‘[civitas caelestis] terrenam pacem refert ad caelestem pacem, quae vere ita pax est, ut rationalis dumtaxat creaturae sola pax habenda atque dicenda sit’ (XIX.17.59-62).
Google translate - the earthly peace minister to the heavenly peace, which is so truly peace of the least of a rational creature is to be deemed and called the only peace,
That Hecataeus treated Moses as a ktistes (founder and builder) and Jerusalem as his colony also appears from the terminology: the first section of the excursus is called ktisis (3.1), which may record Hecataeus's wording. The verb ktizein is explicitly used with regard to the alleged foundation of Jerusalem by Moses (3); Moses is said to have been leading (
figure ) the new settlement, called apoikia (3). The latter term (literally, "settlement far from home") is usual for a [70] Jaeger (1938) 144, 146-47; id . (1938a) 140. Cf. esp. Lebram (1974a) 248-49. (The latter, however, thinks that the excursus is a Jewish forgery of the Hasmonean period.) Pg 30
He was not merely a Roman citizen, but a Hebrew and member of the Graeco-Roman world. His vocab was shaped by various factors. Just knowing a definition does not mean that a speakers used it.
We're talking about the word, ktisis, right? Particularly the Pauline use of the word. Nothing prohibits the word from referring to God's creative act in relation to the world.
See Lightfoot, page 148, and what he writes about ktisis. Ignore all of the trinitarian blather.
Judith 9:12 is an interesting example. Is it possibly close in time to the LXX? Contextually it seems that "king of all creatures"(KJV) is the best translation, looking at the surrounding context. Being called king also ties in nicely with the idea of founder.
Judith was probably written in the late 2nd century BCE. But doesn't the surrounding context and associated phrases of the verse point to God as the creator of all? Even his position as king emanates from all that he has created.
See https://www.google.com/books/edition/Judith/EPasDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=book+of+judith+9:12+commentary&pg=PA289&printsec=frontcover
Judith 2:5 - "Thus saith the great king, the lord of the whole earth"
2:24 - "Then he went over Euphrates, and went through Mesopotamia, and destroyed all >>the high cities<< that were upon the river Arbonai, till ye come to the sea."
2:28 - "Therefore the fear and >>dread of him fell upon all the inhabitants of the sea coasts<<, which were in Sidon and Tyrus, and them that dwelt in Sur and Ocina, and all that dwelt in Jemnaan; and they that dwelt in Azotus and Ascalon feared him greatly."
3:6 - "Then came he down toward >>the sea coast<<, both he and his army, and set garrisons in >>the high cities<<, and took out of them chosen men for aid.
5:3 - "And he said unto them, Tell me now, ye sons of Chanaan, who this people is, that dwelleth in the hill country, and what are the cities that they inhabit, and what is the multitude of their army, >>and wherein is their power and strength, and >>what king<< is set over them, or captain of their army;<<"
5:23 - "For, say they, we will not be afraid of the face of the children of Israel: for, lo, >>it is a people that have no strength nor power for a strong battle<<"
6:3 - "He will send his power, and will destroy them from the face of the earth, and >>their God shall not deliver them<<: but we his servants will destroy them as one man; for they are not able to sustain the power of our horses."
6:19 - ">>O Lord God of heaven<<, behold their pride, and pity the low estate of our nation, and look upon the face of those that are sanctified unto thee this day."
7:4 - "Now the children of Israel, when they saw the multitude of them, were greatly troubled, and said every one to his neighbour, Now will these men lick up the face of the earth; >>for neither the high mountains, nor the valleys, nor the hills, are able to bear their weight."<<
7:12 - "Remain in thy camp, and keep all the men of thine army, and let thy servants get into their hands >>the fountain of water<<, which issueth forth of the foot of the mountain:"
7:28 - "We take to witness against you >>the heaven and the earth, and our God and Lord of our fathers<<, which punisheth us according to our sins and the sins of our fathers, that he do not according as we have said this day.
8:13 - "And now try >>the Lord Almighty<<, but ye shall never know any thing."
8:16 - "Do not bind the counsels of the >>Lord our God<<: for God is not as man, that he may be threatened; neither is he as the son of man, that he should be wavering.
