This discussion has reached a point of diminishing returns. Perhaps you can point me to a book that you think exemplifies argumentation all the way through that is not “under-developed” and that presents a solid case for the Christology that you favor. Then we can all judge for ourselves whether this criticism you are making is at all meaningful.

I think I can say without fear of contradiction that no such book has been published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. Wouldn’t you agree?

~Kaz

I don’t think it’s “prejudicial” to point out that under-developed argumentation is not likely to make the “cumulative case” that you seek to make, at least not for those who are well informed and who disagree with you based on well-informed conclusions. In presenting a “cumulative case” argument you wish to establish a “pattern” of thought/understanding that supports your conclusion. However, as you are no doubt aware, a pattern only exists if the threads of the pattern really exists. If one removes enough threads then a perceived “pattern” can disappear or even change into something different.

One can reveal how evidence really supports one’s view or one can message evidence in an effort to make it seem to support one’s view. Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians are probably alike in that they both feel that the other is guilty of the latter while they believe that they themselves practice the former. Because of this, if someone from either of these camps wishes to establish his/her case to the other camp, then under-developed argumentation will not suffice. Only rigorous argumentation will have the potential to persuade. If one is not determined to persuade but seeks instead to provide those of like mind with a sort of quick-reference guide to support what they already believe, then that one will be content to offer a book such as the one you’ve recently co-authored.

By the way, the fact that you “discussed” the Psalms 90:2 vis a vis the possibility that it is an example of a PPA doesn’t mean that you’ve addressed it satisfactorily in support of your view, just as the fact that you “discussed” John 8:58 with Professor BeDuhn doesn’t mean that you established your view as correct or that his is wrong.

~Kaz

Your way of characterizing my understanding of the identity of Jesus Christ is, understandably, prejudicial.

Describing my book as a “quick reference manual for those who already believe in the Trinity” does not do justice to the cumulative weight of the evidence presented. You are doing exactly what Ed and I predicted anti-Trinitarians would do: fixate on a few select points where you think an alternative reading of a text is possible or preferable, and treat that isolated point as if it were representative of the entirety of the evidence presented in the book. Not surprisingly, more than two years later, this is what we find, not only from individuals posting casual comments like yours (where little more can be expected), but even in books supposedly refuting the position we take in our book. This includes the third edition of Stafford’s book, David Barron’s new book, and at least one other book. The strategy in each case is the same: include a few citations from _Putting Jesus in His Place_, enough so that the author presumably can claim to have “dealt with it,” but fail to engage the spectrum of evidence.

Most if not all of the points you bring up concerning John 8:58 I have already thoroughly discussed in my online debate with Jason BeDuhn, cited in my book. This includes the suggestion that Psalm 89:2 LXX might also be described as a PPA. So, you’re a few years late with this argument.

I grant that your argumentation vis a vis John 8:58 could be said to be sufficient for the purpose of the book, as said book appears to be designed as a sort of pro-Trinity quick reference manual for those who already believe in the Trinity. Just know that the sort of argumentation you offer vis a vis John 8:58, John 1:1c, and other verses, is not likely compel many who are informed and who don’t already agree with you about Jesus’ appropriate “Place”, which, for you, is not just as God’s Son but as the same God whose Son he is said to be, a proposition that appears to dance with a cryptically-dressed oxymoron.

Your dismissal of my comment about your failure to show a connection between John 8:58 and Psalm 90:2 appears to be, well, “irrelevant”. I would suggest that it actually _is_ relevant to point out that the two verses are found in very different contexts, and that there doesn’t appear to be any connection between the two accounts. It _is_ relevant to point out that John 8:58 is found in a context in which the question has to do with both Jesus’ age and his identity, and that the implicit identity is more naturally satisfied by “Messiah” than by “eternal God”, whereas in the account in Psalms 90:2 God’s identity as such is explicitly declared. It _is_ relevant to note that, if Psalms 90:2 does in fact focus on God’s eternality, then this emerges, not from the present tense verb or the grammar alone, but from the context, which includes the combination of the present tense verb with “everlasting to everlasting” (if such is in fact the best rendering of the underlying Greek/Hebrew).

