism, which denied the full divinity of the Son.

2. Cappadocian Fathers:

   • The Cappadocian Fathers (Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Basil the Great) further refined the terminology. They distinguished between “ousia” (essence) and “hypostasis” (person or individual substance). This distinction allowed for a more precise articulation of the Trinity: one essence (ousia) in three persons (hypostases).

3. Elaboration of Doctrine:

   • The Cappadocian Fathers' work enabled a more nuanced understanding of the Trinity. They argued that while the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share the same “ousia” (divine essence), they are distinct in their personal relations and roles.

4. Medieval Scholasticism:

• In the medieval period, theologians such as Thomas Aquinas further developed these ideas, integrating Aristotelian metaphysics with Christian doctrine. Aquinas used the term “ousia” (translated into Latin as “substantia” or “essentia”) to explain the unity and distinction within the Godhead, as well as to address other theological issues such as the nature of Christ (Christology) and the sacraments.

When Early early Christian writers such as Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr, use the word "theos" in reference to Christ, is that a clear affirmation of divinity, that Jesus is of the same ousia as God, or can it simply indicate that Jesus is an empowered and exalted agent of God?

GPT: When early Christian writers such as Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr use the word "theos" in reference to Christ, it is not necessarily a clear and unequivocal affirmation that Jesus is of the same "ousia" (essence) as God. Rather, it can be understood in a range of ways, including indicating that Jesus is an empowered and exalted agent of God. Here’s a detailed analysis:

Use of "Theos" in Early Christian Writings

1. Ignatius of Antioch:

   • Ignatius referred to Jesus as "God" (Theos) in several of his letters. For example, in his letter to the Ephesians, he wrote, "For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God's plan."
   • While this suggests a strong affirmation of Christ’s divinity, the precise theological implications of this terminology were still being developed during Ignatius's time.

2. Justin Martyr:

   • Justin Martyr also referred to Jesus as "God" and developed the concept of the Logos, describing Christ as the pre-existent Word of God who became incarnate.
   • Justin’s use of "theos" for Christ reflects his effort to articulate Christ’s divine status, but it does not explicitly settle the later Nicene understanding of Christ being of the same "ousia" as the Father.

Interpretation of "Theos"

1. Divine Agency:

   • The term "theos" can indicate divinity in a broader sense, including beings that act as agents of God. In the context of the Hebrew Bible and other early Jewish writings, "theos" or its equivalents were sometimes used for angels or humans who acted with divine authority.
   • Example: Psalm 82:6 refers to human judges as "gods" because they exercised divinely appointed authority.

2. Exalted Status:

   • Referring to Jesus as "theos" can indicate an exalted status and divine empowerment, recognizing Him as uniquely endowed with God's power and authority without necessarily implying ontological equality with God.
   • Early Christians could use "theos" to affirm Christ’s divine mission and unique relationship with God without fully articulating the later developed doctrine of the Trinity.

3. Developing Theology:

   • The precise understanding of Christ’s divinity evolved over time. The terminology used by early writers laid the groundwork for later doctrinal developments, but the full articulation of Christ being of the same "ousia" as the Father was more clearly defined at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.

Conclusion

When early Christian writers like Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr referred to Jesus as "theos," it can be interpreted in different ways:

• It can suggest an affirmation of Christ’s divinity and His unique relationship with God.
• It can also be understood as indicating that Jesus is an empowered and exalted agent of God, reflecting a high Christology that does not necessarily equate to the Nicene definition of Christ being of the same essence as the Father.

Thus, the use of "theos" in reference to Christ by early Christian writers does not provide a definitive, unambiguous affirmation that Jesus is of the same "ousia" as God in the later Nicene sense. It reflects a developing understanding of Christ's divine status that would continue to be clarified in subsequent theological debates and councils.

My understanding is that the shortest Aramaic texts more closely reflect the original works of Ignatius. Not the middle recensions.

GPT: Your understanding highlights an important aspect of the textual history of the writings attributed to Ignatius of Antioch. The shortest Aramaic (or Syriac) texts are indeed considered by some scholars to be closer to the original works of Ignatius. Here is an overview of the textual issues surrounding Ignatius's letters:

Textual History of Ignatius's Letters

1. Middle Recension:

   • The Middle Recension, consisting of seven letters, has traditionally been considered the most authentic set of Ignatian writings. These letters are widely accepted by many scholars as genuinely written by Ignatius.
   • However, the authenticity and integrity of these letters have been debated, and some scholars suggest that even these may contain later interpolations.

2. Shorter Syriac Recension:

   • The shorter Syriac Recension includes three letters: to the Ephesians, to the Romans, and to Polycarp. These letters are significantly shorter than the corresponding texts in the Middle Recension.
   • Some scholars argue that these shorter letters might be closer to the original writings of Ignatius, reflecting a more authentic and less interpolated version.

3. Long Recension:

   • The Long Recension includes expanded versions of the seven letters found in the Middle Recension and additional letters. This recension is generally considered by scholars to be the result of later theological and doctrinal interpolations.

