<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: A Technical and Very Scholarly Piece of Work
Review: Despite the review below, Dr. Harris' book is very convincing. He discusses several verses which include the Greek 'theos' in reference to Jesus and describes why these verses point to Jesus as God. Dr. Harris is well aware of the context in which these references are used and this comes through quite clear in this text. Moreover, Dr. Harris delineates the semantical and syntactical issues of the texts with which he is dealing. He is very concise in his translations and has used an enormous amount of research material to come to his conclusions (i.e. strong footnote references and bibliography). This is a very careful, detailed, and comprehensive account of the 'theos' references to Jesus' being God. Furthermore, Dr. Harris spends time giving clear distinctions between certain words that are cognates and similar to 'theos' and describes why these words are used in their particular contexts. He compares and contrasts other verses that have similar usages, or slight nuanced differences and describes what is similar and different about each of these uses and why that is important to the text. This book is a serious thorn in the side of the Jehovah's Witnesses who have spent the last 60 or more years distorted the texts of Scripture to fit their own heretical view (Arian heresy). I highly recommend this book to anyone who is serious about researching the issues of Jesus being God. This is the definitive work in that area in the last several decades.
Rating: 
Summary: In general, a good book for reference
Review: I can first say that Mr. Harris' book is one of the more fair and honest evaluations of this subject. My experience in reading other books of this nature is that the authors usually take every opportunity they can to drum-up support for another verse that calls Jesus God (Theos). Mr. Harris, confident in his theology, feels no need to grasp at verses when it is obvious to him that they do not call Jesus theos. His book addresses the sixteen verses in the NT that persons think call Jesus theos and his final conclusion is, "The application to Christ of the title (theos) is exceedingly rare - only seven certain, very probable, or probable instances out of a total of 1,315 NT uses of (theos)." (page 274)However, Mr. Harris has failed to convince me that all seven verses that he lists as referring to Jesus as theos actually do refer to Jesus as theos. I doubt that he would condemn me too much for that statement since even he admits that some are "very probable" while others are only "probable." While Mr. Harris puts up a decent argument for his stance, this coming from his obviously being qualified to discuss this subject, other scholars, also equally qualified to discuss this subject, put up a good argument refuting Mr. Harris' argument. In the end, we have a number of scholars, all making good arguments for their position. What Mr. Harris deems as a more important facet to his argument, another scholar thinks is over rated. What another scholar states is a valid point for his argument, Mr. Harris says is over rated. In the end it really boils down to the personal preference and opinion of the scholar, which subsequently determines what level of value he places on a certain argument. To Mr. Harris' credit, he lists the scholars and arguments that do not agree with his conclusion. And I would like to recommend that Greg Stafford's book, "Jehovah's Witnesses Defended" be considered because he points out several issues he feels are incorrect in Mr. Harris' arguments. There are a few areas in this book that I do think Mr. Harris should be more responsible in backing up. For instance, on page 47 he states that the NT writers wrote their letters in light of their trinitarian understanding. I would challenge that statement. How can Mr. Harris justify that Jesus' apostles believed that God was three separate but equal and eternal persons in one God? What did Jesus say that would have given them that idea? How could Thomas have meant that at John 20:28? Since the official doctrine wasn't formulated until 325 CE, this seems to be a huge assumption on Harris' part. He also states that Rom. 9:5 and Titus 2:13 are the only places that Paul calls Jesus theos. He then confirms, "No one doubts that Paul generally- in fact, almost always- reserves the term (theos) for God the Father. But dominant usage is not exclusive usage." (pg 169) His argument is that 'yes, even though Paul always refers to the Father as theos (barring the two verses in question), this should not be allowed to determine the meaning of the two verse in question.' Mr. Harris has a point, but I believe he has under estimated and limited the authority and forcefulness of the 'habitual use and meaning of the term theos as Paul used it.' Paul's constant use of theos should have had more bearing on Mr. Harris' decision process regarding the two verses. Especially when a number of scholars and Bibles do translate in a way