LXX - Pro 8:22 The LORD created me the head of his ways for his works. Pro 8:23 Before the eon (age) he founded me in the beginning, before the [the earth making];
I see now problem with this comparison for old and new creations.
21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; cf. Matthew 19:28
1) I use various methods to understand what a writer might have intended, and that includes reading the local context and other related uses of the word. I agree that reading the introduction to letters is important, but it's not going to settle this issue or other related ones. A Trinitarian once told me that context dictates Matt 28:19 teaches that the Father, Son, and holy spirit all have the same personal name. That seems like a privileged reading of the context, and I obviously read it differently.
2) Rev. 3:14 could be talking about the new creation, but it's difficult to prove that idea beyond a reasonable doubt. Right now, it's not the consensus reading among GNT scholars. Maybe one day, but more proof is needed.
3) On the Buzzard video, I'll just briefly remark that Daniel Wallace is the scholar to read for sharp's rule. He excludes 2 Thess 1:12 because it supposedly contains a proper name. I'm not that impressed with Sharp's rule: Kermit Titrud gave one of the most sane papers on the subject. See the blog entry here on Titrud.
As for the "divine passive," while it may be true that passive voice verbs are used in the GNT with God as the subject, the divine passive idea has been question by Greek grammarians. See https://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2004-December/032292.html
Later, I want to post some things from a book written by Moises Silva that deals with lexical semantics.
One problem with proof is it cuts both ways. Like GJohn 1:1 reason for implementing genesis language. Either Creation or New creation would need to be proved. So much that is being relied on is ambiguous and unproven.
A) Posit that John 1:1 is alluding to/echoing Gen. 1:1. After all, the verses begin the same way and it's a reasonable assumption for that reason along with the fact that John uses Logos, etc.
B) Suggest John 1:1 speaks of the new creation although I'm wondering how that unites the whole Gospel and where does any place in GJohn hint at any such thing? I need to examine it more, but up to this point, the idea just has not seemed tenable. For an argument that en arche alludes to Genesis, see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2016/04/john-11ff-work-in-progress.html
Follow the link to Caragounis' article with van der Watt.
C) Remain at an impasse. One could argue that it's neither A nor B, but that doesn't get us anywhere and the suggestion is probably false.
Concerning the Brill link, read Paul Anderson. He claims John presents a low and high Christology is the 4th Gospel: a type of dialectic as it were.
That's not quite what I meant. I was referencing GJohn 1:1 with regard to the level of ambiguity. The pros and " a god" arguments are not compelling. Why would any Jew of the first century see this as anything other than personification, especially if they were familiar with Isaiah and Job as already quoted that are quite specific. I am not against revealing new information in the NT as long as it does not contradict OT. This does not have to be understood in a way that does. The word hidden within is consistent with OT LXX and with targumim. Helenistic thinking is all well and good but can only push understanding so far before flying in the face of mainstream Judaism of the period.
https://youtu.be/iKzN9d7Jh8o
Even Trinitarians speak quite often of new creation language in Pauline texts. Just not in the verses in question - but why not?
Revelation stands apart & comparing Johannine language with it is risky. We need to use context as this I what we have. Context is king. I suppose it is an impass at the moment but IMO the OT is on my side.
Here's a nitpick, but the word in Rev. 1:5 is not the same as arche in 3:14. Plus the constructions are different in terms of their syntax.
Personification in one context does not mean personification in a different setting: the preexistent Christ could fulfill what Proverbs and Job express. Moreover, JWs and some Trinitarians believe an actual being is referenced in Prov. 8, but regardless, the GNT connects Jesus with the wisdom of God. Special usages in language are common, and no matter what human writers thought, Christians work with the premise that God is guiding the writing and interpretive process. Christianity is a combination of the old and the new. See NT Wright's series about early Christianity.
I don't think looking at Christ as living wisdom (an actual person embodying wisdom) is a contradiction of the OT--it's rather a consummation/fulfillment of the Hebrew Bible. You also call it Hellenistic thinking, but I don't limit the preexistent Logos actually made flesh/human to Greek thinking. Why couldn't Judaism accommodate such an idea, even if no Jew ever taught or conceived such a thing?
IMO, we need a reason to connect some verses with the new creation. Context, language, something ought to be a guidepost, but not theology or speculation.
I'm arguing based on context, but we're not reading context the same way, which happens all the time. That was my point about the Trinitarian and Mt 28:19. It might be "cheeky" on my part, but I don't believe my position is opposed to the OT. It's just that I see no need to limit myself with understandings from 3000 years ago: the prophets and apostles realized the Tanakh would unfold over time. Daniel did not comprehend what he was writing: even angels wanted to know the meaning of OT verses (1 Pet. 1:10-12). They desired to know the outworking of Jehovah's purposes. So why limit ourselves to interpretations/understandings that people before Jesus had?
This book expresses some of the thoughts I'm propounding: https://books.google.com/books?id=FQYX5-oVNY4C&pg=PA101&lpg=PA101&dq=judaism+and+the+logos+made+flesh&source=bl&ots=MUh1zPcfKh&sig=ACfU3U3GzxtYnPsVu1wjpTGPUospNgjLAw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjq79D0zJzlAhULUt8KHdIpBWw4ChDoATAIegQICBAB#v=onepage&q=judaism%20and%20the%20logos%20made%20flesh&f=false
But to illustrate, what Jew would have conceived of humans being resurrected to spirit life and to immortal life? What Jew thought many humans would be seated at God's heavenly throne? Yet these ideas don't contradict the OT either.
So was Isaiah speaking untruth? His language had no ambiguity and that is my point about ambiguity. It seems that the preexistence idea is built on it. When people try to insert it into the synoptics because Jesus says "I have come", that is really reaching.
I agree that rev 1:5 is not quite the same as 3:14. Its when you hear these things spoken in the original language we perceive connections. Hebrew poetry is something that can be perceived fully in any translation. Just as one says et in Hebrew regardless of its meaning.
1 Peter 1:10 - not sure that the nature has anything to do with the method. Time and circumstances is not about an origins back story.
I believe that Philo and John are much closer in date and the ideas are a synthesis of Jewish and Egyptian. Read about Cleopatra and Egyptian influence in preceding decades. This being the bread basket of the Roman empire. What Egypt lacked in power, it made up for in propaganda. If Philo and John were influenced by the same sources, it does not mean they used them in the same way.