8:20 - "But we know none other god, therefore we trust that he will not despise us, >>nor any of our nation.<<"
8:26 - ">>Remember what things he did to Abraham, and how he tried Isaac<<, and what happened to Jacob in Mesopotamia of Syria, when he kept the sheep of Laban his mother's brother.
9:14 - "And make every nation and tribe to acknowledge that thou art the God of all power and might, and that there is none other that protecteth the people of Israel but thou."
Back to 9:12 - "I pray thee, I pray thee, O God of my father, and God of the inheritance of Israel (Ref Abraham & Issac), Lord of the heavens and earth, Creator of the waters (high cities, low cities & cities by the sea) , king of every creature, hear thou my prayer:"
The most important point is why not "lord of creation" of "god of creation"?
Yehovah is being lined up against the invading king as the king of all people & cites.
This is not talking about the Genesis creation & I am afraid that at the moment I have to agree with Trinity Delusion, that every time Ktisis is mentioned the genesis creation is being assumed.
Also note the crossover language that fits well with Rev 1:5 & 3:14.
How lovely on the mountains Are the feet of him who brings good news, Who announces peace And brings good news of happiness, Who announces salvation, And says to Zion, “Your >>>God<<< reigns!”
With ktisis, I'm not assuming the Genesis account, but merely considering how the word is used contextually. I never said the word always means creation, but in some contexts, it does. The passage you referenced in Judith seems clear. The Genesis account does not have to be in play for ktisis to mean create. See the multiple occurrences in Revelation.
Earlier, I posted what Lightfoot writes about the matter. LSJ and Murray Harris agree.
κτίζω+ V 6-0-14-10-38=68 Gn 14,19.22; Ex 9,18; Lv 16,16; Dt 4,32 to found, to build (a city) [τι] 1 Ezr 4,53; to found, to establish [τι] Lv 16,16; to make, to create [τι] Gn 14,19; id. [τινα] Dt 4,32; to create sb as [τινά τι] Prv 8,22; to perpetrate [τι] Is 45,7 Cf. BARR 1961, 224; DOGNIEZ 1992 143.324; HARL 1986a, 52.161; WALTERS 1973 220-224. 339; WEVERS 1993, 198; →NIDNTT; TWNT (→συγ-)
In the LXX κτίζω occurs c. 65× (incl. 23× in Sirach); it is used to render various Heb. terms, but mainly בָּ רָ אI, “to create” (16×, Deut 4:32 et al., esp. in Psalms). One should note, however, that in Genesis this Heb. vb. is usually rendered with ποιέω, “to do, make” (e.g., Gen 1:1, 21, 27), never with κτίζω (the / בָּ רָ אποιέω equivalence is found also in Isaiah, but with some exceptions; the later Gk. versions [Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus] do use κτίζω consistently). In any case, κτίζω can be employed in its class. sense (e.g., of the founding of Egypt, Exod 9:18; the rebuilding of Jerusalem, 1 Esd 4:53), but mostly of God’s act of creation (e.g., heaven and earth, Gen 14:19[rendering קָ נָ הII]; human beings, Deut 4:32; a pure heart, Ps 51:10 [LXX 50:12]; the wind, Amos 4:13; cf. also συγκτίζω in Sir 1:14). The noun κτίσις is found some 15×, but only in the Apoc., and always with ref. to that which has been created by God, “creation, creature” (e.g., Jdt 9:12; Wis 2:6). Its synonym, κτίσμα, occurs 6× with the same meaning, again only in the Apoc. (e.g., Wis 9:2; 13:5). The term κτίστης, likewise, refers always to God as the Creator (8×, incl. 2 Sam 22:32 [MT differently]; otherwise only in the Apoc., e.g., 2 Macc 1:24). The rare adj. νεόκτιστος, which means “newly founded, recently built” in class. Gk., is used of newly created animals (only Wis 11:18).
Now hear my prayer, O God of my ancestor Simeon, the God in whom >>>Israel trusts<<, >>ruler<< of heaven and earth, creator of the >>rivers and the seas<<, king of all creation.
Even though this translation uses "creation" the meaning is clearly different.
creatures are created things, but there is also a subtle difference between the two. At times, "creature" refers to humans, but other times, to animals or to both. YHWH created ta panta. To see how God rules over his creation, see https://www.google.com/books/edition/Psalms_Proverbs/ocE7CwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=yahweh+king+of+creation&pg=PA23&printsec=frontcover
Read Psalm 145: that God rules over all creation is a basic scriptural datum. Maybe in context, the rulership is limited to humans, but it could refer to every creature (period) since it mentions Jehovah's creation of the waters and his dominion over heaven and earth.
