The best approach to word studies is the synchronic method; that is, one should consider what terms possibly mean at a certain time--not what they potentially denote through history. Finding the "exact meaning" of a word can be extremely challenging or elusive, but fortunately there are entries in the major NT lexica for terms, including the word θεόπνευστος.
BAGD supplies us an example from Plutarch: THS QEOPNESTOU SOFIHSLOGOS ESTIN ARISTOS. It also recommends the thorough work by B.B. Warfield "Revelation and Inspiration" 27, 229-259. Lastly, BAGD lists 2 Tim. 3:16 and then provides "inspired by God" for θεόπνευστος.
Nevertheless, one caveat needs to be made. Warfield cites the source this way:
In the unique passage, Plutarch, de placit. phil., 5, 2 (Mor. 904, 2): ‘tous oneirous tous theopneustous kat anagken ginesthai’. ‘Tous de phusikous aneidolopoioumenes psuches to sumtheron aute ktl’., it is very probably to be ascribed to the copyist, and stands, as Wyttenbach conjectures, in the place of ‘theopemptous’. Besides this it occurs in Pseudo- Phocylides, v. 121: ‘tes de theopneustou sophies logos estin aristos’— unless the whole line is, with Bernays, to be deleted as disturbing to the sense—as well as in the fifth book of the “Sibyllines,” v. 308: ‘Kume d he mora sun namasi tois theopneustois’, and v. 406, ‘Alla megan genetera theon panton theopneuston En thusiais egerairon kai hagias ekatombas’. The Psuedo-Phocylides was, however, a Hellenist, and the author of the fifth book of the “Sibyllines” was, most probably, an Egyptian Jew living in the time of Hadrian. On Christian ground we find it in II Tim. iii. 16, which is possibly the earliest written employment of it to which we can point.
I need to verify the exact wording myself, but the main point of this missive is what θεόπνευστος possibly denotes. See https://www.the-highway.com/God-Inspired-Scripture_Warfield.html
Louw-Nida has: "θεόπνευστος, ον: pertaining to a communication which has been inspired by God--inspired by God, divinely inspired" (Semantic Domain 33.261). Ralph Earle writes that the phrase "Given by inspiration" (KJV) is "one word in Greek, QEOPNEUSTOS (only here in NT). It literally means 'God-breathed'--QEOS, 'god,' and PNEW, 'breathe.' That is, God breathed His truth into the hearts and minds of the writers of Scripture. The best translation is 'God-breathed' " (NIV).
Yet Louw-Nida warn us that a dictational view of θεόπνευστος should not be adopted (33.261). So we must acknowledge that God apparently did not dictate his thoughts to men. Furthermore, as we study the Bible, we find that concepts are not limited to words: one should not confuse Wort with Begriff. For example, the book of Hosea hardly uses the word (or related terms) "love." Yet the Divine acts depicted therein give evidence of Jehovah's love even if the prophet does not employ the exact term. Linguistically speaking, one word can be used to express many different concepts (polysemy) and one concept can be expressed by many different words (synonymy or overlapping relations).
Applying this principle to θεόπνευστος, it can be observed that while the word does not mean "infallible and inerrant," we are seemingly justified inferring that when God speaks--He speaks utterances that do not contain error and untruth. If we compare 2 Pet. 1:20, 21 with 2 Tim. 3:16, we may conclude that θεόπνευστος suggests infallibility and inerrancy. As the psalmist writes: "The sayings of Jehovah are pure sayings, As silver refined in a smelting furnace of earth, clarified seven times" (Ps. 12:6, 7).
See http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=qeo/pneustos
http://bbwarfield.com/works/inspiration/
48 comments:
The point of focus is "scripture" (singular) combined with the preceding verse. What exactly is being referenced here?
The same writings are called ἱερὰ γράμματα in 2 Tim. 3:15 In English, we also use both the plural and singular form when referring to Holy Writ. Scholars usually argue that πᾶσα γραφὴ specifically refers to the Tanach, but one could make an argument for extending the term to the Christian-Greek Scriptures as well.
As Warfield writes, at the link I provided:
"Whether Paul, looking back at the Sacred Scriptures he had just mentioned, makes the assertion he is about to add, of them distributively, of all their parts, or collectively, of their entire mass, is of no moment: to say that every part of these Sacred Scriptures is God-breathed and to say that the whole of these Sacred Scriptures is God-breathed, is, for the main matter, all one."