Of course, I don't believe Isaiah speaks untruth. Not sure what the problem with Isaiah is supposed to be. Which verses do you have in mind? Isa. 44:24; 45:18? The preexistence idea comes from many verses.
I'm saying about Rev. 1:5 and 3:14 that archwn and arche are not the same, at all; neither is the syntax identical These details can make a difference. The words have different meanings and they're different parts of speech in Greek. I don't see how anyone can flatten the differences between archwn and arche: it's like the difference between thinking and intellect.
The point I'm making from 1 Pet. 1:10-12 and Daniel is that the very persons writing the Bible saw room for development and unfoldment where the contents of Tanakh are concerned.
It is not my position that John and Philo used their sources in the same way. Again, the point I'm trying to make is that the unfoldment of Tanakh does not mean contradicting it.
To illustrate how people read texts and contexts differently from one another, note what Dr. Thomas Constable claims regarding Rev. 3:14:
As a "Witness," His testimony to the situation in Laodicea was trustworthy. The Laodiceans had a reputation for saying and doing whatever was necessary to preserve their own wellbeing. [Note: Tatford, pp143-44.] In contrast, Jesus spoke the truth. The "Beginning [Origin] of God"s creation" sets forth His authority to pass judgment. The Laodiceans were creative, but Jesus alone was the Creator (cf. John 1:3; Colossians 1:16).
Michael Svigel argued that arche here means ruler (of God"s creation). [Note: Michael J. Svigel, "Christ as "Arche in Revelation 3:14 ," Bibliotheca Sacra 161:642 (April-June 2004):215-31.] This rendering is possible, but most translators have believed the meaning is origin or source, which non-Trinitarians have taken as evidence that the Son is a created being.
"The whole tendency of the Johannine writings and of the Apocalypse in particular ... forbids the interpretation "the first of creatures."" [Note: Swete, p59.]
What you are saying for most part does not contradict my earlier post:-
All Things New: Revelation As Canonical Capstone By Brian J. Tabb 2019
"Most likely, Revelation 3:14 presents Jesus as the beginning of God's new creation through his resurrection from the dead. The risen Christ is the 'Amen', who embodies divine truthfulness (cf. Isa. 65:16), and he is 'the faithful and true witness', who testifies truly to God's activity in the world (cf. Rev. 1:5; Isa. 43:10-12). He is also the arche who inaugurates the fulfillment of God's new- creation promises and will bring them to their appointed telos."
It gives 3 viable interpretations - including "the ruler of gods creation" &
For - "First, many interpret arche as 'beginning' (Esv, NASB), 'originator' (NET, HCSB) or 'origin'(NRSV) In this reading, arche conveys not that Jesus is the first created being but that he is the divine source or originator of creation (ktisis). >>>The term ktisis occurs only here in the Apocalypse, though the verbal cognate ktizo refers to God's creating all things (4:11; 5:13).<<<"
Revelation tells us who the creator of all thing is & his elevation of the lamb.
“Worthy is the >>>Lamb that was slain<<< to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing.”
And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying,
“To Him who sits on the throne, >>>and to the Lamb<<<, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.”
And the four living creatures kept saying, “Amen.” And the elders fell down and worshiped.
I see no point in arguing against "whole tendency of the Johannine writings" - this is where we end up going in circles again. But in any case he is the first creature re-created, never to die. Being called "lamb" demonstrates his significance.
I would like to distinguish my view from Constable and others I've quoted. To me, BDAG is correct when it states that arche probably means "first created." I acknowledge other possible meanings for arche, but I don't see them as likely for 3:14. In the quote above from Tabb, he asserts that Rev. 3:14 is about the new creation, but supplies zero proof for the idea. He also believes that 3:14 teaches Christ is God, a claim that's repeated ad nauseam. One thing we can possibly all affirm is that the Christ of Revelation is an exalted being and God's agent.
Isa. 9:6 doesn't necessarily rule out preexistence for the Messiah. Let's say that God's name has always been YHWH: nevertheless, Exodus 6:3 teaches that he was known as El Shaddai, not by his name YHWH. One interpretation of Isa. 9:6 also posits that it applies to Jehovah, not to the Messiah.
I've read parts of Reynolds's book before, and I think he argues for a preexistent Son of Man.
See https://books.google.com/books?id=S_lMRtGEuAsC&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=benjamin+reynolds+son+of+man+preexistent&source=bl&ots=irzR_Xj9pW&sig=ACfU3U2BGYPifcCow1YYfL6tbeIsaMKWsQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj6rsSry57lAhUHTt8KHRzjC0QQ6AEwEHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=benjamin%20reynolds%20son%20of%20man%20preexistent&f=false
For a critique of James Dunn, see https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/scottish-journal-of-theology/article/christology-in-the-making-by-james-d-g-dunn-london-scm-1980-ppxvii-443-1050/D697FAC587F262071DBB9E515A7C5B0E
Since you've alluded/cited Dunn throughout the present conversation.
I've quoted thewse Trinitarians like Constable (etc) to show how people claim to be reading the context of Revelation, yet they come to widely divergent conclusions. I don't agree with their conclusions, but if everyopne is reading Revelation contextually, why all the variant conclusions?
For example, here's part of what Richard Trench writes:
To go no further than these seven Epistles, all the titles which Christ claims for Himself in them are either necessarily divine, or, at any rate, not inconsistent with his divinity; and this must be so no less. He is not, therefore, the “principium principiatum,” but rather the “principium principians,”—not He whom God created the first, but He who was the fountain-source of all the creation of God, by whom God created all things (John i. 1-3; Col. i. 15, 18); even as elsewhere in this Book Christ appears as the Author of creation (v. 13). The Arians, as is well known, explained these words in the same way as they explained Col. i. 15, which is indeed the great parallel passage, as though ἀρχή, was “the begun,” and not “the beginning;” and they brought Job xl. 19 into comparison. But for the use of ἀρχή in the sense and with the force which we here demand for it, as “principium,” not “initium” (though these Latin words do not adequately reproduce the distinction), compare the Gospel of Nicodemus, c. 25, in which Hades addresses Satan as ἡ τοῦ θανάτου ἀρχὴ καὶ ῥίζα τῆς ἁμαρτίας; and further, Dionysius the Areopagite (c. 15): ὁ Θεὸς ἐστὶν πάντων αἰτία καὶ ἀρχή; and again, Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iv. 25): ὁ Θεὸς δὲ ἄναρχος, ἀρχὴ τῶν ὅλων παντελής. These and innumerable other passages abundantly vindicate for ἀρχὴ that active sense which we must needs claim for it here.