I'm aware that Judith is not Genesis. Give me some credit :)
Did you also read the Hermeneia comments on Judith that I posted?
Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD. Praise ye the LORD. (Psalm 150:6 KJV)
See the note for Judith 1:11 on this page: http://www.usccb.org/bible/jdt/1:11#18001011
Note page 244 in the author's work: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Iw9MAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA227&lpg=PA227&dq=judith+9:12+%22king+of+all%22+not+creation&source=bl&ots=jh2bBtFgtq&sig=ACfU3U0ixIECdd5CTPNWiWu1XnGklp3BZA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiCrdXi4eLlAhXluXEKHSxtC2EQ6AEwBHoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=king%20creation&f=false
Definition: (1) pr. a framing, founding; (2) in NT creation, the act of creating, Rom. 1:20; creation, the material universe, Mk. 10:6; 13:19; Heb. 9:11; 2 Pet. 3:4; a created thing, a creature, Rom. 1:25; 8:39; Col. 1:15; Heb. 4:13; the human creation, Mk. 16:15; Rom. 8:19, 20, 21, 22; Col. 1:23; a spiritual creation, 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15; (3) an institution, ordinance, 1 Pet. 2:13
Quoting from the Hermeneia commentary on Judith (extended remarks about 9:12):
“My father” may refer (1) to Simeon, as in 9:2, either as a real or metaphorical progenitor; (2) to Judith’s own father, invoking her family’s place in the tradition of worshiping God; or (3) to the patriarchs Jacob or Abraham. Moore argues for the first; there is a rhetorical expansion from the most specific (God of my father) to the people Israel (God of the inheritance of Israel) to the cosmic (king of all your creation).97 Schmitz/Engel, however, place father and inheritance of Israel in parallel; God of my father is a reference to the ancestry of the people. In addition, Die Sorge um den Erbbesitz (Jdt 4, 12; 8, 22) geht mit der Bitte an Gott ein- her, sich für seinen Erbbesitz einzusetzen (Jdt 13, 5). . . . Die Rückkehr eines jeden auf seinen Erbbesitz . . . (16, 21) ist daher ein ersehntes Ziel.98
Their reading appears more likely. The complex but plausible arrangement of Xeravits would support this. Of the five cola in this verse, he sees the first two, God of my father and God of the inheritance of Israel, as parallel and nearly identical—God as sole deity of Israel. The last two, creator of the waters and king of all creation, are also parallel—God as creator.99 At the center lies an affirmation of universal Lordship: despota of heaven and earth. This despota harks back to and contrasts with Holofernes as despota (5:20, 24; 7:9, 11; 11:10) and Nebuchadnezzar as lord and king of whole earth (6:4; 11:1).100 Several of the phrases are not found elsewhere in the Bible in these precise forms—God of the inheritance of Israel, ruler of heaven and earth, and creator of the waters, and, as noted in the excursus at 8:35 (“The Book of Judith and Greek Philosophy”), there is some innovation in this prayer in terms of theological ideas; the lord of heaven and earth is the God who controls past, present, and future in v. 5. The creator of waters could resonate with the lack of water in the story (see also 16:15),101 but this is not necessary; it suggests power over Yamm, Sea.
But why should we limit the creatures of 16:14 to humans rather than to other created things by God? Animals are creatures.
This article might be worth perusing: John R. Levison, "Judith 16:14 and the Creation of Woman," Journal of Biblical Literature 114.3 (Fall 1995): 467-469.
I will read it, as you provided the link. But notice that Levison sees an allusion to Psalm 104:30 in Judith 16:14.
104:30 is not restricted to humans but includes other creatures.
I am not disputing allusions to many verses but if we accept Judith 16:14 as we have it then the one word narrows the allusion right down. He says woman but I just leave it at humans. All these works point out that phrases are being used in a different way but I am saying also a slightly different meaning.