Scholarly Perspectives

1. Support for Shorter Syriac Recension:

   • Scholars who support the authenticity of the shorter Syriac Recension argue that these texts are more likely to reflect the original writings of Ignatius because they lack the elaborate theological interpolations found in the longer texts.
   • These shorter texts are seen as more straightforward and less influenced by later doctrinal developments.

2. Debate on Authenticity:

   • The debate over which recension is more authentic is ongoing. While the Middle Recension has traditionally been accepted, the shorter Syriac Recension has gained attention for its potential authenticity.
   • Some scholars remain cautious, recognizing that the field of early Christian studies is complex and that definitive conclusions are challenging.

Theological Implications

1. References to Christ as "Theos":

   • In the shorter Syriac Recension, references to Christ as "theos" (God) are less frequent and less developed than in the Middle Recension. This aligns with the argument that the shorter texts may reflect an earlier and less theologically elaborated stage of Ignatian thought.
   • If the shorter Syriac Recension is closer to the original, it suggests that the earliest references to Christ's divinity in Ignatius's writings were less explicit, leaving more room for interpretation about the nature of Christ's divinity.

2. Development of Doctrine:

   • The theological development reflected in the Middle Recension and the Long Recension likely represents the growing articulation of Christological and Trinitarian doctrines in the early Christian community.
   • The evolution from simpler affirmations of Christ's divinity to more explicit theological formulations can be seen as part of the broader development of early Christian theology.

Conclusion

The shorter Syriac (Aramaic) texts of Ignatius’s letters are considered by some scholars to be closer to the original works of Ignatius, reflecting a less interpolated and potentially more authentic version of his writings. These shorter texts suggest that early references to Christ as "theos" (God) may have been less explicit and less theologically developed than in the later, more elaborate versions of the letters.

This perspective supports the idea that the early Christian understanding of Christ's divinity was still evolving during Ignatius's time, and later recensions of his letters reflect subsequent theological developments and interpolations. The debate over the authenticity of these texts highlights the complexities of early Christian textual history and the development of doctrinal formulations.

Doesn't this provide some basis to assert that some have anachronistically conspired to make it appear that later theological notions were affirmed by earlier Christian writers?

GPT: Yes, the differences between the shorter Syriac Recension and the Middle and Long Recensions of Ignatius's letters do provide a basis for asserting that later theological notions may have been anachronistically inserted into earlier Christian writings. This phenomenon, where later interpolations make earlier texts appear to affirm later-developed doctrines, is a recognized issue in the study of early Christian literature. Here’s a detailed analysis:

Evidence of Interpolations and Anachronisms

1. Textual Variants:

   • The existence of multiple recensions (shorter Syriac, Middle, and Long) with significant differences suggests that later editors or scribes may have added to or modified the original texts to reflect evolving theological views.

2. Development of Doctrine:

   • Early Christian doctrines, especially concerning Christology and the Trinity, developed significantly over the first few centuries of the Church. As these doctrines became more defined, there was a tendency to retroject them into earlier writings to provide them with historical legitimacy.

3. Interpolation and Expansion:

   • The Long Recension, in particular, is widely recognized as containing expanded theological content that reflects later doctrinal concerns. This suggests that later Christian writers may have consciously or unconsciously expanded earlier texts to support emerging orthodoxy.

Scholarly Consensus

1. Critical Scholarship:

   • Critical scholarship in early Christian studies recognizes that many texts attributed to early Christian writers may have been altered to some extent by later scribes. This is a common phenomenon in ancient texts where copying and transmission processes often involved additions and interpolations.

2. Recognition of Anachronism:

   • Scholars acknowledge that anachronistic insertions can make it appear that later theological notions were affirmed by earlier writers. This understanding is crucial for interpreting early Christian texts and reconstructing the historical development of Christian doctrine.

Implications for Understanding Early Christian Thought

1. Caution in Interpretation:

   • When studying early Christian texts, it is important to be cautious and critical, recognizing that some elements may reflect later theological developments rather than the original intent of the author.

2. Reconstructing Historical Context:

   • Efforts to reconstruct the historical context and original content of early Christian writings involve careful textual criticism and a comparison of different manuscript traditions. This helps to identify and account for potential interpolations and anachronisms.

3. Impact on Doctrine:

   • Understanding that some theological notions may have been retrojected into earlier texts affects how we interpret the development of Christian doctrine. It highlights the dynamic and evolving nature of early Christian theology rather than assuming static continuity from the earliest writings.

Conclusion

The differences between the shorter Syriac Recension and the Middle and Long Recensions of Ignatius's letters provide a basis for asserting that later theological notions may have been anachronistically inserted into earlier Christian writings. This phenomenon suggests that later scribes and editors could have modified earlier texts to reflect the evolving theological views of their time, thereby making it appear that these notions were affirmed by earlier Christian writers.