He is writing from the perspective of the tanakh being a fixed entity. It was not as the DSS and other evidences now demonstrate. Opposed Moses ... Opposed truth does not point to a tanakh but rather as the Jews understood it, the teaching and path (Torah). From a Jews perspective anything else would be an augmentation. The Pharisees who were steeped in helenism and evident Persian influence may have argued otherwise but this is what Paul had departed from. I think you probably already know the arguments of Nehemia Gordon on Pharisee Vs Karaite but even this was a construct of the period. The one constant of scripture to all Jews was the Torah.
My point is that no other canonical books for the Hebrew Bible were produced after 2 Timothy was written, since the books that now form the Tanach had already been written. Even the NT (CGS) alludes to the familiar division of Law, Prophets, and Psalms (or the Writings). There is good evidence that this way of arranging the Hebrew Bible (Tanach) was already recognized in ancient times.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zVNHnw_Uu1cC&pg=PA300&lpg=PA300&dq=law+prophets+writings+priority&source=bl&ots=fYaDks-Y9a&sig=Ni7GHzk8_h4f0zfg34Ef2vBLK9I&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjx2duttdLLAhUEfRoKHXHIBlUQ6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=law%20prophets%20writings%20priority&f=false
As I said, Torah has priority.
http://biblehub.com/luke/24-44.htm
We can be fairly confident of what is meant by law (IMO a poor translation since that is only a specific application of the principles to be applied "in the land"), but as for the subsequent categories things are not so clear as to actual content.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RWqLVc7ccG0C&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=law+prophets+writings+priority&source=bl&ots=oB_fRN7YJO&sig=TV0kdqnAVOlm_gceYI224LPVq8o&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi7ztLG8tLLAhXD1hQKHWPvCrgQ6AEIMTAI#v=onepage&q=law%20prophets%20writings%20priority&f=false
I don't know that I disagree with Torah having priority, but my comments pertained to the original text from 2 Timothy. I don't believe that 2 Tim. 3:14-17 is confining the inspired holy writings or scripture to Torah (= Law). However we date the letter--in the 60s or later--one could still make a case for the Tanach being completed by then. If the 2nd letter to Timothy was produced later, which seems unlikely, we could be even more certain that Paul has the entire Tanach in mind and not just the Pentateuch or Torah.
The link you supply from Lemche quotes Josephus, who refers to the Law, the prophets and the writings too. Again, I'm emphasizing that the writer of 2 Timothy recognizes the Hebrew Bible as an inspired work.
https://redeeminggod.com/all-scripture-god-breathed/
This page makes observations but my point is more fundamental taking into account that the DSS, as I have mentioned before, does not come from the pottery works of qumran. And the likeliest origin for this level of wealth (since the shear expence to produce works like this at the time) probably came from the temple in jerusalem. What is termed psudopigrapha was probably not written as a flight of fancy as we would expect today. So what as a collective is the "prophets", the "psalms" or "writings" at this time? What is the evidence that theopneustos should be understood as you mention?
I will provide more information on your other question about the Tanach in the first century, due to our CO visit and the memorial taking place the same week. But I hope you have a chance to read Dan Wallace's comemnts if you have not already sought them out. I have his grammar, and there's an article online that deals with 2 Tim 3:16 and the syntax of the passage. See https://bible.org/article/relation-2-timothy-316
Here is another link that addresses the Hebrew-Aramaic canon issue. Sundberg presents good evidence that the Tanach was canonized before Jesus' birth or a little time after his birth. There is also good evidence for the threefold division of Torah, Prophets and the Writings, as you'll see when reading this information: http://department.monm.edu/classics/Speel_Festschrift/sundbergJr.htm
You might have even told me about this article many months ago.
Supposed documentary evidence of canons does not make this a period universal understanding. What is being referenced in 2 timothy is the temple documents which evidence seems to show was broader in scope than the Pharisaical canon and this is still my point. Writings - which writings? Prophets - which prophets? There was more of both available. Hebrew canon or sepatguint canon?
I've seen little to no evidence that would prove Paul and other 1st century followers of Jesus accepted more than 39 books as part of the Hebrew-Aramaic canon. 2 Tim 3:14-15 does not just say "writings," but the "holy writings" (ἱερὰ γράμματα).