The Hermeneia commentaries are detailed; I'll just quote part of what the commentator observes for Judith 2:21-28:
Interesting to note is that the invasion referenced here is that of Artaxerxes III Ochus, the very same that may have provided the model for the invasion in Judith. There are two series of peoples and places encountered here, a more distant set (vv. 21–27) and a closer set (v. 28). In the distant set are:
Nineveh Plain of Bectileth Cilicia hill country Put and Lud Rassisites Ishmaelites Cheleon Euphrates Mesopotamia Wadi Abron Cilicia Japheth Arabia Midianites plain of Damascus
Some of the sites are unknown or improbably presented. The plain of Bectileth is unknown, but here is located north of Upper Cilicia.6 Rassisites are unknown, as are Cheleon and Wadi Abron.7 Japheth, located near Arabia, is unknown in this context, although in Genesis 10 Japheth is the progenitor of Europeans. Put and Lud are uncertain sites, although in the primeval genealogies and table of nations in Genesis 10 Put is used for Libya (Gen 10:6), and Lud for a people of North Africa (Gen 10:13) or Lydia (Gen 10:22; also Isa 66:19). Put and Lud are mentioned together in Jer 46:9; Ezek 27:10; and 30:5. Ishmaelites and Midianites are archaizing but are mentioned together in Gen 37:28, 36. The plain of Damascus is difficult placed after Japheth, if the latter is near Arabia. The progression of the campaign is often as tortured as the fantasy place-names would suggest. Gruen sums up the problem thus:
Holofernes’ men must have trekked about three hundred miles from Nin- eveh to Cilicia in just three days, crossed and recrossed the Euphrates three times, entered Cilicia twice, and approached the Palestinian coast both by way of Damascus and through Arabia!8
Why would the list include bygone and invented cities? Some scholars have labored to disentangle this jumble. Moore, for instance, corrects the itinerary by moving 2:25 to follow immediately after 2:21.9 But such efforts seem to be missing the nature of the text.
According to Genesis, wasn't "man" created on the 6th day? The language does not imply that something was created before Adam and Eve (like other humans), but we know that Genesis reports manimals being created before Adam or Eve.
The language of Mk. 10:6 is not all that clear, but John Gill thinks it refers to the world's creation or to human creation. See his commentary. Others say Mark 10:6 rules out an anterior creation.
Here's what Eckhard J. Schnabel writes:
Jesus emphasizes God’s original intention for people who are married over against later legal provisions for divorce. He asserts that the situation that prevailed at the beginning of creation, before the fall, is the standard to which human behaviour should conform as regards marriage and divorce. Jesus first quotes Genesis 1:27: God ‘made them male and female’. The fact that the sexual differentiation of male and female existed from the beginning (rather than being a result of the fall) is the basis for the sexual union between man and woman spelled out in the second quotation. Genesis 2:24 describes the basic pattern of heterosexual, lifelong monogamy as the order for marital relationships that God has created. A man will leave his father and mother and thus the home in which he grew up: he starts his own family. He is united to his wife: God himself attaches the man to his wife (divine passive), a joining that results in the two (Gr. hoi dyo) becoming one flesh (Gr. sarx mia). The last point is repeated for emphasis: the union that God creates between a husband and his wife results in the fact that they are no longer two, but one flesh.
The appeal to the creation narrative lifts the discussion to a higher plane by relating it to the purpose of God with regard to marriage. The citation of Gen. 1:27 and 2:24 does not reflect an arbitrary decision as to God’s will but entails an appeal over against legislation based upon fallen history to the true nature of human existence as it was revealed from the beginning of the creation.¹² The Mosaic permission was a departure from the creation ordinance and from the practice to which it obligated men. The original constitution of the race as male and female is the basis of marriage.
I may be that Judith is some kind of wisdom literature. I do not see it as a history, I also do not see the genealogy in Mathew as a history, maybe a Gematria for "david" (son of god). My only real point is how Judith uses ktisis - how it can be used by Hebraic thinking in the period leading up to the first century. Ktisis is dependent in many cases on how "heaven" (sky) & "Earth" (land) are understood. More importantly how "beginning" is understood in a number of cases.
