I want to study Deuteronomy 12:15ff. Here is my initial post for this portion of the Pentateuch.
Deuteronomy 12:15 (ESV): "However, you may slaughter and eat meat within any of your towns, as much as you desire, according to the blessing of the Lord your God that he has given you."
(NWT 2013): "But whenever you desire it, you may slaughter and eat meat, according to the blessing that Jehovah your God has given you in all your cities. The unclean person and the clean person may eat it, as you would eat a gazelle or a deer."
Footnote: Or "in all the desire of your soul."
Robert Alter reckons that the word nephesh used in this passage most likely refers to appetite. Compare Psalm 107:9; see Alter, The Five Books of Moses.
Another exegetical issue is how one should understand the Hebrew particle be. Does it refer to the degree of craving (Richard E. Friedman) or to the frequency of craving (NJPS)? Alter thinks we should construe the particle locatively (i.e., "in"):
"The noun phrase itself, ’awat nefesh, suggests intense appetite, and the instructions that follow have to do chiefly with place—that henceforth the Israelites will be allowed to slaughter and eat meat wherever they happen to be, though sacrificial slaughter can take place only on the central altar" (The Five Books of Moses).
According to Alter, Deuteronomy 12:15ff deals with so-called "secular slaughter" in view of the fact that these rules would govern non-sacrificial uses of meat. Notice also that both clean and unclean persons could partake of the meat.
Yet another comment made by Alter is likewise enlightening:
"The one category of meat always permitted outside the cult was game, neither deer nor gazelle being among the animals specified for sacrificial use. Now, animals otherwise devoted to the cult (sheep, bulls, goats, rams) may be eaten without sacrifice, just as game is eaten."
Compare Genesis 27:1-4.
Turning to another work by Edward Cook, we read these observations about Deut. 12:15:
"This verse establishes a major change in religious and dietary practice (Tigay 1996: 124). Here we may observe an alteration to the previous legislation given at Leviticus 17:2–9, where the children of Israel were a pilgrim people within the wilderness setting. Now, the (profane) slaughter or sacrifice (zābaḥ) of animals otherwise suitable for the altar sacrifice (cf. Lev. 17:5) may be carried out on a par with the gazelle and deer (cf. 14:5) in any of their towns, according to the blessing of the Lord. Furthermore, the people need not be ritually clean in order to participate. This concession only has real meaning in the light of the anticipation of a central sanctuary at verse 18 (cf. vv. 5, 11, 14), and the impracticality of getting there frequently from distant places."
Sunday, September 30, 2018
Saturday, September 29, 2018
Another Question for Trinitarians
A question that crossed my mind today concerns ancient philosophical presuppositions about reality and change.
Aristotle contends that material objects constitute matter-form unities. For example, tables are made of some material (matter) like wood, but they table also has a form (tableness). The same principle applies to other material objects--whether chairs, houses or humans. But the story does not end there since Aristotle insists that God is "pure form," that is, pure actuality. Hence, God is a being with no potential because God is perfect (no room for change).
Looked at through this prism, here's my question to Trinitarians. Do you believe the preexistent Christ was actually human or potentially human? For if he was actually human (as God), then he did not become human. On the other hand, if he was potentially human, then it seems that he actualized that potency and thereby became human through a process of change. And if God cannot change, then how did Christ "assume" humanity (as Aquinas argues)? That point is also still unclear to me.
Aristotle contends that material objects constitute matter-form unities. For example, tables are made of some material (matter) like wood, but they table also has a form (tableness). The same principle applies to other material objects--whether chairs, houses or humans. But the story does not end there since Aristotle insists that God is "pure form," that is, pure actuality. Hence, God is a being with no potential because God is perfect (no room for change).
Looked at through this prism, here's my question to Trinitarians. Do you believe the preexistent Christ was actually human or potentially human? For if he was actually human (as God), then he did not become human. On the other hand, if he was potentially human, then it seems that he actualized that potency and thereby became human through a process of change. And if God cannot change, then how did Christ "assume" humanity (as Aquinas argues)? That point is also still unclear to me.
Thursday, September 27, 2018
The Present of Past Action and John 8:58
Richard Young uses the terminology "durative present" whereas McKay seems to prefer "present of past action" (1994:41-42). Both types of nomenclature describe an action that begins in the past and continues up until the present. Young lists Jn 14:9; 15:27; 1 Jn 3:8 as examples of durative presents. Wallace (1996:519-520) cites Lk 13:7; 15:29; Jn 5:6; Acts 15:21; 27:33; 1 Cor 15:6 (possible); 2 Pt 3:4; 1 Jn 3:8. I consider Jn 8:58 to be a durative present as well. Ego eimi in that verse accordingly can be translated, "I have been." Rolf Furuli argues that the translation, "Before Abraham came into being, I have been" (NWT), is somewhat "ungrammatical" (1999:237). He prefers K.L. Mckay's handling of the verse with the word "since" used. Nevertheless, both Furuli and other Norwegian linguists whom he consulted think the NWT rendering is superior to the common rendition, "I am" (1999:238). Also compare Brooks and Winbery on the durative present (1979:84-85).
McKay proposes the rendering, "I have been in existence since before Abraham was born."
McKay proposes the rendering, "I have been in existence since before Abraham was born."
