Here is part of the problem: you misquoted Watts. You left the impression Watts was saying the “Scriptures” don’t say Jesus was “the” son of God, only “a” son of God.

After following your link, it is clear Watts was only speaking of one instance where Jesus does not use the definitive article. Even so, the lack of the definitive does not demand “a” as an article. (Watts did *not* say Scripture did not call Jesus “the son”—only this one instance—intentionally or no, you misrepresented Watts’ comment). This is *not* an example of mistranslation.

There is much I can appreciate about Watts’ lectures. Although they are very dated.

All the same, Watts picks and chooses his references. I agree John is not a 2nd century document but rather 1st century which makes it all the more problematic for his thesis. He is putting an anachronistic view on to Jesus—and he half admits it when he suggests Jesus didn’t have the language of the far east to describe his experience. But it is sheer supposition on Watts’ part to suggest Jesus had an esoteric experience that he couldn’t describe. (This is called eisegesis or “reading something into a text” instead of exegesis: reading and interpreting what comes out of the text).

Note, too, Watts was not a Christian clergyman first--he was a follower of Eastern philosophy who entered into seminary to tie in his theories. So, he did not exactly enter into these studies without serious presuppositions.

I would suggest that if Jesus were promoting a movement of self-awareness, he wouldn’t have been crucified by Rome. There were plenty of esoteric religions and mystery religions in Rome. They were not threatening to Empire at all. If Jesus wanted to create a movement of self awareness, there was language available for that.

Contrary to Watts, the very language used by Jesus and his first followers is very political and aimed right at Rome. “Son of God”, “Lord,” gospel,” “savior”, “peace,” we’re all popularly used to describe Caesar and Rome. Jesus was well aware of this—and his followers kept using the terms knowing the implications.

(Note “Lord” was a double entendre—the euphemistic reference to YHWH, Israel’s God and the title applied to Caesar). If Jesus is Lord, then Caesar is not. John even quotes Isaiah 6 referencing YHWH and says Isaiah was talking about Jesus because he saw his glory.

So much more. I recommend you explore another Anglican priest who is a historian and Scholar named N T Wright. Wright teaches at Oxford and is recognized as a world-renowned and first-class scholar by a variety of traditions. He’s also current with the research.