We pretty much know that beliefs developed in Judaism as they experienced exile or exposure to Persian and Greek culture. So it doesn't seem that Moses believed the temple was preexistent, but later Judaism does say (or appear to claim) that certain things were preexistent.
Posting the same link was a mistake: I did not catch it before the post. Here's the correct link for "compare":
I read Wisdom of Solomon 19:6-7, but I did not see the connection with arche or preexistence.
Maybe you could shed light on the purpose for citing the passage. I've got to finish typing up a talk for Thursday and do prep for class tomorrow, but I'd like to know what you see in these passages.
I would love to discuss new creation sometime, but for now, that passage must be read contextually as you said earlier about Rev. 3:14. Secondly, we have to clarify expressions like "new creation." In what sense is the creation "new"? Cf. 2 Cor. 5:17.
To repeat what I've said previously, I also discern few if any contextual cues for reading the meaning, "new creation," in 3:14.
Clearly metaphorical? How can we be sure that was the writer's intent? We determine metaphorical speech by examining--context. But even then, not everyone agrees that a certain word/expression is metaphorical, like father in the case of God or soma, a metaphor for the Christian ecclesia, although some understand soma literally of the church.
Yes, a temple is a being; not a person, but still a being. For instance, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/being
A temple is an impersonal thing that exists (i.e., an object or being) although it's not a person. But fathers and mothers are persons, yet there is such a thing (in principle at least) as metaphorical fathers or mothers. Additionally, the messiah was usually understood as a person in antiquity: Judaism generally now understands the messiah to be a golden age (something to that effect). So metaphors can take various forms. Nietzsche might say that all language is somehow metaphorical, but I disagree.
I agree that "new creation" needs a definition. These may be interesting from Isaiah lxx. Brenton 43:18,19:-
Remember ye not the former things, and consider not the ancient things.
Behold, I will do new things, which shall presently spring forth, and ye shall know them: and I will make a way in the wilderness, and rivers in the dry land.
48:3ff
and they that have proceeded out of my mouth, and it became well known; I wrought suddenly, and the events came to pass.
I know that thou art stubborn, and thy neck is an iron sinew, and thy forehead brazen.
And I told thee of old what should be before it came upon thee; I made it known to thee, lest thou shouldest say, My idols have done it for me; and shouldest say, My graven and molten images have commanded me.
Ye have heard all this, but ye have not known: yet I have made known to thee the new things from henceforth, which are coming to pass, and thou saidst not,
Now they come to pass, and not formerly: and thou heardest not of them in former days: say not thou, Yea, I know them.
42:9
Behold, the ancient things have come to pass, and so will the new things which I tell you: yea, before I tell them they are made known to you.
Commentators usually say, and I tend to see it the same way, that the patriarchs knew the name, but not its full significance. You're correct about Abraham and Eve was also the first person on record to says the name of YHWH. But one point I was striving for is that divine revelation is progressive.
I would have to check my sources, but I remember coming across something about the temple in Jerusalem becoming intimately associated with God himself in Jewish minds. Sort of like God's name coming to stand for the deity himself. Prov. 18:10.
As for who wrote Revelation:- 20:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
What's odd about Revelation and the mention of 12 apostles? Some think the apostle did not write the book, but even if he did, we have examples of self-reference in other texts. This is like the third person objection for John 17:3. Is that what you're saying?
I can see the connection with Job 28 too, but I don't think that's an insurmountable barrier to the profession that an actual spirit person embodies wisdom. Just like God embodies love.
I won't promise that I will consider it today because of other obligations, but the OT scholarly literature is replete with debates about these matters, and there is no universal consensus yet and probably will never be. Even if we allow for personification without hypostatization, it's difficult to prove that the early Christians did not advance our understanding of the wisdom texts in Tanakh. Read G.R. Beasley-Murray's discussion of the Johannine Prologue and so many others. John was supposed to be building on the Logos/Sophia tradition while surpassing it via the enfleshed Logos profession.
Also the last video I posted is very interesting, that contrasts and compares Gmat and Gluke with wisdom sayings. The video on sirach 50 is as straight forward as it gets. The comparisons are unmistakable and it shows the priest (man), simon as wisdom personified at the conclusion.
NET Bible note for John 1:11. This deals with something that we discussed earlier:
sn His own people did not receive him. There is a subtle irony here: When the λόγος (logos) came into the world, he came to his own (τὰ ἴδια, ta idia, literally “his own things”) and his own people (οἱ ἴδιοι, hoi idioi), who should have known and received him, but they did not. This time John does not say that “his own” did not know him, but that they did not receive him (παρέλαβον, parelabon). The idea is one not of mere recognition, but of acceptance and welcome.
Notice that the first expression (ta idia) is neuter, but hoi idioi is masculine, yet the expressions presumably refer to the same objects.
If the views presented by Dustin are so convincing and irrefutable, then why don't more scholars accept his views? I'm not arguing from authority (a logical fallacy), but I wonder why experts of second temple Judaism are flocking to Dustin's side. Even a viewer from the YT thread said Simon never embodies wisdom: I don't think Dustin proves this point either.
For the last time, I hope, I will point out that it puzzles me why someone can't allow for the possibility that a religion might build on older ideas and advance those ideas.
I don't know this scholar's conclusions, but here's a book about Sirach 50: https://books.google.com/books?id=NewteJPaubIC&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&dq=sirach+50+simon&source=bl&ots=re28tTSp6y&sig=ACfU3U2CVdFm_eEBrKm-sQk_VHcAT-62LQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjtqqysuKHlAhXhmeAKHbswD60Q6AEwAnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=sirach%2050%20simon&f=false
I'm going to do other things now, but nobody knows the deuterocanonicals/apocrypha like Catholic scholars do, and that includes Sirach. So what does the Catholic Encylopedia say? Here's part of it:
"It is clear, then, from the text-study of the books themselves [i.e., the Sapiential books], from the interpretation of these books by St. Paul, and especially, from the admitted interpretation of the Fathers and the liturgical uses of the Church, that the personified wisdom of the Sapiential Books is the uncreated Wisdom, the incarnate Logos of St. John, the Word hypostatically united with human nature, Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father. The Sapiential Books prove that Jesus was really and truly God."