In Hebrew "beginning" can also mean "best". I can see a number of instances where creation is referring to man & not all creation. There is room for certain instances to be understood as the best of creation - the ultimate man.
but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God;
9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:
The Greek is τὴν δοθεῖσαν ἡμῖν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων
It doesn't have to be before the fall; could be referring to the time before Adam and Eve produced children in view of Gen. 3:15 and Eph. 3:9-11. Also, that which is given, grace, likely precedes "time eternal." Notice the use of πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων
Does the dissertation on Pindar even have any bearing on 2 Timothy 1:8-10? Pindar and the Pastorals inhabit somewhat different worlds. There's apparently one mention of the Septuagint in the dissertation.
I've read Craig's work before and have the book. However, I don't want to agree 100% with his argument. I'm not dogmatic, but I tend to believe that God is everlastingly/sempiternally temporal. So does 2 Tim. 1:8-10 imply that time began via God's creation of time? I'm not sure we can read that meaning into the text.
For Rev. 13:8, see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2015/01/revelation-138-net-bible.html
From disertation - " At first sight the phrase seems to mean `from the beginning'. Yet, as West points out, the sense of aion as `beginning' occurs first in the Septuagint, and its usage cannot be attributed to Hesiod. "
But does aion as 'beginning' in the LXX supersede the other understandings or is is just another option?
It is no coincidence that the term also means `lifetime'.
On rev 13:8 - "Rejecting what is clearly stated by the Greek, they fail to see the unique theological contribution John makes to developing Christian thought, with its own logic, as they work with a linear time that John transcends."
Revelation scholar Robert Thomas discusses Revelayion 13:;8:
The connection of the phrase (apo katabolēs kosmou) with what precedes it is in question, however. Is it connected directly with γέγραπται (gegraptai), “the book of life written from the foundation of the world,” or with (esphagmenou), “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world”? The chief support for connecting it with esphagmenou is the verse’s word order. The phrase follows immediately after the participle.⁶⁵ This compares with a twelve-word separation between the phrase and gegraptai (Mounce). On the other side, the chief argument for connecting the phrase with gegraptai is a parallel in 17:8 where that is the only connection possible. The same finite verb and the same phrase in that verse must have a direct connection because the verse has no word about the Lamb or His being slain (Swete, Lenski). Of course, in 13:8 John may be supplementing the thought of 17:8 with something different (Alford, Caird, Johnson), but 17:8 offers a rejoinder to the principal objection to the gegraptai connection. It has a seven-word separation between the phrase and gegraptai, thus showing that a contextual separation is no serious obstacle to its connection with gegraptai. Consistency of usage by the same author is the stronger consideration, so the sense “the book of life written from the foundation of the world” is the best solution. This sense fits into the immediate context better too. It advances the argument that continues through 13:10 by implying that the elect are predestined to refrain from beast-worship and therefore suffer persecution. This reassures them in the midst of their powerlessness against the beast, they are still in the keeping providence of God, having been there since the foundation of the world (Ladd).
"From the Greek text, it is not clear what ‘from the foundation of the world’ (AT) refers to – whether names that are written, or the Lamb who was slain; comparison with 17:8 could suggest the former, but the grammar here suggests the latter. The reference is not to the actual timing of the lamb’s death (as the narrative of Rev. 12 has made clear), but to the plan of redemption through the blood of the lamb being in God’s mind from the very beginning, an idea expressed in similar terms in Matthew 25:34; Ephesians 1:4; 1 Peter 1:20."
The fact that Rev 17:8 has no ambiguity does no prove anything. 13:8 has no ambiguity either. Not liking a reading does not make it wrong. How about the books and the lamb from the foundation of the word - the question is, what world?
Duncan, no source that I quoted merely said it's a matter of not liking the translation. And while I think Revelation 17:8 is strong evidence for rejecting Moloney's suggestion, the NET bible gives another reason to reject it.
The world could be the universe or the world of humankind. Aune has a good discussion of that issue.
"tn The prepositional phrase “since the foundation of the world” is traditionally translated as a modifier of the immediately preceding phrase in the Greek text, “the Lamb who was killed” (so also G. B. Caird, Revelation [HNTC], 168), but it is more likely that the phrase “since the foundation of the world” modifies the verb “written” (as translated above). Confirmation of this can be found in Rev 17:8 where the phrase “written in the book of life since the foundation of the world” occurs with no ambiguity."