We can get a good idea of what early Christians considered authoritative from the Hebrew Bible by examining their use and quotations of material from the Hebrew scriptures. What evidence suggest that the Pseudepigrapha formed part of the 1st century Hebrew canon? The link I provided sheds light on what prophets might have been accepted by Paul, Timothy and other Christians. It appears that Jeremiah, Zechariah, even Daniel was viewed as canonical then.
it's most likely that Timothy knew Hebrew books or their overall content, since his mother and grandmother were Jewish. Yes, his father was Greek, but he appears to have been non-Christian. On the other hand, we know that Christians also made use of the OG/LXX and quoted it liberally.
One question is - If Jude did not see other sources as canon then why quote them in such a matter of fact way?
Some possibly in fragmentary form in the DSS archives.
One thing I have difficulty accepting is that pseudepigrapha was written for recreational purposes (Like modern fiction), taking into account the comparative cost & education required vs the limited readership.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/apocrypha.html
"Among the Dead Sea Scrolls were a number of manuscripts of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, including ten manuscripts of the Book of Enoch in the original Aramaic"
Ten copies is significant by anyone's reckoning of DSS representation.
As far as ἱερὰ γράμματα is concerned, no conclusions can be made from this as it is only used once.
2 Maccabees 8:23 can be compared but still does not define but could easily mean Torah.
Regarding Jude: we're not sure he quoted 1 Enoch or The Assumption of Moses/Testament of Moses (the lost ending) although he might have. Even granting that he did quote non-canonical material, that's no guarantee that he viewed the writings as authoritative. Early church writers freely quoted Enoch and other uninspired writings, but they made a clear distinction between authoritative and non-canonical writings. See Origen's Peri Archon 3 and Jerome's Vulgate.
I wouldn't say the pseudepigraphal writings were meant to be recreational, but neither was the rabbinic literature like the Midrashim, the Gemara, the Mishnah or the Talmud. These works are commentaries on the inspired and authoritative writings or some comment on oral tradition.
Secondly, I would ask why we use the DSS to determine what's canonical. Whoever produced the DSS constituted one form (one faction) of Judaism more than likely. As you know, we have a mixture of literary types in the DSS that include commentaries on scripture and special works for the Qumranites.
ἱερὰ γράμματα used in the con text of 2 Timothy 3:16-16 suggest that holy scripture is the issue. What else would a young first-century Jew like Timothy have learned from his youth? Additionally, compare how Josephus and Philo use similar language to reference scripture. See also Jn 7:15.
I still think that it is probable that the majority of these dss texts come from Jerusalem even if not from the temple (which I still see as a probability) and I see no reason to assume that Pharisaical writings would hold priority in Jerusalem if anything we could more likely assume those of the Sadducees.
John 7:19 gives the context.
The same thing could be said for 2 Tim 3:15. That verse needs to be read in light of what is said about Timothy's upbringing, which usually involved more than learning Torah (the Pentateuch). Secondly, 3:16-17 might illuminate 3:15.