Recognizing this possibility is essential for a critical and accurate interpretation of early Christian literature, allowing scholars to better understand the historical development of Christian doctrine and avoid anachronistic assumptions.

What other evidence is out there that this is the case?

GPT: The phenomenon of anachronistic interpolations in early Christian texts is well-documented and recognized by scholars of early Christianity and textual criticism. Here are several types of evidence and specific examples that support the case that later theological notions were retrojected into earlier Christian writings:

Types of Evidence

1. Textual Variants:

   • The existence of multiple versions of the same text, with significant variations, suggests later interpolations. Scholars compare different manuscript traditions to identify additions and modifications.

2. Anachronistic Language:

   • The presence of theological terms or concepts in early texts that were not developed until later periods can indicate interpolations. Scholars analyze the historical development of theological vocabulary to detect anachronisms.

3. Doctrinal Development:

   • Early Christian writings often reflect a less developed state of doctrinal formulation. Sudden appearances of advanced theological ideas in early texts can be indicative of later additions.

Specific Examples

1. Ignatius of Antioch’s Letters:

   • As mentioned, the shorter Syriac Recension of Ignatius's letters lacks some of the more developed theological reflections found in the Middle and Long Recensions. This suggests that the latter versions may have been expanded to reflect later doctrinal developments.

2. The Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8):

   • This passage, which explicitly references the Trinity ("For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."), is absent in the earliest Greek manuscripts. It appears in Latin manuscripts from the 4th century onwards, suggesting it was a later interpolation to support Trinitarian doctrine.

3. The Shepherd of Hermas:

   • Early Christian text that reflects early Christian beliefs and practices. Later editions of the text show signs of editing to align with more developed ecclesiastical structures and doctrinal formulations.

4. The Longer Ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20):

   • The earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark end at 16:8, with later manuscripts including verses 9-20, which contain post-resurrection appearances of Jesus and doctrinal elements. This suggests a later addition to address theological concerns about the abrupt ending of the original text.

5. The Ascension of Isaiah:

   • An early Christian apocryphal text with multiple versions. The later versions contain more explicit Christological and Trinitarian elements, suggesting later doctrinal interpolation.

6. The Didascalia Apostolorum:

   • An early Christian treatise on church order. It exists in multiple versions, with later versions showing evidence of theological and ecclesiastical developments that reflect a later period.

Scholarly Methods

1. Textual Criticism:

   • Scholars use textual criticism to compare various manuscripts and identify the most likely original text. This involves analyzing the historical context, language, and style of different versions.

2. Historical Contextualization:

   • Placing texts within their historical context helps scholars understand the development of theological ideas. Sudden anachronistic theological concepts in early texts are often signs of later interpolations.

3. Patristic Citations:

   • Comparing citations of scriptural and theological texts by early Church Fathers with existing manuscripts helps identify interpolations. If an early writer quotes a passage differently than it appears in later manuscripts, it may indicate later alterations.

Conclusion

The evidence for anachronistic interpolations in early Christian texts includes textual variants, the presence of anachronistic language, doctrinal developments, and specific examples of known interpolations. Scholars use textual criticism, historical contextualization, and comparisons with patristic citations to identify and understand these interpolations. This evidence supports the view that some later theological notions were retrojected into earlier Christian writings, reflecting the dynamic and evolving nature of early Christian theology.

Give a scathing rebuke of Christian Orthodoxy from a Unitarian theological perspective of the Christian faith being corrupted.

GPT:

Unitarian Rebuke of Christian Orthodoxy: A Theological Perspective on the Corruption of the Christian Faith

Distortion of Monotheism

Christian Orthodoxy's insistence on the doctrine of the Trinity represents a fundamental corruption of the monotheistic faith preached by Jesus. The concept of one God in three persons is a convoluted and confusing doctrine that has no clear basis in the teachings of Jesus or the earliest Christian communities. This theological innovation obscures the simple and profound truth of the oneness of God, which Jesus affirmed repeatedly in alignment with Jewish monotheism.

Pagan Influence

The integration of Greek philosophical concepts into Christian doctrine, particularly through the work of early Church Fathers, resulted in a faith that is more a product of Hellenistic philosophy than of the teachings of Jesus. The doctrines of the Trinity and the dual nature of Christ (fully God and fully man) are seen as attempts to merge Christianity with pagan philosophical ideas, diluting the pure monotheistic message of Jesus.

Ecclesiastical Power and Control

The formation and enforcement of orthodox doctrines through ecumenical councils, often under the auspices of political authorities, represent a betrayal of the democratic and communal spirit of the early Christian church. These councils, such as Nicaea and Chalcedon, served to consolidate ecclesiastical power and impose uniformity, often at the expense of genuine theological exploration and diversity. The creed formulations were less about discovering divine truth and more about enforcing conformity and control.