Just for a comparison. Why do no geologists accept human objects found in coal seams as anything other than anomalous. I do not know. Maybe like Dustin solution, it's just too simple. Not what they want to hear. Removing sirach from modern bibles does not help either. Who else has looked at Deuteronomy the way I have? The answers were just staring us in the face and I did not even find a single paper that even considering cause and effect to even argue against it but it is staggeringly obvious to those who pay attention to the cycles of nature. But I suppose if people did pay attention we would not be in the environmental mess that has been millenniums in the making.
I am going to try and pull his arguments apart but with something so simple, who knows.
I'm not denying personification of wisdom is Judaic documents; neither is the Catholic Church or a number of Protestant scholars. The problem is when one infers from the Judaic personification of wisdom that Christians never went beyond such ideas. That is the problem I have. As the link I posted from the Catholic Encyclopedia illustrated, one can accept personification without denying the preexistence and incarnation of the "eternal Logos."
I also posted a link from Mulder's book about Sirach 50 and own it, though I have not read it yet.
But, to repeat, I'm not denying personification in the Jewish sources.
Regarding the nexus between personified wisdom and Christ Jesus, see https://books.google.com/books?id=ixGEDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA170&lpg=PA170&dq=christ+personified+wisdom&source=bl&ots=Pi-yglb_6J&sig=ACfU3U0hx0Wi2DdgF8BlPgz9rcnzV5n_vg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwih4eeeuaLlAhXCmuAKHRW7CEE4FBDoATASegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=christ%20personified%20wisdom&f=false
The author is actually throwing around possibilities as to how personified wisdom in Judaism became the preexistent Christ qua wisdom in Christianity. The work is saying things could have happened that way, not that they necessarily did. But the reason I supplied the link to the work was to illustrate how someone can accept both ideas, that is, wisdom was personified in ancient Judaism and that Christ is preexistent wisdom in the person of God's spirit son. Just as the heavenly angels are called sons of God.
For Rev. 13:8, see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2015/01/revelation-138-net-bible.html
I'm familiar with Vermes' approach to the Son of Man question; I once found it somewhat attractive as a proposal. But it now seems to be fatally wrong. I still like his books, but disagree with his suggestion.
See the discussion here: https://books.google.com/books?id=m7zeBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=vermes+son+of+man+wrong&source=bl&ots=WLRNyrNoj0&sig=ACfU3U3Z25ppdlxdfAtqc6p0nd5c2nsqvg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiJ66HL8qTlAhXnUN8KHdSyCtI4ChDoATADegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=vermes%20son%20of%20man%20wrong&f=false
Page 33 onward.
See also https://biblicalresources.wordpress.com/2015/05/13/the-vermes-quest/
In all of this as far as GJohn is concerned a I still think detachment is a key component. When Hurtado says that Jesus "calls himself" the son of man that verses like John 8:58 must be taken into account. This could well be the witness of the father. Exodus 3:6 & mat 22:32. Jesus speaks the fathers words.
70 comments:
LXX - Pro 8:22 The LORD created me the head of his ways for his works.
Pro 8:23 Before the eon (age) he founded me in the beginning, before the [the earth making];
I see now problem with this comparison for old and new creations.
21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; cf. Matthew 19:28
This is the drive of revelation.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5E6oDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT70&lpg=PT70&dq=rev+3:21+3:14+1:5+ruler+of+new+creation&source=bl&ots=sdzyOrA4LP&sig=ACfU3U0zK2nktUZMexVfn_1ltXygK-RxPw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiRp6m7_ZnlAhXDoFwKHfenA7QQ6AEwCXoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=rev%203%3A21%203%3A14%201%3A5%20ruler%20of%20new%20creation&f=false
Note that this new work is staunchly trinitarian but does not come to a particularly trinitarian conclusion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm10Wblgei8
Note here that unitarians use slightly different reasoning but come to basically the same conclusion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSELJc6WHP0
But this is all based on local context from within Revelation and particularly the introduction & the letter that 3:14 introduces.
I still have to apply the same method to all the letters to see how the introduction correlates with the content in each case.
Also by invoking The tanakh one must also take into account Isaiah 44:24 Isaiah 45:18. This has to be reconciled.
IMO this idea of new creation needs more investigation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U4ksGpXEas
I would welcome a response to the analysis of the Greek put forward in this video.
Well before the proverbs we have Job 9:8.
Job 28:12-28 LXX is interesting.
http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/10850/1/Final_October_23_2014_Version.pdf?DDD32+
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-OkmCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=As+It+Was+in+the+Beginning:+An+Intertextual+Analysis+of+New+Creation+in+Galatians,+2+Corinthians,+and+Ephesians&source=bl&ots=OopdMDaQg2&sig=ACfU3U2Ll6wlqxfq9MdkL6xiDKXXVFf9_A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjs6Pqj8ZvlAhXTbsAKHfJsCPsQ6AEwCXoECAsQAQ#v=onepage&q=isaiah&f=false
1) I use various methods to understand what a writer might have intended, and that includes reading the local context and other related uses of the word. I agree that reading the introduction to letters is important, but it's not going to settle this issue or other related ones. A Trinitarian once told me that context dictates Matt 28:19 teaches that the Father, Son, and holy spirit all have the same personal name. That seems like a privileged reading of the context, and I obviously read it differently.
2) Rev. 3:14 could be talking about the new creation, but it's difficult to prove that idea beyond a reasonable doubt. Right now, it's not the consensus reading among GNT scholars. Maybe one day, but more proof is needed.
3) On the Buzzard video, I'll just briefly remark that Daniel Wallace is the scholar to read for sharp's rule. He excludes 2 Thess 1:12 because it supposedly contains a proper name. I'm not that impressed with Sharp's rule: Kermit Titrud gave one of the most sane papers on the subject. See the blog entry here on Titrud.
As for the "divine passive," while it may be true that passive voice verbs are used in the GNT with God as the subject, the divine passive idea has been question by Greek grammarians. See https://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2004-December/032292.html
Later, I want to post some things from a book written by Moises Silva that deals with lexical semantics.
One problem with proof is it cuts both ways. Like GJohn 1:1 reason for implementing genesis language. Either Creation or New creation would need to be proved. So much that is being relied on is ambiguous and unproven.
https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004376045/BP000020.xml?lang=en
Three basic choices here:
A) Posit that John 1:1 is alluding to/echoing Gen. 1:1. After all, the verses begin the same way and it's a reasonable assumption for that reason along with the fact that John uses Logos, etc.