Furthermore, Jn 7:19 might suggest that the Torah is the subject in question, but again, that's not a necessary entailment from his words. Additionally, were his opponents merely observing that he had not learned the first five books? Education at the schools likely entailed more than learning Torah. Again, we also have the examples from Josephus and Philo.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-7ofAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA373&lpg=PA373&dq=ἱερὰ+γράμματα+josephus&source=bl&ots=_sfIbrPWQj&sig=nl2HOVcOzLtrtc3WB1JCjN94DCU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjoz6qP3NzLAhVLXBoKHeAuD0oQ6AEIHzAC#v=onepage&q=%E1%BC%B1%CE%B5%CF%81%E1%BD%B0%20%CE%B3%CF%81%CE%AC%CE%BC%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%B1%20josephus&f=false
Just came across another book which I will look at as time permits:-
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=b84SBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA183&lpg=PA183&dq="ἱερὰ+γράμματα"+philo&source=bl&ots=jKMTS8BsOR&sig=EhCYIOpau5UjT5XxQX9y-6zY4vg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwim2d6c3dzLAhUF2BoKHVXPC8UQ6AEIKDAG#v=onepage&q=%22%E1%BC%B1%CE%B5%CF%81%E1%BD%B0%20%CE%B3%CF%81%CE%AC%CE%BC%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%B1%22%20philo&f=false
I defer to DSS scholars on the scrolls' provencance. But I don't see how even they can know with any high degree of certainty. Why also limit the threefold division of Tanach to the Pharisees. Roger T. Beckwith presents an excellent case for rejecting the different canon idea. See http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/evangel/04-1_012.pdf
https://books.google.com/books?id=ZdJTPwAACAAJ&dq=roger+beckwith+canon+old+testament&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwitibyk4dzLAhXC5yYKHUewAb0Q6AEIHDAA
Note how some explain John 7:15, giving it a broader application:
http://classic.net.bible.org/verse.php?book=joh&chapter=7&verse=15
https://books.google.com/books?id=TTy5AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA283&lpg=PA283&dq=john+7:15+grammata&source=bl&ots=I1y2Gbe7MW&sig=yeOIH_Kym3wmu2ybOAZlia4jEtg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwje-5Ormd3LAhUMJiYKHfyMDccQ6AEIQDAF#v=onepage&q=john%207%3A15%20grammata&f=false
http://www.academia.edu/552389/John_7_1-24
Pharisaical Jews reasoned that the oral tradition was a continuation, not of the prophets or the writings but of the Torah.
A God given interpretational tool of the teaching. Isn't this the thing that Paul is speaking against? Isn't this the thing that Jesus never used? There are a few similarities in the Mishna but are recorded later so the origins of these are uncertain such as the golden rule variations.
So it is true that they were "unlettered". Not referencing the Religious traditions but sticking with the source material.
I agree that they Pharisees viewed things that way. Jesus castigated their view in Mt 15; Mk 7. Where did Paul speak against the oral tradition? I'm not saying the Pharisees should have placed the oral tradition above the written, but I just wonder where Paul explicitly condemns it?
Also, Jesus never used the rabbinical method, as the third link above notes. so I agree. He appealed to what was written; however, to say he was "unlettered" apparently meant that he did not have training from the rabbinic schools:
"The Jews therefore marveled, saying, 'How is it that this man has learning, when he has never studied?'" (ESV)
The question revolves around his knowledge of scripture (his learning) although he was not taught by the rabbis (he had never studied).
NET Bible renders: "he has never had formal instruction" (Jn 7:15)
In the footnote, it states: tn Grk “How does this man know learning since he has not been taught?” The implication here is not that Jesus never went to school (in all probability he did attend a local synagogue school while a youth), but that he was not the disciple of a particular rabbi and had not had formal or advanced instruction under a recognized rabbi (compare Acts 4:13 where a similar charge is made against Peter and John; see also Paul's comment in Acts 22:3).
I found it interesting how Vermes reasons the meaning behind the term "carpenter" and how it could be understood in the period. So Jesus could have had considerable education but as you say, not in the pharasaicle tradition.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tektōn#Hebrew_naggar_interpretation
http://criticalrealismandthenewtestament.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/educated-galileans.html
One thing that I find generally strange is why "breathed in by god" rather than "breathed out by god" - or is it "breathed in from god"?
For the apostle, I return to Acts 4:13, which likely refers to their lack of rabbinical training. Of course, it's also fallacious and hasty to conclude that someone's educational status ought to be judged by his/her place of birth.
I'm a little confused by the last remarks because the initial comments of the post do say "God breathed" means "breathed out by God."
To quote Ralph Earle:
"Given by inspiration" (KJV) is "one word in Greek, QEOPNEUSTOS (only here in NT). It literally means 'God-breathed'--QEOS, 'god,' and PNEW, 'breathe.' That is, God breathed His truth into the hearts and minds of the writers of Scripture. The best translation is 'God-breathed'" (NIV).
John 20:22. Why breathed as opposed to blew?
I'm not sure if you're asking about John 20:22 or 2 Tim 3:16, but we're obviously dealing with different words/forms in these verses. In Timothy, we understand the meaning to be "breathed" due to the "passive significance" of QEOPNEUSTOS (according to Warfield). I reference Warfield's work in the original blog post: it can be found online. The form is John 20:22 (a different word) is aorist, and the meaning is "breathed" rather than "blew." Breathing and blowing are obviously two different actions (Gen. 2:7).