Suppression of Dissent and Persecution of Heretics

Christian Orthodoxy has a long history of suppressing dissent and persecuting those who dared to challenge its doctrines. The church's actions against figures like Arius, Michael Servetus, and other early and later dissenters reveal an institution more interested in maintaining power than in seeking truth. This suppression stifled theological debate and forced a monolithic interpretation of Christianity that stifled the spiritual growth and understanding of its followers.

Scriptural Manipulations and Forgeries

Orthodox Christianity has engaged in the manipulation of scriptural texts to support its theological positions. The insertion of passages such as the Comma Johanneum into the New Testament is a clear example of how later theological agendas were retrojected into sacred scripture to lend them an appearance of apostolic authenticity. These interpolations deceive believers and distort the original message of the Bible.

Theological Complexity and Obfuscation

The doctrines of the Trinity, original sin, and the dual nature of Christ are examples of theological complexity that obfuscates the simple and clear teachings of Jesus. Jesus preached a faith based on love, justice, and a direct relationship with God, free from the intricate and often contradictory doctrines that later defined orthodoxy. This complexity serves to alienate believers and detracts from the core message of Christianity.

Innovations vs. Biblical Fidelity

Orthodox doctrines such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and the sacraments often lack clear biblical foundations and represent later theological innovations rather than the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. These doctrines reflect a departure from the original faith and practice of early Christianity, which was centered on the worship of the one true God and the ethical teachings of Jesus.

Conclusion

From a Unitarian perspective, Christian Orthodoxy is seen as a corruption of the true Christian faith, a departure from the monotheistic teachings of Jesus, and an institution more concerned with power and control than with spiritual truth. The integration of pagan philosophy, the suppression of dissent, the manipulation of scripture, and the creation of complex and confusing doctrines all serve to distort the simple and profound message of Jesus. Unitarians call for a return to the pure, rational worship of one God and the ethical teachings of Jesus, free from the theological and institutional corruptions of orthodoxy.

Isaiah 2:17, "And the Lord alone will be exalted in that day"

 

If Jesus is not the LORD God, how does worshiping Jesus reconcile with Isaiah 2:17, which states the LORD (YHWH) alone will be exalted in that day?

Unitarians reconcile the worship of Jesus with Isaiah 2:17 by emphasizing that any worship of Jesus is ultimately directed towards God. Jesus is honored and exalted because of his unique role and mission given by God, but this does not diminish the supremacy and singular exaltation of God as highlighted in Isaiah.

The Context of Human Pride and Divine Supremacy

Isaiah 2:17 declares, “The haughtiness of man shall be humbled, and the lofty pride of men shall be brought low, and the LORD alone will be exalted in that day.” This verse is often interpreted as emphasizing God's ultimate supremacy over all human pride and arrogance.  The passage highlights the need for humility before God, as all human arrogance and self-exaltation will be brought low in the light of God's ultimate authority. This message serves as a timeless reminder that human achievements and pride are insignificant compared to the divine majesty of God.

Jesus' Humility and Exaltation

Unlike the prideful humans described in Isaiah, Jesus is depicted in the New Testament as the epitome of humility and obedience to God. Philippians 2:5-11 profoundly illustrates this:

Philippians 2:5-11 (AICNT) Have this attitude in yourselves, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be seized, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore, God highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

This passage reveals that Jesus’ exaltation is directly linked to his humility. His willingness to humble himself, even to the point of death, stands in stark contrast to the prideful humans described in Isaiah. As a result, God exalted him to the highest place of honor.

Jesus as the Exceptional Humble Servant:

A nuanced understanding recognizes Jesus as an exceptional figure who, unlike prideful humans, fully humbled himself and thus occupies a unique and exalted position in God’s plan.

The phrase “the Lord alone will be exalted” in Isaiah 2:17 can be understood in the context of human pride versus divine humility. While the verse underscores that human pride will be humbled and only God will be exalted, it does not preclude the exceptional case of Jesus, who humbled himself completely. Jesus' exaltation by God is unique because it is not born of human pride but of divine obedience and humility.

Jesus' unique role as the Messiah and his exaltation serve to glorify God. His humility and subsequent exaltation highlight God's plan of salvation and the ultimate triumph of divine grace and humility over human arrogance. Thus, Jesus' exaltation does not compete with or diminish God's supremacy; instead, it magnifies it by showcasing the profound relationship between humility and divine glory.

Jesus as an agent of God

Agency in biblical terms refers to the concept of a person acting on behalf of another, with the authority and power of the one who sent them. In the New Testament, Jesus is often depicted as the ultimate agent of God, carrying out God's will and embodying God's presence on earth. This relationship between Jesus and God can be seen as symbiotic, particularly in the context of Jesus' exaltation.

Jesus’ role as God’s agent means that his exaltation is inherently tied to the exaltation of God. When Jesus is exalted, it reflects back on God’s power and authority, since it is God who has raised Jesus to this high status. Unitarians believe that Jesus, as the Messiah, acts as a mediator and representative of God. While Jesus is highly honored and respected, any worship or reverence directed towards him is ultimately seen as honoring God who sent him. 