B) Suggest John 1:1 speaks of the new creation although I'm wondering how that unites the whole Gospel and where does any place in GJohn hint at any such thing? I need to examine it more, but up to this point, the idea just has not seemed tenable. For an argument that en arche alludes to Genesis, see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2016/04/john-11ff-work-in-progress.html
Follow the link to Caragounis' article with van der Watt.
C) Remain at an impasse. One could argue that it's neither A nor B, but that doesn't get us anywhere and the suggestion is probably false.
Concerning the Brill link, read Paul Anderson. He claims John presents a low and high Christology is the 4th Gospel: a type of dialectic as it were.
That's not quite what I meant. I was referencing GJohn 1:1 with regard to the level of ambiguity. The pros and " a god" arguments are not compelling. Why would any Jew of the first century see this as anything other than personification, especially if they were familiar with Isaiah and Job as already quoted that are quite specific. I am not against revealing new information in the NT as long as it does not contradict OT. This does not have to be understood in a way that does. The word hidden within is consistent with OT LXX and with targumim. Helenistic thinking is all well and good but can only push understanding so far before flying in the face of mainstream Judaism of the period.
https://youtu.be/iKzN9d7Jh8o
Even Trinitarians speak quite often of new creation language in Pauline texts. Just not in the verses in question - but why not?
Revelation stands apart & comparing Johannine language with it is risky. We need to use context as this I what we have. Context is king. I suppose it is an impass at the moment but IMO the OT is on my side.
Here's a nitpick, but the word in Rev. 1:5 is not the same as arche in 3:14. Plus the constructions are different in terms of their syntax.
Personification in one context does not mean personification in a different setting: the preexistent Christ could fulfill what Proverbs and Job express. Moreover, JWs and some Trinitarians believe an actual being is referenced in Prov. 8, but regardless, the GNT connects Jesus with the wisdom of God. Special usages in language are common, and no matter what human writers thought, Christians work with the premise that God is guiding the writing and interpretive process. Christianity is a combination of the old and the new. See NT Wright's series about early Christianity.
I don't think looking at Christ as living wisdom (an actual person embodying wisdom) is a contradiction of the OT--it's rather a consummation/fulfillment of the Hebrew Bible. You also call it Hellenistic thinking, but I don't limit the preexistent Logos actually made flesh/human to Greek thinking. Why couldn't Judaism accommodate such an idea, even if no Jew ever taught or conceived such a thing?
IMO, we need a reason to connect some verses with the new creation. Context, language, something ought to be a guidepost, but not theology or speculation.
I'm arguing based on context, but we're not reading context the same way, which happens all the time. That was my point about the Trinitarian and Mt 28:19. It might be "cheeky" on my part, but I don't believe my position is opposed to the OT. It's just that I see no need to limit myself with understandings from 3000 years ago: the prophets and apostles realized the Tanakh would unfold over time. Daniel did not comprehend what he was writing: even angels wanted to know the meaning of OT verses (1 Pet. 1:10-12). They desired to know the outworking of Jehovah's purposes. So why limit ourselves to interpretations/understandings that people before Jesus had?
This book expresses some of the thoughts I'm propounding: https://books.google.com/books?id=FQYX5-oVNY4C&pg=PA101&lpg=PA101&dq=judaism+and+the+logos+made+flesh&source=bl&ots=MUh1zPcfKh&sig=ACfU3U3GzxtYnPsVu1wjpTGPUospNgjLAw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjq79D0zJzlAhULUt8KHdIpBWw4ChDoATAIegQICBAB#v=onepage&q=judaism%20and%20the%20logos%20made%20flesh&f=false
But to illustrate, what Jew would have conceived of humans being resurrected to spirit life and to immortal life? What Jew thought many humans would be seated at God's heavenly throne? Yet these ideas don't contradict the OT either.
So was Isaiah speaking untruth?
His language had no ambiguity and that is my point about ambiguity. It seems that the preexistence idea is built on it. When people try to insert it into the synoptics because Jesus says "I have come", that is really reaching.
I agree that rev 1:5 is not quite the same as 3:14. Its when you hear these things spoken in the original language we perceive connections. Hebrew poetry is something that can be perceived fully in any translation. Just as one says et in Hebrew regardless of its meaning.
1 Peter 1:10 - not sure that the nature has anything to do with the method. Time and circumstances is not about an origins back story.
I believe that Philo and John are much closer in date and the ideas are a synthesis of Jewish and Egyptian. Read about Cleopatra and Egyptian influence in preceding decades. This being the bread basket of the Roman empire. What Egypt lacked in power, it made up for in propaganda. If Philo and John were influenced by the same sources, it does not mean they used them in the same way.
Of course, I don't believe Isaiah speaks untruth. Not sure what the problem with Isaiah is supposed to be. Which verses do you have in mind? Isa. 44:24; 45:18? The preexistence idea comes from many verses.
I'm saying about Rev. 1:5 and 3:14 that archwn and arche are not the same, at all; neither is the syntax identical These details can make a difference. The words have different meanings and they're different parts of speech in Greek. I don't see how anyone can flatten the differences between archwn and arche: it's like the difference between thinking and intellect.
The point I'm making from 1 Pet. 1:10-12 and Daniel is that the very persons writing the Bible saw room for development and unfoldment where the contents of Tanakh are concerned.
It is not my position that John and Philo used their sources in the same way. Again, the point I'm trying to make is that the unfoldment of Tanakh does not mean contradicting it.
To illustrate how people read texts and contexts differently from one another, note what Dr. Thomas Constable claims regarding Rev. 3:14:
As a "Witness," His testimony to the situation in Laodicea was trustworthy. The Laodiceans had a reputation for saying and doing whatever was necessary to preserve their own wellbeing. [Note: Tatford, pp143-44.] In contrast, Jesus spoke the truth. The "Beginning [Origin] of God"s creation" sets forth His authority to pass judgment. The Laodiceans were creative, but Jesus alone was the Creator (cf. John 1:3; Colossians 1:16).
Michael Svigel argued that arche here means ruler (of God"s creation). [Note: Michael J. Svigel, "Christ as "Arche in Revelation 3:14 ," Bibliotheca Sacra 161:642 (April-June 2004):215-31.] This rendering is possible, but most translators have believed the meaning is origin or source, which non-Trinitarians have taken as evidence that the Son is a created being.
"The whole tendency of the Johannine writings and of the Apocalypse in particular ... forbids the interpretation "the first of creatures."" [Note: Swete, p59.]
