John Collins is a Catholic? That surprises me in light of what his co-author, Adela Yarbro Collins, argues in in their joint work, “King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature”.

I assume you are referring to John J. Collins, right?

~Kaz

Have you read the book in question? Here are some quotes from “King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature”, by Adela Yarbro
Collins and John J. Collins, taken from the last chapter, which was written by Mrs. Collins.

The first quote has to do with Justin Martyr:

Quote
…the third clause of John 1:1 may be translated either “the word was God” or “the word was a god.” Justin Martyr apparently understood the passage in the latter way. According to Henry
Chadwick, “Justin had boldly spoken of the divine logos as ‘another God’ beside the Father, qualified by the gloss ‘other, I mean, in number, not in will.’” (p. 175 & 176)
End Quote

I have postulated in the past that Justin may have had John 1:1c in mind when he called the LOGOS “another god”, as this seems quite plausible. The grammar and context clearly favor an indefinite rendering at Jn 1:1c. Even if one doesn’t take the LOGOS to be a person (which I do), it seems that it is at least personified, perhaps echoing Prov. 8.

Collins further says:

Quote
…The Gospel and Revelation both present Jesus as preexistent and as divine in some sense. In the Gospel, he is either an emanation of God or God’s first creature, namely, the only-begotten god. In
Revelation, the evidence suggests that he is God’s first creature, namely, the principal angel. (p. 203)
End Quote

I believe that the gospel of John and the book of Revelation were written by the same person. Thus, if the evidence from Revelation suggests that Jesus is God’s first creature (and I agree that it
does), then the same would naturally be true for the Gospel of John. This would tend to favor rendering Jn 1:1c as “a god” rather than “God”, though it wouldn’t necessarily rule out the traditional rendering altogether. It would at least suggest parameters within which the traditional rendering should be interpreted.

Ms. Collins concludes the book by tying in Wisdom with the LOGOS of John:

Quote
“…it should be noted that personified wisdom participates *as a creature* in God’s activity of creation according to Prov 8:22 LXX and that the Son of Man in the Similitudes of Enoch participates in God’s sovereignty by sitting on the throne of God and by acting as judge in the last judgment.” (p. 213)
End Quote

Those are startling comments to be found in a book endorsed by a Catholic, don’t you think? If Athanasius were alive he’d be plotting to have them burned at the stake for even suggesting such interpretative possibilities!

Note also various comments that Mrs. Collins makes in her review of Larry Hurtado’s magnum opus, parts of which can be read here:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/yc9u7w8

~Kaz

P.S. I had a hunch that they were married, but when I sent an email to Mrs. Collins to ask a question I felt it presumptuous to ask.

New perspective on Jesus?