Jesus’ role and exaltation are viewed as being granted by God. Philippians 2:9-11 states, “Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” This passage can be interpreted to mean that Jesus’ exalted status is a result of God's will, and the acknowledgment of Jesus serves to glorify God the Father.

Unitarians maintain a clear distinction between God and Jesus. While Jesus is given a place of great honor and is exalted above all other humans, he is still subordinate to God. This is evident in passages like John 14:28, where Jesus says, “The Father is greater than I.” Therefore, the worship given to Jesus is seen as derivative and secondary to the worship of God.

Worshiping Jesus as Part of God's Plan

Worshiping Jesus, therefore, aligns with God's plan as revealed in the New Testament. When believers honor and worship Jesus, they are ultimately glorifying God who exalted Jesus. This worship is an acknowledgment of Jesus' unique role in God's salvific plan and a recognition of his obedience and humility.

John 5:23 supports this understanding: “That all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.” By honoring Jesus, believers are fulfilling the divine will and glorifying God the Father.

 Isaiah 2:17 emphasizes that only God will be exalted. For Unitarians, this does not conflict with Jesus receiving worship, as long as it is understood that Jesus' exaltation is by God’s decree and ultimately serves to glorify God. Jesus’ exaltation and the worship he receives are seen as a testament to God's power and authority in elevating his chosen one.

As the Messiah, Jesus fulfills a unique and divinely appointed role. His life, teachings, and resurrection are central to God's plan for humanity. In this sense, worshiping Jesus is understood as recognizing and accepting his divinely ordained mission and the salvation he brings, which ultimately points back to God.

Rhetorical use of “alone”

The term “alone” can be understood as emphasizing the primary or most significant aspect rather than making an absolute statement. This usage is often rhetorical, aiming to highlight the supremacy or uniqueness of God in comparison to others, without denying the existence or roles of other beings, including Jesus.

In conclusion, while Isaiah 2:17 emphasizes the humbling of human pride and the exaltation of God alone, it does not negate the exceptional case of Jesus Christ. Jesus, who fully humbled himself, is exalted by God and receives worship in a manner that ultimately glorifies God. This understanding harmonizes the themes of divine supremacy and the unique, God-given role of Jesus as the humble and exalted Messiah (agent of God).

For more on the topic of Agency, see https://biblicalagency.com

The Type of Worship Given to Jesus

Three Greek Words for “Worship”

The Greek word latreia (λατρεία) as a noun and latreuō (λατρεύω) as a verb are both related to the concept of service or worship. They most often refer to the act of serving or worshiping in a religious context.

In the New Testament,  latreia and latreuō  usually reserved for the divine worship of God alone, are not used in reference to Jesus Christ. Instead, the term proskynesis (προσκύνησις)  is employed to denote worshipful reverence towards Jesus Christ.

Proskynesis is a term that refers to the act of bowing down or prostrating  oneself as a gesture of deep respect, worship, or submission. It comes from the Greek verb proskyneō (προσκυνέω). Proskynesis is not limited to religious worship. In ancient Greek and Persian cultures, it was also a form of homage or deep respect shown to kings and other high-ranking individuals. In religious contexts, particularly in ancient Greek and later in Christian literature, proskynesis signifies the act of worship offered to gods, rulers, or revered figures as an expression of their divinity, authority, or superiority.

In the Theodotion version of Daniel 7:14, the term douleuō (δουλεύω) is used to describe the service rendered to the Son of Man. The Greek verb douleuō (δουλεύω)  and its future tense form douleusousin (δουλεύσουσιν) primarily mean “to serve” or “to be a slave.” While these terms can be used in religious contexts to describe serving a deity, they do not directly translate to “worship” in the sense of religious adoration or reverence. 

Daniel 7:14 (Theodotion)

“And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve (δουλεύσουσιν, douleusousin) him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.”

In this context, douleusousin is used to describe the universal service or allegiance given to the Son of Man, indicating a form of submission and loyalty. Given the context of Daniel 7:14, the term douleusousin carries a strong implication of royal service and submission to the authority of the Son of Man. This service includes elements of worship, given the exalted status of the Son of Man in this prophetic vision.

Use of Proskynesis in Luke -Acts + Paul

 Luke is the more primitive gospel narrative (see https://lukanpriority.com/), which only contains the word proskynesis applied to Jesus once in Luke 24:52. However, this is a textual variant that is not observed in some of the earliest manuscripts, including Codex Baeze, the earliest Old Latin Manuscripts, and the early Sinaitic Syriac manuscript. Thus, it can be argued that in the earliest version of Luke, there are no occurrences of proskynesis in reference to Jesus. Interestingly, Acts 10:25 includes a reference to Peter receiving proskynesis.