Like or discussion of Isaiah 9:6? Regardless of what the name means, it say he "will be called".
What you are saying for most part does not contradict my earlier post:-
All Things New: Revelation As Canonical Capstone
By Brian J. Tabb 2019
"Most likely, Revelation 3:14 presents Jesus as the beginning of
God's new creation through his resurrection from the dead. The
risen Christ is the 'Amen', who embodies divine truthfulness (cf.
Isa. 65:16), and he is 'the faithful and true witness', who testifies
truly to God's activity in the world (cf. Rev. 1:5; Isa. 43:10-12). He
is also the arche who inaugurates the fulfillment of God's new-
creation promises and will bring them to their appointed telos."
It gives 3 viable interpretations - including "the ruler of gods creation" &
For - "First, many interpret arche as 'beginning' (Esv, NASB), 'originator'
(NET, HCSB) or 'origin'(NRSV) In this reading, arche conveys not
that Jesus is the first created being but that he is the divine source
or originator of creation (ktisis). >>>The term ktisis occurs only here
in the Apocalypse, though the verbal cognate ktizo refers to God's
creating all things (4:11; 5:13).<<<"
Revelation tells us who the creator of all thing is & his elevation of the lamb.
“Worthy is the >>>Lamb that was slain<<< to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing.”
And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying,
“To Him who sits on the throne, >>>and to the Lamb<<<, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.”
And the four living creatures kept saying, “Amen.” And the elders fell down and worshiped.
I see no point in arguing against "whole tendency of the Johannine writings" - this is where we end up going in circles again. But in any case he is the first creature re-created, never to die. Being called "lamb" demonstrates his significance.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=S_lMRtGEuAsC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=daniel+%E2%80%9Cthe+Holy+Ones+of+the+Most+High,%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=irzR_Vjbt-&sig=ACfU3U2QQMGyu6m7dwHhBjOjySmx9_q0-g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwip1IjggZ7lAhVKa1AKHc_CCr4Q6AEwCHoECAkQAQ#v=snippet&q=messianic%20implications&f=false
See page 37.
Wisdom of Solomon 19:6-7.
https://biblia.com/bible/rsvce/Wisdom%2019.6-9
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fmjg7feT9aAC&pg=PA151&lpg=PA151&dq=Job+28:12-28+LXX+wisdom&source=bl&ots=X1S2QUirXr&sig=ACfU3U1KdiEUkW5Wc4KhAYLcBsmQHnUhCQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjfvOO5w57lAhUOTRUIHQ4OCmkQ6AEwDnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=Job%2028%3A12-28%20LXX%20wisdom&f=false
I would like to distinguish my view from Constable and others I've quoted. To me, BDAG is correct when it states that arche probably means "first created." I acknowledge other possible meanings for arche, but I don't see them as likely for 3:14. In the quote above from Tabb, he asserts that Rev. 3:14 is about the new creation, but supplies zero proof for the idea. He also believes that 3:14 teaches Christ is God, a claim that's repeated ad nauseam. One thing we can possibly all affirm is that the Christ of Revelation is an exalted being and God's agent.
Isa. 9:6 doesn't necessarily rule out preexistence for the Messiah. Let's say that God's name has always been YHWH: nevertheless, Exodus 6:3 teaches that he was known as El Shaddai, not by his name YHWH. One interpretation of Isa. 9:6 also posits that it applies to Jehovah, not to the Messiah.
I've read parts of Reynolds's book before, and I think he argues for a preexistent Son of Man.
See https://books.google.com/books?id=S_lMRtGEuAsC&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=benjamin+reynolds+son+of+man+preexistent&source=bl&ots=irzR_Xj9pW&sig=ACfU3U2BGYPifcCow1YYfL6tbeIsaMKWsQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj6rsSry57lAhUHTt8KHRzjC0QQ6AEwEHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=benjamin%20reynolds%20son%20of%20man%20preexistent&f=false
Compare https://books.google.com/books?id=S_lMRtGEuAsC&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=benjamin+reynolds+son+of+man+preexistent&source=bl&ots=irzR_Xj9pW&sig=ACfU3U2BGYPifcCow1YYfL6tbeIsaMKWsQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj6rsSry57lAhUHTt8KHRzjC0QQ6AEwEHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=benjamin%20reynolds%20son%20of%20man%20preexistent&f=false
For a critique of James Dunn, see https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/scottish-journal-of-theology/article/christology-in-the-making-by-james-d-g-dunn-london-scm-1980-ppxvii-443-1050/D697FAC587F262071DBB9E515A7C5B0E
Since you've alluded/cited Dunn throughout the present conversation.
I've quoted thewse Trinitarians like Constable (etc) to show how people claim to be reading the context of Revelation, yet they come to widely divergent conclusions. I don't agree with their conclusions, but if everyopne is reading Revelation contextually, why all the variant conclusions?
For example, here's part of what Richard Trench writes:
To go no further than these seven Epistles, all the titles which Christ claims for Himself in them are either necessarily divine, or, at any rate, not inconsistent with his divinity; and this must be so no less. He is not, therefore, the “principium principiatum,” but rather the “principium principians,”—not He whom God created the first, but He who was the fountain-source of all the creation of God, by whom God created all things (John i. 1-3; Col. i. 15, 18); even as elsewhere in this Book Christ appears as the Author of creation (v. 13). The Arians, as is well known, explained these words in the same way as they explained Col. i. 15, which is indeed the great parallel passage, as though ἀρχή, was “the begun,” and not “the beginning;” and they brought Job xl. 19 into comparison. But for the use of ἀρχή in the sense and with the force which we here demand for it, as “principium,” not “initium” (though these Latin words do not adequately reproduce the distinction), compare the Gospel of Nicodemus, c. 25, in which Hades addresses Satan as ἡ τοῦ θανάτου ἀρχὴ καὶ ῥίζα τῆς ἁμαρτίας; and further, Dionysius the Areopagite (c. 15): ὁ Θεὸς ἐστὶν πάντων αἰτία καὶ ἀρχή; and again, Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iv. 25): ὁ Θεὸς δὲ ἄναρχος, ἀρχὴ τῶν ὅλων παντελής. These and innumerable other passages abundantly vindicate for ἀρχὴ that active sense which we must needs claim for it here.
Just to be clear. I post books for the data they contain, not the conclusions the author makes.