Part of Gene L. Green's Remarks on 2 Peter 2:12--Taken from the Baker Exegetical Commentary
While the heretics have denied the inevitability of future judgment (3:3–10), Peter affirms that they, just as captured beasts, will be slaughtered: οὗτοι δὲ ὡς ἄλογα ζῷα γεγεννημένα φυσικὰ εἰς ἄλωσιν καὶ φθορὰν ἐν οἷς ἀγνοοῦσιν βλασφημοῦντες, ἐν τῇ φθορᾷ αὐτῶν καὶ φθαρήσονται (houtoi de hōs aloga zōa gegennēmena physika eis halōsin kai phthoran en hois agnoousin blasphēmountes, en tē phthora autōn kai phtharēsontai, But these, as irrational beasts, born in accord with nature to be captured and destroyed, slandering that about which they are ignorant, shall even be destroyed in their destruction). The source of Peter's thought is Jude 10, from which he draws a number of expressions, such as calling the heretics “irrational beasts” (οὗτοι δὲ . . . ὡς τὰ ἄλογα ζῷα, houtoi de . . . hōs ta aloga zōa, but these . . . as irrational beasts) and the comment on how they slander what they do not understand (ὅσα . . . οὐκ οἴδασιν βλασφημοῦσιν, hosa . . . ouk oidasin blasphēmousin, slander whatever they do not understand). Peter echoes other parts of Jude 10 yet gives them a somewhat different twist, such as the instinctual knowledge of the beasts (ὅσα δὲ φυσικῶς . . . ἐπίστανται, hosa de physikōs . . . epistantai, whatever they know by instinct), which becomes in 2 Pet. 2:12 a note about the nature of the beasts as creatures to be caught and slaughtered. Similarly, the moral corruption Jude 10 mentions (ἐν τούτοις φθείρονται, en toutois phtheirontai, by these they are corrupted) is morphed by Peter into a reflection on the heretics' final destruction. Whereas the emphasis in Jude 10 is on the corrupt character of the heretics, Peter's principal concern is with their final destiny. Once again, our author has adopted and adapted his source in a way that speaks directly to the situation at hand. The heretics' denial of future judgment is met by the declaration that they, as captured beasts, are destined to be destroyed. Peter compares the heretics to animals without reason, whose nature is to be captured and slaughtered. The comparison of a person's nature with that of the animals was a commonplace in ancient vituperatio (see Jude 10 and comments). The characteristic that Peter emphasizes is the irrationality of the animals. The expression ἄλογα ζῷα (aloga zōa) describes beasts (see Philo, Alleg. Interp. 3.9 §30; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.29 §213; Ant. 10.11.6 §262), underscoring their lack of reason. Plutarch (Mor. 493D) comments that “the irrational animals” (τὰ ἄλογα ζῷα, ta aloga zōa) follow “na- ture,” but by way of contrast, “in man ungoverned reason is absolute master.” Since the sixth/fifth century BC a debate had ensued in philosophical cir- cles about the nature and rights of animals and whether they should be killed or could be rightly ill-treated. The discussion concerning their nature (see Plutarch, Mor. 493C–D) centered on the beasts’ lack of rationality; Aristotle, later followed by both Epicureans and Stoics, denied them rationality and therefore concluded that justice need not be shown to them. “Epicurean ratio- nale . . . is that justice is owed only where there is a contract, hence only among rational agents” (OCD 90). Peter’s accusation that the heretics are as “irrational animals” sets the stage for his following statements about the de- struction for which they are destined.
I'll clean up the quote later.
Sunday, September 23, 2018
Four Basic Steps for Biblical Exegesis
1. Analyze the historical context of a passage. For example, what is the setting or historical context for 2 Timothy 1:7?
2. Look at what past scholarship has said about the verse or account. It would be interesting to do a literature survey on Psalm 82:1-6.
3. How does the verse/account contribute to the whole of Scripture? Not everyone agrees, but it seems that one part of the Bible relies on other parts. See Revelation 19:10, for example.
4. Perform textual analysis (if necessary). I.e., try to discern the original reading of the text. John 1:18 is a classic example for textual criticism; so is John 7:8, 1 John 5:7 and Revelation 20:5.
2. Look at what past scholarship has said about the verse or account. It would be interesting to do a literature survey on Psalm 82:1-6.
3. How does the verse/account contribute to the whole of Scripture? Not everyone agrees, but it seems that one part of the Bible relies on other parts. See Revelation 19:10, for example.
4. Perform textual analysis (if necessary). I.e., try to discern the original reading of the text. John 1:18 is a classic example for textual criticism; so is John 7:8, 1 John 5:7 and Revelation 20:5.
Friday, September 21, 2018
Romans 16:20 (Brief Notes)
Greek-ὁ δὲ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης συντρίψει τὸν Σατανᾶν ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας ὑμῶν ἐν τάχει. Ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ μεθ' ὑμῶν.
Syntax-Definite article (ὁ) occurs with the substantive word, "God" (θεὸς). The word for God is the subject nominative; continuative δὲ is the postpositive word here. On the other hand, Johann Albrecht Bengel thinks δὲ is adversative in this case (i.e., "but").
τῆς εἰρήνης is possibly a subjective genitive or could be a descriptive genitive.
συντρίψει-future active of συντρίβω ("shatter," "crush" or "bruise").
"The term συντρίψει, shall bruise, is evidently an allusion to the ancient promise, Genesis 3:15, which—strange to say—is referred to nowhere else in the N. T." (Frédéric L. Godet)
"There is an allusion to Genesis 3:15, though it is doubtful whether Paul found anything there answering to συντρίψει. The LXX has τηρήσει." (The Expositor's Greek Testament)
τὸν Σατανᾶν-accusative singular masculine of Σατανᾶς.
ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας ὑμῶν-"under your feet." Accusative; an expression also signifying that the subject has total control over the subordinate entity (LN 37.8).