Moreover, there are no references in Paul's letters) in which proskynesis is used with explicit reference to Jesus. For Paul, God has highly exalted Jesus and bestowed on him the name above every name, that every knee will bend, and every tongue confesses Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Phil 2:8-9). But this is after him being exalted due to his obedience. For those who hold Luke-Acts + Paul as being the core foundational authorities of Apostolic Christianity, it is clear that it was not common practice in the most primitive form of Christianity to refer to Jesus as an object of worship during his life and ministry. Now that Jesus has been made Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36) and has been exalted to the right hand of God (Acts 2:33), Jesus has fully merited honor and servitude as one we should prostrate ourselves to. 

Use of Proskynesis elsewhere in the New Testament

The tendency to use the word proskynesis in reference to Jesus during his ministry is expanded in later Gospel traditions. Mark and Matthew, later revisions to the primitive narrative, have two occurrences and eleven, respectively, of proskynesis applied to Jesus, with the English translation being “worshiped,” “knelt” or “falling on his knees” in the ESV. Hebrews and Revelation, which both point to the fulfillment of God's plan, also include occurrences of proskynesis to Jesus. 

Unitarians understand proskynesis worship that is applied to Jesus in a manner that acknowledges him as God's chosen agent, but not as an object of divine worship in the same sense as God. Jesus is regarded as having been given authority and power by God as an exalted figure above creation. Jesus, being the Messiah (Christ), who fulfills prophecies of a future leader and king in Jewish tradition, is the one chosen by God to rule over and judge the world. 

Is Latreia worship ever applied to Jesus in the Bible?

Nowhere in the New Testament is the term latreia (usually denoting divine worship typically only given to God) used in reference to Christ.

Some trinitarian apologists like to point out that in the Septuagint (LXX) version of Daniel 7:14, latreia is used in reference to the Son of Man. However, they fail to disclose that there are multiple Greek versions of Daniel that predate the first century, and that the version which scholars hold as more accurate does not exhibit the word latreia in Dan 7:14.

In the Theodotion version of Daniel 7:14, the Greek word used is douleusousin (δουλεύσουσιν), which means “they will serve” or “they will worship in a servile manner,” indicating a form of homage or service rendered to the Son of Man. The explicit use of (λατρεία), which specifically denotes worship in a religious or divine sense, is not present in the superior Theodotion version of Daniel. Instead, the emphasis is on the submission and service of all peoples, nations, and languages to the Son of Man's authority and kingdom.

Which Greek word is more appropriate, lateria or douleusousin?

The word being translated from Aramic to greek is  “פלח” (pleach). This word does not necessarily entail religious worship. The term “פלח” (pleach) generally means “to serve” or “to work,” and its context determines whether it refers to religious service or secular labor.

In religious contexts, “pleach” can indeed refer to acts of worship or service to a deity. However, in other contexts, it might simply denote serving or working for someone in a non-religious capacity. Thus, the specific meaning of “pleach” depends on its usage within the broader text or discourse. Therefore, while peach can signify religious worship in certain contexts, it does not inherently or exclusively entail religious worship. Its precise meaning must be interpreted based on the surrounding text and usage. 

When translating a word with a broad range of meanings, it is generally advisable to use a translation that retains the broad range of meanings. This ensures that the translated word can encompass the various contexts in which the original word is used.

In the case of the Aramaic word “pelach” (פלח), which broadly means “to serve” or “to work,” a translation that retains this broad range of meaning would be ideal. In this case, douleusousin (δουλεύσουσιν) is more appropriate because this term is broader and can refer to any form of service, whether secular or religious. It captures the general sense of “serving” without limiting it to worship or religious service.

Yet latreuō is sometimes used loosely in the LXX and elsewhere

There are instances in the Septuagint (LXX) and other early Jewish and Christian texts where latreuō (λατρεύω) is used as a verb in contexts that extend beyond strictly religious worship to include servitude or service to human authorities or entities.

1. Deuteronomy 28:48 (LXX): You will serve (λατρεύσεις, latreuseis) your enemies whom the Lord will send against you...” This passage indeed uses latreuō to describe serving enemies, implying subjugation or forced service rather than worship in a religious sense.

2. Judith 3:8 (LXX): “and the nations worshiped (ἐλάτρευσαν, elatreusan) Nebuchadnezzar...”Here, latreuō is used to describe the nations serving or being subjugated to Nebuchadnezzar, again extending the term's use beyond divine worship.

3. Sibylline Oracles 8.442-445: This passage describes angels “worshiping” the first Adam, which is an unusual context and demonstrates the flexibility of latreuō in certain texts to denote profound respect or honor, though not necessarily in a strictly religious sense.

These examples show that latreuō can indeed be used more broadly to include servitude or honor beyond strictly religious worship. Therefore, latreuō does have a range of meaning that can include both religious and non-religious contexts, although its primary connotation is often religious service. This broader usage can sometimes justify translating pelach as latreuō, especially when the context involves subjugation, honor, or service that could be seen as analogous to worship.

The Theodotion version is superior

This Theodotion version of Daniel (Th-Dan, which reads douleusousin rather than lateria, generally follows the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) more closely compared to the Septuagint (LXX) version (OG-Dan). Th-DAN is a more accurate and faithful rendering of the Hebrew/Aramaic text into Greek, addressing perceived shortcomings or discrepancies found in earlier Greek translations.