As for my quote from wisdom & OG Daniel. I am trying to demonstrate ideas from the OT nearer to the first century that do not fit.
See Baruch 4:1-6 - So the temple is pre-existent along with the messiah?
I think your "compare" is the same link.
I also welcome comments on wisdom of solomon?
We pretty much know that beliefs developed in Judaism as they experienced exile or exposure to Persian and Greek culture. So it doesn't seem that Moses believed the temple was preexistent, but later Judaism does say (or appear to claim) that certain things were preexistent.
Posting the same link was a mistake: I did not catch it before the post. Here's the correct link for "compare":
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26371180?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
I read Wisdom of Solomon 19:6-7, but I did not see the connection with arche or preexistence.
Maybe you could shed light on the purpose for citing the passage. I've got to finish typing up a talk for Thursday and do prep for class tomorrow, but I'd like to know what you see in these passages.
"For the whole creation in its nature was fashioned anew"
New creation. Since new creation has to be built on old creation. A refashioning.
Pre existence of the temple is clearly metaphorical. It was always part of the plan as the author pictured it.
I would love to discuss new creation sometime, but for now, that passage must be read contextually as you said earlier about Rev. 3:14. Secondly, we have to clarify expressions like "new creation." In what sense is the creation "new"? Cf. 2 Cor. 5:17.
To repeat what I've said previously, I also discern few if any contextual cues for reading the meaning, "new creation," in 3:14.
Clearly metaphorical? How can we be sure that was the writer's intent? We determine metaphorical speech by examining--context. But even then, not everyone agrees that a certain word/expression is metaphorical, like father in the case of God or soma, a metaphor for the Christian ecclesia, although some understand soma literally of the church.
Because a temple is not a being, is it?
Yes, a temple is a being; not a person, but still a being. For instance, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/being
A temple is an impersonal thing that exists (i.e., an object or being) although it's not a person. But fathers and mothers are persons, yet there is such a thing (in principle at least) as metaphorical fathers or mothers. Additionally, the messiah was usually understood as a person in antiquity: Judaism generally now understands the messiah to be a golden age (something to that effect). So metaphors can take various forms. Nietzsche might say that all language is somehow metaphorical, but I disagree.
I agree that "new creation" needs a definition. These may be interesting from Isaiah lxx.
Brenton 43:18,19:-
Remember ye not the former things, and consider not the ancient things.
Behold, I will do new things, which shall presently spring forth, and ye shall know them: and I will make a way in the wilderness, and rivers in the dry land.
48:3ff
and they that have proceeded out of my mouth, and it became well known; I wrought suddenly, and the events came to pass.
I know that thou art stubborn, and thy neck is an iron sinew, and thy forehead brazen.
And I told thee of old what should be before it came upon thee; I made it known to thee, lest thou shouldest say, My idols have done it for me; and shouldest say, My graven and molten images have commanded me.
Ye have heard all this, but ye have not known: yet I have made known to thee the new things from henceforth, which are coming to pass, and thou saidst not,
Now they come to pass, and not formerly: and thou heardest not of them in former days: say not thou, Yea, I know them.
42:9
Behold, the ancient things have come to pass, and so will the new things which I tell you: yea, before I tell them they are made known to you.
The Torah was seen as coming to life but was the temple seen as having a life of its own?
Regarding you comment regarding el shaddai (mighty nurtured/provider):-
https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/22-14.htm
So Abraham did know the label but not the name.
Yes, those are good thoughts from Isaiah. Thanks.
Commentators usually say, and I tend to see it the same way, that the patriarchs knew the name, but not its full significance. You're correct about Abraham and Eve was also the first person on record to says the name of YHWH. But one point I was striving for is that divine revelation is progressive.
I would have to check my sources, but I remember coming across something about the temple in Jerusalem becoming intimately associated with God himself in Jewish minds. Sort of like God's name coming to stand for the deity himself. Prov. 18:10.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uoEqDAAAQBAJ&pg=PT126&lpg=PT126&dq=baruch+quotes+ezekiel&source=bl&ots=wwxn6-MRhR&sig=ACfU3U3BJ-LRvvRmKd4hRJ2MEV3kdQIzew&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjj4vu_rKDlAhXIgVwKHaGeAhcQ6AEwG3oECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=ezekiel&f=false
I am inclined to think that Ezekiel 40 precipitates Baruch's temple.
https://www.sefaria.org/Bereishit_Rabbah.1?lang=bi
search temple & torah
https://www.sefaria.org/Bereishit_Rabbah.2.5?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
from the beginning of the creation of the world the Holy One saw the Holy Temple built, destroyed and built. “In the beginning of God's creation…”
“But He did design and devise me, and He prepared me from the beginning of the world to be mediator of His covenant.” (T. Moses 1:14)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgkBtqvUs68
As for who wrote Revelation:- 20:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
odd?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pq5sKSEW2EI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkmPxVrivEY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raCdsfoJgZQ
Turns out that I am not the only one to see the LXX of Job 28.
What's odd about Revelation and the mention of 12 apostles? Some think the apostle did not write the book, but even if he did, we have examples of self-reference in other texts. This is like the third person objection for John 17:3. Is that what you're saying?
I can see the connection with Job 28 too, but I don't think that's an insurmountable barrier to the profession that an actual spirit person embodies wisdom. Just like God embodies love.
I might build on this post one day, but here's more info concerning the date for Revelation:
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-case-for-revelation-being-written.html
I think my most significant post today is the video on sirach 50 and personified wisdom language.
I won't promise that I will consider it today because of other obligations, but the OT scholarly literature is replete with debates about these matters, and there is no universal consensus yet and probably will never be. Even if we allow for personification without hypostatization, it's difficult to prove that the early Christians did not advance our understanding of the wisdom texts in Tanakh. Read G.R. Beasley-Murray's discussion of the Johannine Prologue and so many others. John was supposed to be building on the Logos/Sophia tradition while surpassing it via the enfleshed Logos profession.
Also the last video I posted is very interesting, that contrasts and compares Gmat and Gluke with wisdom sayings. The video on sirach 50 is as straight forward as it gets. The comparisons are unmistakable and it shows the priest (man), simon as wisdom personified at the conclusion.
NET Bible note for John 1:11. This deals with something that we discussed earlier:
sn His own people did not receive him. There is a subtle irony here: When the λόγος (logos) came into the world, he came to his own (τὰ ἴδια, ta idia, literally “his own things”) and his own people (οἱ ἴδιοι, hoi idioi), who should have known and received him, but they did not. This time John does not say that “his own” did not know him, but that they did not receive him (παρέλαβον, parelabon). The idea is one not of mere recognition, but of acceptance and welcome.