ἐν τάχει-"speedily"
Syntax-Definite article (ὁ) occurs with the substantive word, "God" (θεὸς). The word for God is the subject nominative; continuative δὲ is the postpositive word here. On the other hand, Johann Albrecht Bengel thinks δὲ is adversative in this case (i.e., "but").
τῆς εἰρήνης is possibly a subjective genitive or could be a descriptive genitive.
συντρίψει-future active of συντρίβω ("shatter," "crush" or "bruise").
"The term συντρίψει, shall bruise, is evidently an allusion to the ancient promise, Genesis 3:15, which—strange to say—is referred to nowhere else in the N. T." (Frédéric L. Godet)
"There is an allusion to Genesis 3:15, though it is doubtful whether Paul found anything there answering to συντρίψει. The LXX has τηρήσει." (The Expositor's Greek Testament)
τὸν Σατανᾶν-accusative singular masculine of Σατανᾶς.
ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας ὑμῶν-"under your feet." Accusative; an expression also signifying that the subject has total control over the subordinate entity (LN 37.8).
ἐν τάχει-"speedily"
Thursday, September 20, 2018
William Mounce and 2 Timothy 1:7 ("Cowardice")
Timothy's supposed timidity has been overemphasized. δειλία occurs only here in the NT. However, there is good reason to question its translation as “timidity,” and the translation here will affect one’s view of Timothy’s character. (1) The general picture of Timothy is not one of a shy, timid person who had to be constantly encouraged, who had ceased using his spiritual gifts and needed to be urged to relight the fire (v 6; see Introduction). (2) δειλία is better translated “cowardice” (Ellicott; Fee; cf. BAGD 173; cf. Trench, Synonyms, 58–59), and even if Timothy may have been timid, he certainly was not a coward. δειλία occurs nine times in the LXX: Ps 54:5 speaks of the “terrors of death”; speaking of his enemies, Judas prayed that God would “fill them with cowardice [δειλίαν]; melt the boldness of their strength; let them tremble in their destruction” (1 Macc 4:32); when the Syrian Heliodorus came to Jerusalem to plunder the treasury, God “caused so great a manifestation that all who had been so bold as to accompany him were astonished by the power of God, and became faint with terror [δειλίαν] at the vision” (2 Macc 3:24; Heliodorus was struck down to the point of death, but raised up through Onias’s sacrifice); when Eleazar refused to obey Antiochus and eat pork, he said it would be shameful to break the law for cowardice (δειλίᾳ; 4 Macc 6: 20); δειλία is joined with fear (Sir 4:17) and confusion (3 Macc 6:19); if the Israelites disobey God, he will punish them severely (Lev 26:27–35), and he will make the heart of those who remain so fearful (δειλίαν) “that the sound of a windblown leaf will put them to flight” (Lev 26:36 [NIV]; cf. also Ps 89:40; Prov 19:15; and the cognate verb in Deut 1:21 and John 14:27). These passages show that δειλία means “cowardice” and not the weaker “timidity,” and it is highly doubtful that Paul is implying that Timothy was a coward. Also, if cowardice describes what Timothy was, “power,” “love,” and “self-control” would describe what Timothy was not, and this too seems unlikely. It is better to see Paul encouraging Timothy by calling him continually to act with power and love and self-control. Cowardice is merely a foil that serves to emphasize and define what Paul means by power (see Fee’s discussion of the οὐ/ ἀλλά, “not/ but,” construction in Paul in which “Paul’s concern is always expressed in the ἀλλά [‘but’] phrase or clause” [God's Empowering Presence, 788]).
Pastoral Epistles, Volume 46 (Word Biblical Commentary) (Kindle Locations 19547-19551). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
(Kindle Locations 19541-19547). Zondervan.
(Kindle Locations 19536-19541). Zondervan.
(Kindle Locations 19532-19536). Zondervan.
Some Basic Features of Epistemological Schemata
Epistemology refers to the theory of knowledge, and one writer defines epistemology as the critical analysis of cognition. The analysis of knowledge or cognition usually makes us question how we know what we know, or think we know? Here are four basic ways to reflect on epistemological schemas:
1. Academic disciplines/sciences only allow a limited degree of precision (Aristotle)--we cannot expect more than what a particular knowledge domain is capable of giving us.
2. Explanatory hypotheses have inherent limitations (Dan Robinson). Think of hypotheses as epistemological starting-points; they are axiomatic in this sense of the word.
3. Immanuel Kant limited knowledge to make room for faith. That is, he restricted knowledge's domain in order to posit moral faith and Kant thereby distinguished phenomena from noumena.
4. Competing hypotheses coterminously exist (Stephen Pepper). How do we determine which hypothesis has greater explanatory power?
5. It has been suggested that our knowledge of the cosmos has natural boundary limits imposed by the mind's inherent structure (Kant). On the other hand, does Kant's notion of the transcendental self wind up begging the question? Does he assume as true what needs to be proved?
1. Academic disciplines/sciences only allow a limited degree of precision (Aristotle)--we cannot expect more than what a particular knowledge domain is capable of giving us.
2. Explanatory hypotheses have inherent limitations (Dan Robinson). Think of hypotheses as epistemological starting-points; they are axiomatic in this sense of the word.
3. Immanuel Kant limited knowledge to make room for faith. That is, he restricted knowledge's domain in order to posit moral faith and Kant thereby distinguished phenomena from noumena.
4. Competing hypotheses coterminously exist (Stephen Pepper). How do we determine which hypothesis has greater explanatory power?
5. It has been suggested that our knowledge of the cosmos has natural boundary limits imposed by the mind's inherent structure (Kant). On the other hand, does Kant's notion of the transcendental self wind up begging the question? Does he assume as true what needs to be proved?