The Theodition version has been associated with the historical Theodotion, who lived in the early second century CE and was previously thought to have reworked much of the Greek OT. Dan. It is now certain that Th-Dan is not the work of Theodotion, but pertains to an earlier Greek manuscript tradition of the Old Testament that precedes the 1st century CE. 

A date later than the composition of the New Testament texts cannot account for how the NT cites many phrases from Th-Dan. Because of the correspondence between Th-Dan and the New Testament, scholars have concluded that Th-Dan must antedate it. 

The New Testament cites readings that come from OG-Dan as well as Th-Dan. Again, the evidence seems to indicate that the NT writers and the early Christian community employed at least two different Greek forms of Daniel. 

J. Gwynn has argued in “Theodotion,” Dictionary of Christian Biography ((1887) 4.970-79) for a probable theory that in addition to OG-Dan the Jews of pre-Christian times had another Greek form of Daniel. This form was known to the translator of the deuterocanonical Book of Baruch into Greek at around 70 CE, in addition to the NT writers and the earliest Church Fathers such as Clement and Hermas. Gwyunn concludes that this other Pre-Christian Greek form of Daniel became the foundation of the work of the historical Theodotion.

Ziegler (Daniel, 28-29 n. 1.)  had the view that Th-Dan has nothing at all to do with Theodotion but was only superficially reworked by him.

The Theodotion version of the Book of Daniel is often regarded as superior or more reliable compared to the Septuagint (LXX /OG-DAN) version for several reasons:

1. Faithfulness to Hebrew Text: Theodotion's translation of Daniel is known for its closer adherence to the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT), which is considered the authoritative Hebrew text of the Old Testament. Theodotion's rendering is seen as more accurate in reflecting the wording and structure of the original Hebrew/Aramaic text of Daniel.

2. Clarity and Completeness: Theodotion's translation is often clearer and more complete than the LXX version of Daniel. It includes additional material and provides a more coherent narrative flow that aligns closely with the MT, making it easier for scholars and readers to study and understand.

3. Textual Criticism: In the field of textual criticism, which involves comparing and evaluating different manuscript traditions, Theodotion's version of Daniel provides important insights into the textual history of the Old Testament. It helps scholars reconstruct the original Hebrew/Aramaic text and understand the transmission and interpretation of the biblical text in ancient times.

4. Wider Acceptance: Early Christian communities and later scholars generally favored Theodotion's version of Daniel due to its perceived fidelity to the original Hebrew and its comprehensive nature. Theodotion's translation became widely accepted and used in the Christian tradition, influencing later biblical manuscripts and translations.

By the 2nd Century, Th-Dan was the principal version of Daniel used by Christian communities.

Justin Martyr (c. 100–165)

Justin Martyr, an early Christian apologist and philosopher, frequently cited and used Theodotion's version of Daniel in his writings. In Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 80, Justin Martyr discusses Daniel 7:13-14, where he quotes a passage that aligns with Theodotion's wording rather than the Septuagint (LXX). This supports the claim that Justin Martyr considered Theodotion's translation to be more accurate and reliable for his theological arguments concerning Christ and prophecy.

Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202)
Irenaeus, an early Church Father and bishop of Lyons, quotes extensively from Theodotion's Daniel in his works, such as “Against Heresies.” This indicates that he appreciated Theodotion's translation for its clarity and fidelity to the Hebrew text. 

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215):
Clement, a Christian theologian and philosopher in Alexandria, also used Theodotion's Daniel in his biblical exegesis and theological writings. In his work “Stromata” (Stromateis), Book 1, Chapter 23, Section 155, Clement of Alexandria cites a passage from Daniel that aligns with Theodotion's version rather than the Septuagint (LXX). He discusses the prophecy of the seventy weeks in Daniel 9, which is a key passage used in theological and exegetical discussions. Clement's citation reflects his preference for Theodotion's translation for its clarity and theological significance.

Tertullian (c. 155–240):
Tertullian, an early Christian theologian and apologist, referenced Theodotion's version of Daniel in his treatises and polemical works. In his work “Against Marcion,” Book 3, Chapter 13, Tertullian discusses Daniel 7:13-14, where he quotes a passage that aligns with Theodotion's wording rather than the Septuagint (LXX). This supports the claim that Tertullian regarded Theodotion's translation as authoritative and relied on it for doctrinal arguments concerning Christ and prophecy.

Origen (c. 184–253):
Origen, a prominent Christian scholar and theologian in Alexandria, used Theodotion's Daniel in his biblical commentaries and textual studies. In his commentary on the book of Daniel, Origen frequently refers to Theodotion's version and compares it with the Septuagint (LXX) and other Greek translations. Oigen's discussions of Daniel often include comparisons between different textual traditions, highlighting his engagement with Theodotion's translation as an authority.