to show that Jesus is not God. When the decision comes down to theology, how the Bible and it's writers used theos must be an important aspect. Mr. Harris argues against several verses and their translation or supposed meaning since it appears to state the idea in an unnatural or unusual way. But Mr. Harris then admits on page 184, "one may observe that what is "natural" for a writer to say is not always what he does say." Indeed, it is a difficult thing to try and guess what someone 2000 years ago meant, especially when he wrote it in a now dead language. Today, misunderstandings occur among us and we speak the same language! Thus, Mr. Harris may do well to consider more seriously the 'habitual use' of the word theos. For a review of the hundreds of scriptures in the Greek text showing Jesus is not the one people thought was God, see the book"Jesus-God or the Son of God?", available here at Amazon.com
Rating:
Summary: CLASSIC TREATMENT OF THE SUBJECT
Review: Murray Harris has produced a classic, scholarly, objective treatment of this topic. He provides a wealth of information, but primarily focuses on the 16 verses which could seriously be considered to refer to Jesus as God; with a thorough examination of the 9 main verses, examining each in terms of the 1) context, 2) syntax, 3) punctuation, and 4) possible variant reading(s). Three excellent features, among so many others, include: 1) In many cases, he cites numerous authors of various alternative positions, and offers their arguments and their resulting "translations" of the passage. 2) The book is full of statistical studies (e.g., how many times the articular and anartharus use of theos is used by various biblical authors). 3) He frequently reveals the "characteristic manner" in which a particular biblical author refers to Jesus and God. Though Harris is extremely fair and objective, I did find his treatment deficient in two basic respects: 1) He concludes that the use of theos to refer to Jesus proves his deity, since it is a term that is primarily ontological in character, and, therefore, is an explicit and unequivocal affirmation that he is God. Yet, Harris has already shown that theos was used, even by the Jews and/or biblical writers themselves, to refer to other humans, angels, exalted patriarchs, etc.! Since the term, when used of these others, never meant they were God, the equivocation of Jesus with God needs demonstration. 2) At one point, Harris frankly acknowledges several texts that seem to drive an ontological wedge between Jesus and God (e.g., those which distinguish Jesus from the one who is God and Father). It should be pointed out, however, that Harris is generally far more careful in his arguments, and the conclusions he draws, than many scholars. This book is a gold mine, and will be a definite classic in its field.
Rating:
Summary: CLASSIC TREATMENT OF THE SUBJECT
Review: Murray Harris has produced a classic, scholarly, objective treatment of this topic. He provides a wealth of information, but primarily focuses on the 16 verses which could seriously be considered to refer to Jesus as God; with a thorough examination of the 9 main verses, examining each in terms of the 1) context, 2) syntax, 3) punctuation, and 4) possible variant reading(s). Three excellent features, among so many others, include: 1) In many cases, he cites numerous authors of various alternative positions, and offers their arguments and their resulting "translations" of the passage. 2) The book is full of statistical studies (e.g., how many times the articular and anartharus use of theos is used by various biblical authors). 3) He frequently reveals the "characteristic manner" in which a particular biblical author refers to Jesus and God. Though Harris is extremely fair and objective, I did find his treatment deficient in two basic respects: 1) He concludes that the use of theos to refer to Jesus proves his deity, since it is a term that is primarily ontological in character, and, therefore, is an explicit and unequivocal affirmation that he is God. Yet, Harris has already shown that theos was used, even by the Jews and/or biblical writers themselves, to refer to other humans, angels, exalted patriarchs, etc.! Since the term, when used of these others, never meant they were God, the equivocation of Jesus with God needs demonstration. 2) At one point, Harris frankly acknowledges several texts that seem to drive an ontological wedge between Jesus and God (e.g., those which distinguish Jesus from the one who is God and Father). It should be pointed out, however, that Harris is generally far more careful in his arguments, and the conclusions he draws, than many scholars. This book is a gold mine, and will be a definite classic in its field.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent treatment of the issues
Review: Simply put, this is one of the best works ever written on the issues involving Jesus' deity from an all-text-focused stance. Harris' protocol is extreme detail, and once again his work bears this out.
<< 1 >>
|