Wednesday, September 19, 2018
Cowardice, Fear, and Awe of the Divine (Words to a Friend)
Trench's Synonyms of the New Testament:
[End Quote]
δειλία is the word appearing in 2 Timothy 1:7 that's translated "fear" in the KJV, but "cowardice" by NWT. The word δειλία is only used pejoratively in the GNT; for φόβος, see Hebrews 10:31 and the language "fearful thing." I've also read that Hebrews 10:31 is alluding to/quoting from 2 Samuel 24:14, LXX.
The words in both verses are definitely similar, even if the meaning is not. The Insight book discusses dread, another facet of fear, and in addition to considering Hebrews 10:26-27, Insight mentions Hebrews 12:28.
Some things to consider.
x. δειλία, φόβος, εὐλάβεια.
Of these three words the first, δειλία, is used always in a bad sense; the second, φόβος, is a middle term, capable of a good interpretation, capable of an evil, and lying indifferently between the two; the third, εὐλάβεια, is quite predominantly used in a good sense, though it too has not altogether escaped being employed in an evil.
[End Quote]
δειλία is the word appearing in 2 Timothy 1:7 that's translated "fear" in the KJV, but "cowardice" by NWT. The word δειλία is only used pejoratively in the GNT; for φόβος, see Hebrews 10:31 and the language "fearful thing." I've also read that Hebrews 10:31 is alluding to/quoting from 2 Samuel 24:14, LXX.
The words in both verses are definitely similar, even if the meaning is not. The Insight book discusses dread, another facet of fear, and in addition to considering Hebrews 10:26-27, Insight mentions Hebrews 12:28.
Some things to consider.
Sunday, September 16, 2018
1 Corinthians 6:11 (Brief Notes)
1 Corinthians 6:11 (Greek): Καὶ ταῦτά τινες ἦτε· ἀλλὰ ἀπελούσασθε, ἀλλὰ ἡγιάσθητε, ἀλλὰ ἐδικαιώθητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἐν τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν.
Rogers and Rogers alerts us to the fact that ταῦτά (neuter form) is probably employed to signify contemptuousness (i.e., "such abominations!" EGT).
ἦτε is imperfect indicative active 2nd-person plural of εἰμί ("you were")
ἀπελούσασθε-"to wash, to wash thoroughly" (Rogers and Rogers)-aorist indicative middle of ἀπολούω. See Acts 22:16.
Rogers and Rogers likewise states that the aorist form indicates the Corinthians were washed thoroughly and decisively, citing Morris, but that might be an over-reading of the aorist since it's likely the default "tense" that portrays action as a whole.
Joseph A. Fitzmyer also suggests that ἀπελούσασθε potentially refers to the act of baptism, and since the word is middle voice, he quotes Steyn, who apparently believes the verb could be understood to mean, "you washed yourselves." However, compare 1 Peter 3:21. And even Fitzmyer alludes to BDAG 117, which states that ἀπολούω only appears as a middle form in the NT.
The aorists in this verse have been interpreted as divine passives (Fitzmyer). See the Anchor Bible Commentary on 1 Corinthians. But Paul D. Gardner suggests that ἀπελούσασθε might be understood to denote "you let yourself be [washed]"; yet he reckons the verb has "passive intent" and Gardner states that's how nearly all English bibles render the verb.
See Gardner, 1 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2018).
Finally, Rogers and Rogers view ἐν as instrumental dative, so it could be translated with "by."
Webster's Bible Translation: "and by the Spirit of our God."
Fitzmyer perceives a "triadic ending" (page 258) for 6:11 and others make comments about the holy spirit's deity. They profess 1 Cor. 6:11 supports the belief that God's holy spirit is also God (third person of the tripersonal deity); however, one could read the passage as proof for God using the spirit to accomplish his will without the spirit actually being deity (third person of the godhead).
Rogers and Rogers alerts us to the fact that ταῦτά (neuter form) is probably employed to signify contemptuousness (i.e., "such abominations!" EGT).
ἦτε is imperfect indicative active 2nd-person plural of εἰμί ("you were")
ἀπελούσασθε-"to wash, to wash thoroughly" (Rogers and Rogers)-aorist indicative middle of ἀπολούω. See Acts 22:16.
Rogers and Rogers likewise states that the aorist form indicates the Corinthians were washed thoroughly and decisively, citing Morris, but that might be an over-reading of the aorist since it's likely the default "tense" that portrays action as a whole.
Joseph A. Fitzmyer also suggests that ἀπελούσασθε potentially refers to the act of baptism, and since the word is middle voice, he quotes Steyn, who apparently believes the verb could be understood to mean, "you washed yourselves." However, compare 1 Peter 3:21. And even Fitzmyer alludes to BDAG 117, which states that ἀπολούω only appears as a middle form in the NT.
The aorists in this verse have been interpreted as divine passives (Fitzmyer). See the Anchor Bible Commentary on 1 Corinthians. But Paul D. Gardner suggests that ἀπελούσασθε might be understood to denote "you let yourself be [washed]"; yet he reckons the verb has "passive intent" and Gardner states that's how nearly all English bibles render the verb.
See Gardner, 1 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2018).
Finally, Rogers and Rogers view ἐν as instrumental dative, so it could be translated with "by."
Webster's Bible Translation: "and by the Spirit of our God."
Fitzmyer perceives a "triadic ending" (page 258) for 6:11 and others make comments about the holy spirit's deity. They profess 1 Cor. 6:11 supports the belief that God's holy spirit is also God (third person of the tripersonal deity); however, one could read the passage as proof for God using the spirit to accomplish his will without the spirit actually being deity (third person of the godhead).