Notice that the first expression (ta idia) is neuter, but hoi idioi is masculine, yet the expressions presumably refer to the same objects.
If the views presented by Dustin are so convincing and irrefutable, then why don't more scholars accept his views? I'm not arguing from authority (a logical fallacy), but I wonder why experts of second temple Judaism are flocking to Dustin's side. Even a viewer from the YT thread said Simon never embodies wisdom: I don't think Dustin proves this point either.
For the last time, I hope, I will point out that it puzzles me why someone can't allow for the possibility that a religion might build on older ideas and advance those ideas.
I don't know this scholar's conclusions, but here's a book about Sirach 50: https://books.google.com/books?id=NewteJPaubIC&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&dq=sirach+50+simon&source=bl&ots=re28tTSp6y&sig=ACfU3U2CVdFm_eEBrKm-sQk_VHcAT-62LQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjtqqysuKHlAhXhmeAKHbswD60Q6AEwAnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=sirach%2050%20simon&f=false
I'm going to do other things now, but nobody knows the deuterocanonicals/apocrypha like Catholic scholars do, and that includes Sirach. So what does the Catholic Encylopedia say? Here's part of it:
"It is clear, then, from the text-study of the books themselves [i.e., the Sapiential books], from the interpretation of these books by St. Paul, and especially, from the admitted interpretation of the Fathers and the liturgical uses of the Church, that the personified wisdom of the Sapiential Books is the uncreated Wisdom, the incarnate Logos of St. John, the Word hypostatically united with human nature, Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father. The Sapiential Books prove that Jesus was really and truly God."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07706b.htm
Just for a comparison. Why do no geologists accept human objects found in coal seams as anything other than anomalous. I do not know. Maybe like Dustin solution, it's just too simple. Not what they want to hear. Removing sirach from modern bibles does not help either. Who else has looked at Deuteronomy the way I have? The answers were just staring us in the face and I did not even find a single paper that even considering cause and effect to even argue against it but it is staggeringly obvious to those who pay attention to the cycles of nature. But I suppose if people did pay attention we would not be in the environmental mess that has been millenniums in the making.
I am going to try and pull his arguments apart but with something so simple, who knows.
Maybe they are just starting to realise:-
https://brill.com/view/title/7487?lang=en
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gz4yBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq=sirach+50+personification&source=bl&ots=aRk-z5MoEs&sig=ACfU3U1D2IvCqfpeQmVjhJNs7Q_DGf17nw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjRvZfHxKHlAhVRZlAKHZ4oAqQQ6AEwBHoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=sirach%2050%20personification&f=false
https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110240948/9783110240948.273/9783110240948.273.xml
Perhaps the differences here are due to the way it was attuned to the wisdom narrative.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=u1N4DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=sirach+50+personification&source=bl&ots=GpQL87xqbO&sig=ACfU3U0vBLmmd0S3zsX22dO4w0PHXaXBsA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjTua6K06HlAhVLAWMBHUq2CY84ChDoATAGegQIABAB#v=onepage&q=sirach%2050%20personification&f=false
I'm not denying personification of wisdom is Judaic documents; neither is the Catholic Church or a number of Protestant scholars. The problem is when one infers from the Judaic personification of wisdom that Christians never went beyond such ideas. That is the problem I have. As the link I posted from the Catholic Encyclopedia illustrated, one can accept personification without denying the preexistence and incarnation of the "eternal Logos."
I also posted a link from Mulder's book about Sirach 50 and own it, though I have not read it yet.
But, to repeat, I'm not denying personification in the Jewish sources.
Regarding the nexus between personified wisdom and Christ Jesus, see https://books.google.com/books?id=ixGEDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA170&lpg=PA170&dq=christ+personified+wisdom&source=bl&ots=Pi-yglb_6J&sig=ACfU3U0hx0Wi2DdgF8BlPgz9rcnzV5n_vg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwih4eeeuaLlAhXCmuAKHRW7CEE4FBDoATASegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=christ%20personified%20wisdom&f=false
Page 171
It seems that this last authors premise is his understanding of John 8:58.
At this point I think I should mention revelation 13:8.
When was the lamb sacrificed?
The author is actually throwing around possibilities as to how personified wisdom in Judaism became the preexistent Christ qua wisdom in Christianity. The work is saying things could have happened that way, not that they necessarily did. But the reason I supplied the link to the work was to illustrate how someone can accept both ideas, that is, wisdom was personified in ancient Judaism and that Christ is preexistent wisdom in the person of God's spirit son. Just as the heavenly angels are called sons of God.
For Rev. 13:8, see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2015/01/revelation-138-net-bible.html
Compare the ESV reading.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSDDVD7exf4
There is a defining of terms in John 1:49 & John 1:51 is relevant. The term predominantly used here is "son of man".
Son of man. Yeah, that phrase which scholars have been debating for aye. :)
I will not deny that it's a tricky one 😀
Compare https://www.jstor.org/stable/3262794?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
I remember that Vermes had something to say about "son of man". IMO it is a phrase of detachment that relates to John 12:49.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1509427?read-now=1&refreqid=excelsior%3A1cb0f273aa3506a9e709f4b06c1a1bc9&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
I'm familiar with Vermes' approach to the Son of Man question; I once found it somewhat attractive as a proposal. But it now seems to be fatally wrong. I still like his books, but disagree with his suggestion.
See the discussion here: https://books.google.com/books?id=m7zeBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=vermes+son+of+man+wrong&source=bl&ots=WLRNyrNoj0&sig=ACfU3U3Z25ppdlxdfAtqc6p0nd5c2nsqvg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiJ66HL8qTlAhXnUN8KHdSyCtI4ChDoATADegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=vermes%20son%20of%20man%20wrong&f=false
Page 33 onward.
See also https://biblicalresources.wordpress.com/2015/05/13/the-vermes-quest/
https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2017/10/13/the-son-of-man-an-obsolete-phantom/
In all of this as far as GJohn is concerned a I still think detachment is a key component. When Hurtado says that Jesus "calls himself" the son of man that verses like John 8:58 must be taken into account. This could well be the witness of the father. Exodus 3:6 & mat 22:32. Jesus speaks the fathers words.
Post a Comment