I was talking about the part, it is more likely that the phrase “since the foundation of the world” modifies the verb “written”
Then NET cites Rev. 17:8 as confirmation of this grammatical observation. While they don't spell out the reasons why their translation is more likely apart from consideration of 17:8, the other commentators do give further reasons.
To cite a grammatical observation which is not based on 17:8 alone, then to cite 17:8 for confirmation are two different things.
I don't recall if Exodus 32:32-33 is cited by Mounce, Aune (etc) for Rev. 13:8, but I know it's usually invoked when discussing 3:5.
Did a quick check at biblehub, but did not find any commentators there yet that invoke Exodus 32.
Alford favors the "Lamb who was slain" interpretation. He writes:
whose (the change into the singular arises from resolving πάντες into its component individuals) name (οὗ … αὐτοῦ, the usual Hellenistic redundance: see reff.) is not written in the book of life of the Lamb which is slain from the foundation of the world (these last words are ambiguously placed. They may belong either to γέγραπται, or to ἐσφαγμένου. The former connexion is taken by Hammond, Bengel, Heinr., Ewald, Züllig, De Wette, Hengstb., Düsterd. But the other is far more obvious and natural: and had it not been for the apparent difficulty of the sense thus conveyed, the going so far back as to γέγραπται for a connexion would never have been thought of. See this remarkably shewn in the Catena: ὧν γέγραπται, ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου γέγραπται· οὕτω γὰρ δεῖ νοεῖν, οὐχ ὡς ἡ γραφὴ ἔχει· ὅτι μηδὲ ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου ἡ τοῦ ἀρνίου σφαγή. The difficulty however is but apparent: 1Peter 1:19, 1Peter 1:20 says more fully the same thing. That death of Christ which was foreordained from the foundation of the world, is said to have taken place in the counsels of Him with whom the end and the beginning are one. Ch. 17:8, which is cited by De W. as decisive for his view, is irrelevant. Of course where simply the writing in the book of life from the foundation of the world is expressed, no other element is to be introduced: but it does not therefore follow, that where, as here, other elements are by the construction introduced, that, and that alone is to be understood).
[END QUOTE]
Yet he admits the ambiguity of Rev. 13:8.
There is a long discussion here about Rev. 13:8--https://community.logos.com/forums/t/25709.aspx
The verses you cited seem to have a bearing on the book of life expression in Revelation.
My impression is that the book of life in revelation is a new version of the book. Not sure if jubilees has any beating on it yet. Have not had time to compare.
There seem a significant, subtle difference between the tanakh and revelation. It would seem that it is assumed that all start out in the book in the tanakh but may be erased, but revelations book has people being added instead?
Why couldn't Malachi 3:16 be talking about an already existent scroll (book)? All this discourse about "books/scrolls" is metaphorical anyway like the books opened in Dan. 7.
Expositor's Bible Commentary (Daniel-Malachi):
Though it must have seemed to the prophet that all of his words of warning and calls to repentance have been to no avail, such, happily, is not the case. Some people do fear—that is, come to understand God for who he really is, and in the light of that understanding confess and repent of their sins (v.16). As a result, their names are inscribed on the Lord’s memorial scroll, a record of all those who truly know him and walk in covenantal fidelity before him. The concept of such a collection of names originated long before Malachi’s time (cf. Ex 32:32; Isa 4:3; Da 12:1) and reappears in the NT as “the book of life” (Rev 20:12–15). It should not be understood as a literal written record but as the infallible retention of the names of the redeemed of all the ages in the omniscient mind of the Lord.
I don't think Dan. 12:4 talks about the same book as 12:1. But here are thoughts to consider:
Joyce Baldwin (Tyndale Commentary): Michael, already referred to in 10:13, 21, is now the great prince who has charge of your people; essentially a fighter (cf. Rev. 12:7), his charge is to protect God’s suffering people. Though he is great, he does not prevent them from enduring the suffering; rather he delivers them in the midst of it (cf. chapters 3 and 6). The book in this context is the book of the living, as in Psalm 69:28; that is, there will be survivors, despite heavy loss of life.