Saturday, September 15, 2018
Florence the Storm
I'm aware that many of our blog readers undoubtedly are being affected by the recent weather developments. I live in NC, but don't believe my part of the state will suffer the things happening down east. I am concerned about all people, and especially those related to me in the faith (Galatians 6:10). Witnesses believe in prayer, and we take active steps to help our neighbors too. I am thinking about all who frequent this space: may we all do what's in our power to help others (Proverbs 3:27).
Edgar
Edgar
Isaiah 14:4 and 41:7 in LXX and Translation
Isaiah 14:4: καὶ λήμψῃ τὸν θρῆνον τοῦτον ἐπὶ τὸν βασιλέα Βαβυλῶνος καὶ ἐρεῖς ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ πῶς ἀναπέπαυται ὁ ἀπαιτῶν καὶ ἀναπέπαυται ὁ ἐπισπουδαστής
Brenton: "And thou shalt take up this lamentation against the king of Babylon, How has the extortioner ceased, and the taskmaster ceased!"
Knox: "it will be thy turn to have thy say against the king of Babylon. Can it be (thou wilt say) that the tyranny is over, the exactions at an end?"
Isaiah 41:7: ἴσχυσεν ἀνὴρ τέκτων καὶ χαλκεὺς τύπτων σφύρῃ ἅμα ἐλαύνων ποτὲ μὲν ἐρεῖ σύμβλημα καλόν ἐστιν ἰσχύρωσαν αὐτὰ ἐν ἥλοις θήσουσιν αὐτὰ καὶ οὐ κινηθήσονται
Brenton: "The artificer has become strong, and the coppersmith that smites with the hammer, and forges also: sometimes he will say, It is a piece well joined: they have fastened them with nails; they will fix them, and they shall not be moved."
NIV: "The metalworker encourages the goldsmith, and the one who smooths with the hammer spurs on the one who strikes the anvil. One says of the welding, 'It is good.' The other nails down the idol so it will not topple."
Gary V. Smith:
See Smith, Gary V. The New American Commentary - Isaiah 40-66: 15B (Kindle Locations 3322-3326). B&H Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Brenton: "And thou shalt take up this lamentation against the king of Babylon, How has the extortioner ceased, and the taskmaster ceased!"
Knox: "it will be thy turn to have thy say against the king of Babylon. Can it be (thou wilt say) that the tyranny is over, the exactions at an end?"
Isaiah 41:7: ἴσχυσεν ἀνὴρ τέκτων καὶ χαλκεὺς τύπτων σφύρῃ ἅμα ἐλαύνων ποτὲ μὲν ἐρεῖ σύμβλημα καλόν ἐστιν ἰσχύρωσαν αὐτὰ ἐν ἥλοις θήσουσιν αὐτὰ καὶ οὐ κινηθήσονται
Brenton: "The artificer has become strong, and the coppersmith that smites with the hammer, and forges also: sometimes he will say, It is a piece well joined: they have fastened them with nails; they will fix them, and they shall not be moved."
NIV: "The metalworker encourages the goldsmith, and the one who smooths with the hammer spurs on the one who strikes the anvil. One says of the welding, 'It is good.' The other nails down the idol so it will not topple."
Gary V. Smith:
the prophet describes their deluded trust in idols made by skilled craftsmen, goldsmiths, and other workers (41:7).160 The builders of these idols say that the results of their effort to construct this man-made god are “good”, but Gen 1:12,31 indicates that only what God created was “good.” In order to show how precarious the strength of their faith in the idol was, the prophet explains that it all depends on the nail or peg that will keep the idol standing up securely on a pedestal.
See Smith, Gary V. The New American Commentary - Isaiah 40-66: 15B (Kindle Locations 3322-3326). B&H Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Sunday, September 09, 2018
Moses: The "Meekest" or "Most Humble" Man? (Numbers 12:3)
I've noticed that Numbers 12:3 NWT Study Bible states that Moses "was by far the meekest of all the men" on earth's surface. The footnote adds: "Or 'was very humble (mild-tempered), more so than any other man.'"
NET Bible treats Numbers 12:3 as a parenthetical statement: "(Now the man Moses was very humble, more so than any man on the face of the earth.)"
It explains that the difference in how one reads 12:3 depends on the familiar kethib-qere distinction. Furthermore, NET gives this supplemental information: "The word עָנָו (’anav) means 'humble.' The word may reflect a trustful attitude (as in Pss 25:9, 37:11), but perhaps here the idea of 'more tolerant' or 'long-suffering.' The point is that Moses is not self-assertive. God singled out Moses and used him in such a way as to show that he was a unique leader. For a suggestion that the word means 'miserable,' see C. Rogers, 'Moses: Meek or Miserable?' JETS 29 (1986): 257-63.
The Septuagint (LXX) reads: καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος Μωυσῆς πραΰς σφόδρα παρὰ πάντας τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τοὺς ὄντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.
Targum Jonathan: "But the man Mosheh was more bowed down in his mind than all the children of men upon the face of the earth; neither cared he for their words."
Whether Moses was the meekest or the humblest (the man with a very mild disposition), despite the fact that he showed uncharacteristic long-suffering/patience, he eventually "lost it" with his people, the Hebrews (the children of Israel). We all remember when Moses struck the rock at Meribah and exclaimed, “Listen, you rebels, shall we bring water for you out of this rock?” (NRSV) So doing, he took glory for something divinely wrought by Jehovah. The consequence was that Jehovah did not permit Moses to enter the Promised Land even though Jehovah God let him see the land from a distance--and we know that Moses will be resurrected in the new earth to come: he is alive in God's eyes. However, it strikes me as somewhat ironic that Moses had exemplary mildness/meekness and humility, but even he let anger cause him to speak embittered words that resulted in deep loss: "and it went ill with Moses on their account; for they made his spirit bitter, and he spoke words that were rash" (Psalm 106:32-33 NRSV).