Of course, it is possible, perhaps even likely, that the point of Psalms 90:2 isn’t God’s enternality in both directions, but his Godship from the eternal past up until the point of the Psalmist’s speech. One commentator was close when he declared that a better translation would be:

“‘before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever thou hast formed the earth and the world, Even from age to age thou wast God.’ This assertion simply states that God existed from one age to another in all of the eternity in the past–prior to the creation of the world. This, is what Moses by the Spirit of God, said.”

Found here:

http://www.biblicalresearch.info/page92.html

Better yet, I would suggest the following translation:

“Before the mountains were born or ever you formed the earth and the world, even from age to age you have been God”.

If I were a betting man I’d be willing to wager that if I could establish that the translation I’ve offered were incontestable, you’d eagerly embrace McKay’s preferred rendering. I can hear you declare: “The use of the PPA at John 8:58 reminds us of the use of the PPA at Psalms 90:2 where God is said to exist in the eternal past. Yes, the PPA proves that Jesus had no beginning, and that he therefore must have always existed as the eternal Deity.”

Sound about right?

~Kaz

_Putting Jesus in His Place_ is an *overview* of the biblical material pertaining to the divine identity of Jesus Christ. The Scripture index alone runs 26 pages. We did not have the space to “develop” each argument to the nth degree, nor did we claim to do so. That’s why the book has 75 pages of endnotes, filled with references to additional literature that “develop” the points made in further detail. So your criticism that my argument on John 8:58 was insufficiently “developed” ignores the nature of the book you are criticizing.

Your objections to the comparison between John 8:58 and Psalm 90:2 (89:2 LXX) are irrelevant. Prose statements in the NT often echo statements in the poetic literature of the OT, including the Psalms; this is not a cogent criticism. NT texts also frequently use OT language where the “subject and context” are different, so this is not a valid criticism, either. My argument turns on noting the unusual verbal-grammatical parallels between the two Greek texts and drawing the inference that Jesus in John 8:58 is expressing his preexistence in a way that is verbally parallel to the way God’s preexistence is affirmed in the Psalm. This is not a violation of the hermeneutical principle you quoted from my book.

Thanks for the link, I’ll try and find time to check it out.

~Kaz

Thanks for clarifying this, I appreciate it. As you know, my own view of your latest discussion of John 8:58 (i.e. in Putting Jesus in His Place, pp. 96 & 97) is that you simply didn’t develop your arguments sufficiently, and so I was curious if Stafford had the same impression.

Aside from your observation that most scholars believe that John 8:58 is implying more than K.L. McKay apparently sees (i.e. you appeal to authority) along with the reaction of the Jews in verse 59 (which Stafford addresses in depth), the only other “argument” you offered was a perceived connection between Psalms 90:2 and John 8:58. To this I would simply say that there doesn’t appear to be any reason to think that there is a connection. One is poetry while the other is dialogue, and the subject and context are completely different. Thus, to this part of your argument I would simply remind you of your own words:

“It is a common error to bring together two or more unrelated texts of Scripture and thereby derive a doctrine or practice completely foreign to the Bible.” (Understanding Jehovah’s Witnesses: Why They Read the Bible the Way They Do. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989), p. 34

~Kaz

This chapter of a forthcoming book, might be of interest to you Introduction to God…with Us, by Scott Oliphint.

You said:

“One of the beauties of the alternative I’ve offered, esp. taken in conjunction with the Unitarian view of God and Christ, is that it seems to allow you to avoid all of the problems inherent to the orthodox understanding of Christ.”

The funny thing is one of the reasons that I believe the orthodox understanding of Christ is because I believe that is what the bible teaches and that is why it’s orthodox.

Another reason is because I believe it avoids all the problems inherent to the unorthodox understandings of Christ, and there are many.

Thank you for the link I won’t promise that I’ll read it but I may. I just received JWD third adtion as well and have many books and articles on my list to last a lifetime.

Chris