Hi
@Clear,
@Dogknox20 ,
@tigger2 ,
@Hockeycowboy
I want to thank
@Clear for bring up the issue of
historical context as I believe this sways the translation properly towards "God" rather than "a god".
The event discussed occurs in the 1st century of the common era when Israel was no more than a vassal or client state of Rome.
As I see it, a mob attempting to stone someone for "making themselves 'a god'" would not only have garnered the attention of the Jewish client-state authorities, but of their Roman occupiers as well. Let's remember, Rome at this time is
pagan, and the law of land. Roman emperors often saw themselves as "gods" and many in Rome considered them deity.
Stoning somebody for making themselves "a god" would have sent a rather
powerful political message to Rome
(look what we do to "gods" around here). It's not something Pilate would have ignored and it's something the Sanhedrin would have wanted to sweep under the rug. In fact, had the crowd been able to seize Jesus at that time I see little chance of his case ever being referred to Pilate by the Sanhedrin, lest the Prefect hear that Jesus was nearly stoned for simply making himself "a god".
Thus "making yourself 'God'" sound much more likely than "making yourself 'a god'" and this without considering the effects of Greek Hellenization.
But there is more, stronger evidence for 'God' in the scripture itself.
_________________________________
Scripture explicitly tells us why the Jews picked up stones:
"The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy;..."
In
Leviticus 24:16 the punishment for blasphemy is death. In
Jewish law the
only form of blasphemy which is punishable by death is blaspheming the
name of the Lord.
(source)
Blaspheming anyone or anything else, like "a god" was never considered blasphemy by the Jews. In other words, you could claim you were Baal or "a god" all you want and you would not be stoned (although asking people to follow Baal would get you stoned, just not for blasphemy). As the Jewish Encyclopedia states:
BLASPHEMY:
Evil or profane speaking of God. The essence of the crime consists in the impious purpose in using the words, and does not necessarily include the performance of any desecrating act.
The text of the law in Leviticus provides that the stranger, as well as the native born, is liable to punishment for blasphemy. Talmudic tradition states that blasphemy was one of the seven crimes prohibited to the Noahides (Sanh. 56a), i.e., according to natural law. Although, according to Jewish law, a Jew who blasphemed a heathen deity was not guilty of the crime of blasphemy, Josephus ("Ant." iv. 8, § 10, after Philo, "Vita Mosis," 26; ed. Mangey, ii. 166) to the contrary notwithstanding, yet a heathen might be guilty if he blasphemed the name of the Lord (Baraita Sanh. 56a).
The only way I can see the Temple crowd stoning Jesus for the blasphemy of making himself "a god" in pagan occupied Israel is if the Jews thought the Father was also "a god". That would certainly tick off the crowd that a desecration of the Divine Name had taken place. Yet I don't see anyone here arguing the Father is "a god"...an argument pretty much necessary if we are to believe a stoning for blasphemy was about to take place.
As such, John 10:33 has been properly translated "God".