The account is a serious warning on the one hand reminding us to guard our spirit and always glorify Jehovah, but it's encouraging to know that the ancient spokespersons of YHWH were individuals with feelings and foibles like ours (James 5:17). Some people often get hung up on the fact that a humble person might write, "I am the most humble person on earth." It's never really bothered me that Moses might have written those words, but some scholars think the utterance is part of an editorial addition later contributed to the Pentateuch: they understand these words to be added and insist Numbers 12:3 could be parenthetical. In any event, the likely reason that 12:3 provides this detail is to let us know that Moses did not usually seek his own glory. Jehovah God (YHWH) appointed Moses as leader over Israel; the office was not gained by inappropriate ambition, but rather through divine appointment (Numbers 12:6-8). What an example that Moses set in humility, meekness or lowliness of mind. Jesus similarly was mild-tempered and lowly in heart (Matthew 5:5; 11:28), but he remained that way without taint.
NET Bible treats Numbers 12:3 as a parenthetical statement: "(Now the man Moses was very humble, more so than any man on the face of the earth.)"
It explains that the difference in how one reads 12:3 depends on the familiar kethib-qere distinction. Furthermore, NET gives this supplemental information: "The word עָנָו (’anav) means 'humble.' The word may reflect a trustful attitude (as in Pss 25:9, 37:11), but perhaps here the idea of 'more tolerant' or 'long-suffering.' The point is that Moses is not self-assertive. God singled out Moses and used him in such a way as to show that he was a unique leader. For a suggestion that the word means 'miserable,' see C. Rogers, 'Moses: Meek or Miserable?' JETS 29 (1986): 257-63.
The Septuagint (LXX) reads: καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος Μωυσῆς πραΰς σφόδρα παρὰ πάντας τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τοὺς ὄντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.
Targum Jonathan: "But the man Mosheh was more bowed down in his mind than all the children of men upon the face of the earth; neither cared he for their words."
Whether Moses was the meekest or the humblest (the man with a very mild disposition), despite the fact that he showed uncharacteristic long-suffering/patience, he eventually "lost it" with his people, the Hebrews (the children of Israel). We all remember when Moses struck the rock at Meribah and exclaimed, “Listen, you rebels, shall we bring water for you out of this rock?” (NRSV) So doing, he took glory for something divinely wrought by Jehovah. The consequence was that Jehovah did not permit Moses to enter the Promised Land even though Jehovah God let him see the land from a distance--and we know that Moses will be resurrected in the new earth to come: he is alive in God's eyes. However, it strikes me as somewhat ironic that Moses had exemplary mildness/meekness and humility, but even he let anger cause him to speak embittered words that resulted in deep loss: "and it went ill with Moses on their account; for they made his spirit bitter, and he spoke words that were rash" (Psalm 106:32-33 NRSV).
The account is a serious warning on the one hand reminding us to guard our spirit and always glorify Jehovah, but it's encouraging to know that the ancient spokespersons of YHWH were individuals with feelings and foibles like ours (James 5:17). Some people often get hung up on the fact that a humble person might write, "I am the most humble person on earth." It's never really bothered me that Moses might have written those words, but some scholars think the utterance is part of an editorial addition later contributed to the Pentateuch: they understand these words to be added and insist Numbers 12:3 could be parenthetical. In any event, the likely reason that 12:3 provides this detail is to let us know that Moses did not usually seek his own glory. Jehovah God (YHWH) appointed Moses as leader over Israel; the office was not gained by inappropriate ambition, but rather through divine appointment (Numbers 12:6-8). What an example that Moses set in humility, meekness or lowliness of mind. Jesus similarly was mild-tempered and lowly in heart (Matthew 5:5; 11:28), but he remained that way without taint.
Thursday, September 06, 2018
My Review of Frederick C. Copleston's "Medieval Philosophy"
Frederick C. Copleston is a master historian. His nine-volume A History of Philosophy is remarkable for its breadth, depth and analyticity. These qualities especially can be attributed to his book on ancient Greek philosophy. However, Copleston's introductory study A History of Medieval Philosophy seems dry. It's consequently a little harder to read than other works he has produced.
The familiar objectivity and precision of other volumes which comprise the series is still on display in this historical coverage of the middle ages; but I would submit that Copleston needed to give this work some much needed life. That is the main problem I have with this history of medieval thought, one of many that I've read. That complaint notwithstanding, the text is definitively magisterial and characteristically erudite.
Copleston begins chronicling the medieval period by showing the important nexus between ancient Christianity and philosophy in the middle ages. He then discusses such thinkers as John Erigena, Berengarius of Tours and Roscelin of Compiegne. The book laconically recounts famed controversies surrounding transubstantiation in the case of Berengarius and purported tritheism (an accusation that was lodged at Roscelin) before turning to Archbishop Anselm of Canterbury and Peter Abelard--the infamous dialectician and lover of Heloise.
Anselm is known for developing what's called the "ontological argument" for God's existence. The basic premise of Anselm is that God must exist in reality, if God exists within the mind. Otherwise, God would not qualify as "that being than which a greater could not be conceived." Yet the main thinker of the period (Thomas Aquinas) faulted the ontological argument for conflating different senses of the expression "self-evident." It quickly becomes obvious from this brief example that medieval philosophy is fairly technical and generally recondite.