Jerome (c. 347–420):
Jerome, known for his translation of the Bible into Latin (the Vulgate), also favored Theodotion's version of Daniel. Jerome regarded Theodotion's translation as more faithful to the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) and superior to the older Greek versions, including the Septuagint (LXX), for its accuracy and completeness.

In Jerome's preface to Daniel in his Latin Vulgate translation, he explicitly discusses the differences between the Greek versions of Daniel and his rationale for preferring Theodotion's version over the Septuagint (LXX):

“Daniel the prophet, whom the Jews named Chaldean, who also among the Greeks has the name Δανιήλ, interpreting Ezekiel, whom they call Ιεζεκιήλ, has been translated into Latin anew, word for word, not according to the Seventy translators, who in this case also have a version not only differing from the original but even differing from the other interpreters... Therefore, as we have said, following the Seventy translators, I have restored their text in such a way that I have given it preference wherever they seem to say something better, to understand more clearly, or to make sense in a more complete manner.” (Jerome, Preface to Daniel in the Vulgate)

In this preface, Jerome discusses his method of translation and explicitly states his preference for Theodotion's version of Daniel over the Septuagint. He criticizes the Septuagint for its departures from the original Hebrew and other Greek translations, indicating that he found Theodotion's translation to be more faithful to the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) and superior in terms of accuracy and completeness. 

Jerome's endorsement of Theodotion's Daniel was influential in the Western Church and contributed to the acceptance of Theodotion's translation alongside his own Latin Vulgate translation, which became the standard Bible of the Western Christian Church for many centuries. His scholarly work on biblical texts, including Daniel, emphasized the importance of accurate translation and textual fidelity in biblical studies. 

Again, scholars generally consider the Theodotion version of the Book of Daniel to be more accurate and reliable compared to the Septuagint (LXX) version in this particular book. Theodotion's translation of Daniel is more detailed and closer to the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT), which is the authoritative Hebrew text of the Old Testament. The LXX version of Daniel, on the other hand, is known to be less consistent and faithful to the original Hebrew, especially in its translations of proper names and theological nuances. 

The more accurate Theodition version of Daniel indicates that the term latreia in the LXX version (OG-DAN) is a mistranslation and that douleusousin is a more appropriate rendering in Greek. 

In conclusion, there is no place in the Bible where latreia is clearly applied to Jesus. Those who appeal to the LXX version of Daniel 7:14 appeal to a contested translation, which scholars and early Christian writers considered an inferior Greek translation of Daniel. 

For more on the contrast between OG-DAN and Th-DAN see https://www.basedtheology.com/2023/06/two-greek-versions-of-daniel-predating.html

Revelation 4 and 5 show the distinction between the worship given to God and that given to Jesus

Revelation 4 and 5, which describes the throne room in heaven, is a perfect reference for distinguishing the workshop given exclusively to God and the type of worship that also applies to the Lamb of God (Jesus).

Revelation 4 describes the worship of God who is sitting on the throne, in verse 8:

“Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty,
who was and is and is to come!” (Rev 4:8 ESV)

In verse 10 God is referred to “him who lives forever and ever.” and is further worshiped in verse 11 as being described as the one who created all things:

“Worthy are you, our Lord and God,
to receive glory and honor and power,
for you created all things,
and by your will they existed and were created.” (Rev 4:11 ESV)

Jesus (the Lamb) is not identified in the scene until chapter 5 and is described in Rev 5:6 as standing between the throne and the four living creatures and the elders. This distinguishes him from being God as he is not sitting on the throne but rather in the midst of the throne between God and others. When the Lamb takes the scroll from God who is sitting on the throne, the Lamb is worshiped with the following attribution:

“Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.” (Rev 5:9-10 ESV)

and:

“Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!” (Rev 5:12 ESV)

 

The Lamb is not being given the attribution of being God who created all things as God is in Chapter 4. Rather, the Lamb is given the attribution that is appropriate to Jesus, as the one who was slain and, in doing so, ransomed people for God, and made them a kingdom. Only God in chapter 4 is given the attribution only appropriate to God as being the creator, the source, and the origin of all things according to his will.

Later, in verse 13 of chapter 5, when “him who sits on the throne” and “the Lamb” are being worshiped together, a blessing is declared for both:

“To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb
be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!” (Rev 5:13)

In Summary

1. Only God who sits on the throne is given the attribution that is appropriate to God alone (the one who created all things and by his will they existed and were created)
2. Jesus, the Lamb who stands in the midst of the throne (between God and others) is given the attribution that is appropriate to him. Not the attribution of being the creator that only applies to God. 
3. Both God who sits on the Throne and the Lamb can be worshiped together as deserving of blessing and honor, and glory.   

Thus, we worship God alone as the only True God, and Jesus being distinguished from God, is worshiped not as God, but as the Lamb who ransomed us and made us a kingdom, priests to our God. Here we see the appropriate distinction of how God is worshiped as compared to how Jesus should be worshiped.