I guess ἐμφυσάω can refer to the act of breathing or blowing, but I still see the actions as somehow distinct, and the meaning depends on context.
See https://ujcontent.uj.ac.za/vital/access/manager/Repository/uj:10182
We all breath, but to blow indicates purpose and direction. As you say, the difference seems present in Genesis 2:7 LXX but Nah 2:1 seems to be implying something more directed. Ezekiel 3:9 LXX does make it seem that blew is valid. Does the wind breath?
ABP Eze_37:9 And he said to me, Prophesy over the wind! Prophesy, O son of man, and say to the wind! Thus says the Lord the lord ; From out of the four winds, come wind and breathe onto these dead, and let them live!
Some of the distinctions being made could have more to do with English than Hebrew/Greek. That's the challenging part, but we normally say that the wind blows--not breathes. Literal breathing is usually attributed to humans and animals. On the other hand, Jehovah/spirits figuratively breathe and we speak of inanimate things breathing, but only in a metaphorical sense.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3326192/Watch-Earth-BREATHE-Nasa-reveals-stunning-video-showing-year-plant-life.html
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/09/the-earth-has-lungs-watch-them-breathe/
So I suppose you could look at it both ways but I would still have opted for blow at Eze 37:9.
Notice particularly what H. Wayne House writes about THEOPNEUSTOS:
http://server2.docfoc.com/uploads/Z2015/12/22/N1EQ9MRuii/dd14dfd01fe8320b46c8f5605b923d07.pdf
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=inspiration
My reference to breathing in, is in respect to the English term and it selection for translation in the earliest translations. Breathing and blowing are quite different. Breathing can inhale as well as exhale.
Comparing the english to the Latin makes me think that something is missing in the definitions and understanding of breath.
The etymology link is interesting and educational, but we have to be careful about imposing English thought on ancient Scripture. It's an easy thing to do, but when we look at how ancient writers use QEOPNEUSTOS and the contexts in which they use the term, it becomes easier to understand the translation "God-breathed" which appears to mean God breathed out his spirit on humans, and by that means, he produced holy writings.
So again, I suggest that we do word studies within their contexts in order to better comprehend what the writer likely meant. Even then, our understanding is only an approximate. So much goes into translation including a knowledge of social/cultural context.
The PDF of particular note:-
See foot note 18 which I am unable to view but is it in line with point 2 here:-
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VEcFTZu7uYoC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=%22%E2%80%9Cthis+context+the+word+%E2%80%98scripture%E2%80%99+probably+refers+to+the+Old+Testament+plus+that+portion+of+the+New+Testament+which+had+been+put+into+writing+at+this+point.%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=tQdCl3Reov&sig=xgAsS0iW0AUIJme0D7GZn84TGUA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj0j_TS_u7QAhUmDsAKHRPfAvcQ6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=%22%E2%80%9Cthis%20context%20the%20word%20%E2%80%98scripture%E2%80%99%20probably%20refers%20to%20the%20Old%20Testament%20plus%20that%20portion%20of%20the%20New%20Testament%20which%20had%20been%20put%20into%20writing%20at%20this%20point.%E2%80%9D&f=false
2 Tim 3:15 γραμματα which can be seen in the LXX as denoting the actual letters - symbols.
This could imply that the documentation referred to in 16 is in Hebrew.
I just found it interesting that earlier translators who should have been familiar with the Latin change the direction in the English.
"God-breathed" does not address the point "God-breathed out" or "God-breathed in" would. This is where the ambiguity possibly appears.
The articles by Warfield and House address the "breathed out/in" issue, IMO. When we consider use/usage and context, I think it clearly seems to be "breathe out."
Wycliffe translates: "For al scripture inspirid of God is profitable to teche"
Tyndale: "For all scripture geve by inspiracion of god is proffitable to teache"
Vulgate: "Omnis Scriptura divinitus inspirata utilis est ad docendum"
For good measure, here's Luther: "Denn alle Schrift, von Gott eingegeben, ist nütze zur Lehre"
and the ESV: "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching"
See Hengel here: http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/hengel01.pdf
Specifically, pages 99-102. That's the page numbers of the book, not the pdf itself.
This does lead me to another question. Is the term ever used for breathing in?
Post a Comment