Nevertheless, a quite helpful part of this book is Copleston's analysis of the debate between those philosophers who are nominalists and those known as philosophical realists: the so-called "problem of universals." He convincingly demonstrates that there is a continuum which existed between nominalism and realism. For example, realism exists in moderate and extreme forms.
Maybe A History of Medieval Philosophy could have spared certain unnecessary details in much of the book. That is always the challenge with relating historical developments or events. How do those of us who work in history or related fields tell stories without boring our audience? At any rate, Copleston's account should be read by all those who are serious about medieval philosophy. It is the perfect place to immerse oneself in theoretical ideas of the past.
The familiar objectivity and precision of other volumes which comprise the series is still on display in this historical coverage of the middle ages; but I would submit that Copleston needed to give this work some much needed life. That is the main problem I have with this history of medieval thought, one of many that I've read. That complaint notwithstanding, the text is definitively magisterial and characteristically erudite.
Copleston begins chronicling the medieval period by showing the important nexus between ancient Christianity and philosophy in the middle ages. He then discusses such thinkers as John Erigena, Berengarius of Tours and Roscelin of Compiegne. The book laconically recounts famed controversies surrounding transubstantiation in the case of Berengarius and purported tritheism (an accusation that was lodged at Roscelin) before turning to Archbishop Anselm of Canterbury and Peter Abelard--the infamous dialectician and lover of Heloise.
Anselm is known for developing what's called the "ontological argument" for God's existence. The basic premise of Anselm is that God must exist in reality, if God exists within the mind. Otherwise, God would not qualify as "that being than which a greater could not be conceived." Yet the main thinker of the period (Thomas Aquinas) faulted the ontological argument for conflating different senses of the expression "self-evident." It quickly becomes obvious from this brief example that medieval philosophy is fairly technical and generally recondite.
Nevertheless, a quite helpful part of this book is Copleston's analysis of the debate between those philosophers who are nominalists and those known as philosophical realists: the so-called "problem of universals." He convincingly demonstrates that there is a continuum which existed between nominalism and realism. For example, realism exists in moderate and extreme forms.
Maybe A History of Medieval Philosophy could have spared certain unnecessary details in much of the book. That is always the challenge with relating historical developments or events. How do those of us who work in history or related fields tell stories without boring our audience? At any rate, Copleston's account should be read by all those who are serious about medieval philosophy. It is the perfect place to immerse oneself in theoretical ideas of the past.
Wednesday, September 05, 2018
The Use of AUTOS and Its Antecedents in 1 John 1 (Chapter One)
The following is a list of how AUTOS possibly functions in 1 John 1.
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
1 John 1:3-The antecedent is TOU PATROS.
1:5-The antecedent is evidently IHSOU XRISTOU in 1:3.
1:5d-The antecedent is hO QEOS in 1:5c.
1:6-hO QEOS is again the antecedent.
1:7-Both AUTOS and AUTOU refer to hO QEOS as the phrase TOU hUIOU AUTOU makes clear.
1:10-hO LOGOS AUTOU also has reference to God's word (Go back to 1:5).
Amended Version of 1 John and AUTOS
Thanks to Duncan for adding the Greek characters below!
1 John 2:2- αυτος refers to Ιησουν χριστον in 2:1d.
2:3a-The antecedent of αυτου is probably Ιησουν χριστον.
2:3b-αυτου evidently refers to Ιησουν χριστον.
2:4a-αυτον also seems to reference Ιησουν χριστον.
2:4b-αυτον points to Ιησουν χριστον in 2:1d.
2:5a-αυτου τον λογον describes Jesus' λογον.
2:5c-εν τουτω refers to Ιησουν χριστον.
2:6-εν αυτω speaks of "remaining" (μενειν) in Ιησουν χριστον.
2:6-The antecedent of ουτω is ο λεγων εν αυτω μενειν.
2:8b-εν αυτω again speaks of Ιησουν χριστον.
2:9c-The antecedent is ο λεγων εν τω φωτι ειναι.
2:10-αυτου and αυτω refer to ο αγαπων τον αδελφον αυτου.
2:11-Both occurrences of αυτου refer to ο δε μισων τον αδελφον αυτου.
2:15e-αυτω describes the one loving the world (εαν τις αγαπα τον κοσμον).
2:21-The antecedent of αυτην is αληθειας.
2:25b-The antecedent of αυτος is τω πατρι (Note that this
antecedent is the closest of two possible antecedents. The Father clearly
seems to be in view also in light of Tit. 1:2; 1 John 1:1-3; 2:1; 5:11-12,20).
2:27-αυτου refers to the Father.
2:28-αυτω in 2:28 is not so clear. John appears to be switching
referents here. S.M. Baugh implies that αυτου in this passage applies to the
Son. A confusing aspect of this passage is that up to this point, John talks
about the Father. But his use of the Greek term παρουσια seems to indicate
Christ Jesus is under discussion.
2:29-This passage is equally ambiguous, but appears to have reference
to God the Father (εξ αυτου γεγεννηται).
1 John 2:2- αυτος refers to Ιησουν χριστον in 2:1d.
2:3a-The antecedent of αυτου is probably Ιησουν χριστον.
2:3b-αυτου evidently refers to Ιησουν χριστον.
2:4a-αυτον also seems to reference Ιησουν χριστον.
2:4b-αυτον points to Ιησουν χριστον in 2:1d.
2:5a-αυτου τον λογον describes Jesus' λογον.
2:5c-εν τουτω refers to Ιησουν χριστον.
2:6-εν αυτω speaks of "remaining" (μενειν) in Ιησουν χριστον.