The “time of distress” will be greater than any previous one, yet Daniel’s “people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered” (12:1). Perhaps the writer is reflecting on Jeremiah 30:7: “How awful that day will be! None will be like it. It will be a time of trouble for Jacob, but he will be saved out of it.” The notion of a great tribulation that will precede the second coming of Jesus is incorporated into NT apocalyptic theology too (Matt. 24:21–31; Mark 13:19–27; Luke 21:20–28; Rev. 7:14). “The book” is the book of life (Exod. 32:32–33; Ps. 69:28; Isa. 4:3; Ezek. 13:9; Mal. 3:16–18). In most of the OT, where there was no clear teaching concerning a resurrection, the book would have been understood to contain the names of those who were part of God’s covenant people. Here in Daniel, which does teach the resurrection of the dead, it might be a list of those chosen to be raised from the dead, or it might just record those destined for life instead of death, mean- ing those who will survive the persecution. The belief in a book of life continues in the NT (Phil. 4:3; Rev. 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:12, 15). This book is different from two other types of documents the seer speaking with Daniel is aware of: the books of judgment, which are records of individuals’ deeds (Dan. 7:10; cf. Rev. 20:12), and the book of truth, which is an account of future events as God has predetermined them (Dan. 10:21).
Are written (ενγεγραπται — engegraptai). Perfect passive indicative, state of completion, stand written, enrolled or engraved, from ενγραπω — engraphō common verb. “As citizens possessing the full privileges of the commonwealth” (Plummer).
[END QUOTE]
Compare Philippians 3:20.
IVP NT Commentary Series:
Jesus proclaims the disciples' authority over serpents and scorpions, creatures that symbolize the presence of Satan (on Satan as enemy, Foerster 1964d:813-14; Grundmann 1965:400; Foerster 1967:579; 2 Cor 11:3; Testament of Dan 6:1-4; 3 Baruch 13:1-3). Here Jesus is not endorsing snake handling but stating that the disciples now possess the power to resist Satan. Nothing will harm them. Jesus makes this last statement very emphatically, since the Greek term ouden ("nothing") is in the emphatic position and the emphatic Greek particles ou me ("shall not") are used.
Despite all this, Jesus urges the disciples to see that their power is not the major blessing. They should rejoice not so much because evil forces are subject to them, but because their names are written in heaven. The real blessing is to possess life and be enrolled among heaven's permanent citizens. Here is the source of constant joy. The present imperative for rejoice (chairete) in verse 20 indicates that they should constantly rejoice in the fact that the great census of God contains their names. Jesus alludes to the "book of life" here (Ex 32:32; Ps 69:28; Is 4:3; Dan 7:10; 12:1; Phil 4:3; Rev 3:5; 20:12, 15; 21:27; Schrenk 1964a:619-20; Traub 1967:532 n. 295). Ministry with God is a privilege, and access to God's power is exciting, but the real cause of joy is that we have true and everlasting life before God.
"1 In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar >>>a word was revealed<<<, a vision appeared to me, even to me, Daniel, after that which appeared to me at the first."
"7.In Esther 6:1 the reference is not to a heavenly book but to a daily chronicle. Such a memorandum book, in which the reports of messengers coming in from the empire were recorded, was common throughout the Ancient Near East (Glazier- McDonald 1987:220). The idea of books preserved in heaven in which events are predetermined by Yahweh and in which the names of the righteous or the evil are written, is also well known in the Hebrew Bible (cf. Ex 32:32; Dt 12:1; Ps 58:8; 69:28; Is 4:3; 65:6; Jr 22:30; Ezk 13:9; Dn 12:1). In Psalm 69:28, ‘book of life’ is mentioned signifying and constituting ‘heavenly registers of those who will be spared from judgement; they are those who constitute a holy remnant, those who are predestined for real life’ (Groenewald 2003:98)."
Not sure what the source for the last commentary is, but many want to read the idea of predestination into the book language. It's unnecessary. However, it will probably contour to happen.
I stress the metaphorical aspect in order to avoid taking the book language too literally. I'm not saying it necessarily affects your poont.
The footnote I posted is from a paper that in most other ways is not pertinent to the discussion. The "predestination" language comes from the fact that the names appear to be already written. They can also be erased which argues to some extent against "predestination" language. But is it part of a precursor to notional preexistence?
It's hard to say if the book motif can be linked with the rise of notional preexistence in Judaism. It would take historical spadework to establish the point.
