I’ve searched up, I’ve searched down, I’ve looked all over Steven Hay’s post, and I still found no Exegesis of John 10:34–36. I have asked so many times; 3 posts ago I made sure to only comment on the distractions in a comment, so that we could focus on the actual text in question—yet Steven jumped on the distractions and ignored the text. 2 posts ago I ignored the distractions, commenting only on a few side issues to focus on the actual text in question—he still refused to exegetes the text. 1 post ago I ignored everything except for John 10:34–36 and John 10:30, putting a special emphasis on John 10:34–36 and begging him to give a coherent exegesis that accounts for the text in its context. He still hasn’t done it. He certainly has posted responses; he’s brought up all kinds of arguments against my refutation of his reading of John 10:30, but all he’s really said about Verses 34–35 (which was the entire point of this incredibly exasperating exchange) is that it is, some how, an a fortiori, without explaining what the argument actually is and how it makes sense of the text in the context of Jesus responding to a charge.
So I’m going to go a little bit backwards here in responding to Steve Hays latest response to me. I’m going to start with John 10:34–36, which was, originally, the entire point of this exchange, and in my view the point of dispute. I’m going to ignore all the other distractions untill we can get out of Hays an actual coherent exegesis of the text in dispute. I have a straightforward reading of that passage and I’ll give it below.
Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’?
Citing Psalms 82 where beings, which are not Yahweh, are called gods.
Me and Steven Hays have been going at it over a couple posts, and we’re kind of going in circles and I feel like the points are being lost, so I’m going to focus on the main points here. The main points in this dialogue are, in my opinion, what was Jesus’ claim that his enemies were responding to, and how did Jesus reply to their accusations.
Steven sees an allusion to the Shema in John 10:30, I don’t, in fact I don’t see any evidence whatsoever for an allusion to the Shema, the only word that is the same is the word “one” and John 10:30 uses a different form of that word. Therefore, I’m going to ask Steve Hays again, what evidence is there that Jesus is alluding to the Shema, here is John 10:30:
It looks like the debate between me and Steve Hays over John 10:30–36 is still going on. He replied to my post which was a response to a response of a criticism of an exegesis. I think this debate is important, not only for Christology—but also for how we do exegesis. You’ll see that both me and Steve Hays have different approaches to exegesis, it’s up to you do decide which one is more consistent and faithful to the text. In this response I’m going to focus on the issues of the Shema in John 10:30, and the actual exegesis of John 10:34–36, the rest of the post (John 1, the concept of messiahship, and so on) I’ll deal with in the comment section so as to keep this debate on subject.
On the Shema in John 10:30 Hays says:
In my last post I responded to a rather bad exegesis of John 10:30-36 by Steve Hays, I say it’s bad with no disrespect, all trinitarians readings of this text are going to end up being bad exegesis. Steve has since replied to my response and I feel I would be remiss if I didn’t given his defense of his reading a good shot and a reply. So here it goes:
Some guy named Roman A. Montero–evidently a unitarian–attempted to respond on Tuggy’s behalf to a post of mine.
Not on Tuggy’s behalf, on my own behalf, I can only speak for myself.
I recently came across a blog post by a Steve Hays who was arguing with philosopher and Unitarian Dale Tuggy on John 10:30-36. Hays gave an exegesis … a bad one, but unfortunately Dale didn’t really argue against it. So I figured I’d break down his exegesis point by point:
i) The context of the Jn 10:30 is a dispute over the identity of Jesus. The context of 10:30 is a Jewish audience who recited the Shema every day. The only way Jesus could reasonably expect them to interpret his statement is an allusion to Deut 6:4. In context, the statement would inevitably trigger that association. Hence, he’s claiming to be the Lord of the Shema.
Interfaith Dialogue is a bizarre phenomenon; I never know exactly what the point is. Is it just to find one what various traditions agree on? If so what’s the point? Where is the dialogue? Is it to compare doctrines? To what end? Also, dialogue on what basis, addressing what questions? Different religions address different questions with different assumptions. John Milbank puts it right in his essay “The end of Dialogue”:
The Event of dialogue, since its Socratic beginnings, assumes a commonly recognized subject matter and certain truths that can be agreed about this subject matter by both (or all) participants)
And then at the end of the Essay:
In the course of such a conversation, we should indeed expect to constantly receive Christ again, from the unique spiritual responses of other cultures. But I do not pretend that this proposal means anything other than continuing the work of conversion.