2:6-The antecedent of ουτω is ο λεγων εν αυτω μενειν.
2:8b-εν αυτω again speaks of Ιησουν χριστον.
2:9c-The antecedent is ο λεγων εν τω φωτι ειναι.
2:10-αυτου and αυτω refer to ο αγαπων τον αδελφον αυτου.
2:11-Both occurrences of αυτου refer to ο δε μισων τον αδελφον αυτου.
2:15e-αυτω describes the one loving the world (εαν τις αγαπα τον κοσμον).
2:21-The antecedent of αυτην is αληθειας.
2:25b-The antecedent of αυτος is τω πατρι (Note that this
antecedent is the closest of two possible antecedents. The Father clearly
seems to be in view also in light of Tit. 1:2; 1 John 1:1-3; 2:1; 5:11-12,20).
2:27-αυτου refers to the Father.
2:28-αυτω in 2:28 is not so clear. John appears to be switching
referents here. S.M. Baugh implies that αυτου in this passage applies to the
Son. A confusing aspect of this passage is that up to this point, John talks
about the Father. But his use of the Greek term παρουσια seems to indicate
Christ Jesus is under discussion.
2:29-This passage is equally ambiguous, but appears to have reference
to God the Father (εξ αυτου γεγεννηται).
Monday, September 03, 2018
1 John and AUTOS
Dear blog readers,
This list is a continuation of previous work that I've done on αὐτὸς in 1 John. It is my long-term goal to expand on these documented examples, and change the characters below to actual Greek letters/words.
Best,
Edgar
____________________________________________________________________
1 John 2:2-αὐτὸς refers to Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν in 2:1d.
2:3a-The antecedent of αὐτόν is probably Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν.
2:3b-αὐτοῦ evidently refers to Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν.
2:4a-αὐτόν also seems to reference Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν.
2:4b-AUTOU points to IHSOUN XRISTON in 2:1d.
2:5a-AUTOU TON LOGON describes Jesus' LOGON.
2:5c-EN AUTWi refers to IHSOUN XRISTON.
2:6-EN AUTWi speaks of "remaining" (MENEIN) in IHSOUN XRISTON.
2:6-The antecedent of AUTOS is hO LEGWN EN AUTWi MENEIN.
2:8b-EN AUTWi again speaks of Jesus Christ.
2:9c-The antecedent is hO LEGWN EN TWi FWTI EINAI.
2:10-AUTOU and AUTWi refer to hO AGAPWN TON ADELFON AUTOU.
2:11-Both occurrences of AUTOU refer to hO MISWN TON ADELFON
AUTOU.
2:15e-AUTWi describes the one loving the world (EAN TIS AGAPA TON
KOSMON).
2:21-The antecedent of AUTHN is ALHQEIAN.
2::25b-The antecedent of AUTOS is TWi PATRI (Note that this
antecedent is the closest of two possible antecedents. The Father clearly
seems to be in view also in light of Tit. 1:2; 1 John 1:1-3; 2:1; 5:11-12,
20).
2:27-AUTOU refers to the Father.
2:28-AUTWi in 2:28 is not so clear. John appears to be switching
referents here. S.M. Baugh implies that AUTOS in this passage applies to the
Son. A confusing aspect of this passage is that up to this point, John talks
about the Father. But his use of the Greek term PAROUSIA seems to indicate
Christ Jesus is under discussion.
2:29-This passage is equally ambiguous, but appears to have reference
to God the Father (EX AUTOU GEGENNHTAI).
This list is a continuation of previous work that I've done on αὐτὸς in 1 John. It is my long-term goal to expand on these documented examples, and change the characters below to actual Greek letters/words.
Best,
Edgar
____________________________________________________________________
1 John 2:2-αὐτὸς refers to Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν in 2:1d.
2:3a-The antecedent of αὐτόν is probably Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν.
2:3b-αὐτοῦ evidently refers to Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν.
2:4a-αὐτόν also seems to reference Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν.
2:4b-AUTOU points to IHSOUN XRISTON in 2:1d.
2:5a-AUTOU TON LOGON describes Jesus' LOGON.
2:5c-EN AUTWi refers to IHSOUN XRISTON.
2:6-EN AUTWi speaks of "remaining" (MENEIN) in IHSOUN XRISTON.
2:6-The antecedent of AUTOS is hO LEGWN EN AUTWi MENEIN.
2:8b-EN AUTWi again speaks of Jesus Christ.
2:9c-The antecedent is hO LEGWN EN TWi FWTI EINAI.
2:10-AUTOU and AUTWi refer to hO AGAPWN TON ADELFON AUTOU.
2:11-Both occurrences of AUTOU refer to hO MISWN TON ADELFON
AUTOU.
2:15e-AUTWi describes the one loving the world (EAN TIS AGAPA TON
KOSMON).
2:21-The antecedent of AUTHN is ALHQEIAN.
2::25b-The antecedent of AUTOS is TWi PATRI (Note that this
antecedent is the closest of two possible antecedents. The Father clearly
seems to be in view also in light of Tit. 1:2; 1 John 1:1-3; 2:1; 5:11-12,
20).
2:27-AUTOU refers to the Father.
2:28-AUTWi in 2:28 is not so clear. John appears to be switching
referents here. S.M. Baugh implies that AUTOS in this passage applies to the
Son. A confusing aspect of this passage is that up to this point, John talks
about the Father. But his use of the Greek term PAROUSIA seems to indicate
Christ Jesus is under discussion.
2:29-This passage is equally ambiguous, but appears to have reference
to God the Father (EX AUTOU GEGENNHTAI).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)