94 comments:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxxmeimzuyk
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.15699/jbibllite.133.4.689?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
https://research.ncl.ac.uk/histos/documents/SV03JacobyOnTheDevelopment.pdf
Κτίσεις-literature
https://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/etd/ucb/text/Eberle_berkeley_0028E_14986.pdf
qui est imago Dei invisibilis primogenitus omnis creaturae
https://www.academia.edu/31700473/Augustines_treatment_of_Roman_political_ideas_in_the_De_civitate_Dei
‘[civitas caelestis] terrenam pacem refert ad caelestem pacem, quae vere ita pax est, ut rationalis dumtaxat creaturae sola pax habenda atque dicenda sit’ (XIX.17.59-62).
Google translate - the earthly peace minister to the heavenly peace, which is so truly peace of the least of a rational creature is to be deemed and called the only peace,
***
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YzoBAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&dq=ktizo+diaspora&source=bl&ots=InCcnF-8rY&sig=ACfU3U2ngOgHVIxsul4pE0dNeJBjDKJpug&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwit0IKuq9jlAhUYSBUIHd7qCWsQ6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=ktizo%20diaspora&f=false
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=l6YwDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA122&lpg=PA122&dq=hebrew+ktisis+%22tales%22&source=bl&ots=xks5PW4ZrG&sig=ACfU3U12vt7XVpYdRXeXZxvQvxKRM7K2xQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjD-PHbn9vlAhVMhlwKHW6pAsgQ6AEwAHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=hebrew%20ktisis%20%22tales%22&f=false
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zNkXDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT46&lpg=PT46&dq=hebrew+ktisis+%22tales%22&source=bl&ots=UA4c_fU-4i&sig=ACfU3U2CHSb8pKbIwHoEQGUUJi1ndQnBXQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjYy836p9vlAhXTUhUIHf4hAxYQ6AEwB3oECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=hebrew%20ktisis%20%22tales%22&f=false
That Hecataeus treated Moses as a ktistes (founder and builder) and Jerusalem as his colony also appears from the terminology: the first section of the excursus is called ktisis (3.1), which may record Hecataeus's wording. The verb ktizein is explicitly used with regard to the alleged foundation of Jerusalem by Moses (3); Moses is said to have been leading (
figure
) the new settlement, called apoikia (3). The latter term (literally, "settlement far from home") is usual for a
[70] Jaeger (1938) 144, 146-47; id . (1938a) 140. Cf. esp. Lebram (1974a) 248-49. (The latter, however, thinks that the excursus is a Jewish forgery of the Hasmonean period.)
Pg 30
https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft3290051c;chunk.id=0;doc.view=print
True, but you know how ktisis is used in the LXX. Prov. 8:22 etc.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dkti%2Fsis
for ktisis
If Paul is truly a Roman citizen I see no reason to preclude "founding" from his vocabulary. Even as a word play on the Hebrew.
He was not merely a Roman citizen, but a Hebrew and member of the Graeco-Roman world. His vocab was shaped by various factors. Just knowing a definition does not mean that a speakers used it.
There are a number of factors that mean it could. Kingdom, rulership etc. All used around the local contexts.
We're talking about the word, ktisis, right? Particularly the Pauline use of the word. Nothing prohibits the word from referring to God's creative act in relation to the world.
See Lightfoot, page 148, and what he writes about ktisis. Ignore all of the trinitarian blather.
https://books.google.com/books?id=N-QsAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA429&lpg=PA429&dq=apostle+paul+ktisis&source=bl&ots=9gJXn_6Tmp&sig=ACfU3U105iVwU0ItTrZhON9YgYdBckZuxg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwie8ZiMwd7lAhWQMd8KHYm-BOU4ChDoATAIegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=apostle%20paul%20ktisis&f=false
κόσμου col 2:20.
Judith 9:12 is an interesting example. Is it possibly close in time to the LXX? Contextually it seems that "king of all creatures"(KJV) is the best translation, looking at the surrounding context. Being called king also ties in nicely with the idea of founder.
Judith was probably written in the late 2nd century BCE. But doesn't the surrounding context and associated phrases of the verse point to God as the creator of all? Even his position as king emanates from all that he has created.
See https://www.google.com/books/edition/Judith/EPasDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=book+of+judith+9:12+commentary&pg=PA289&printsec=frontcover
Judith 2:5 - "Thus saith the great king, the lord of the whole earth"
2:24 - "Then he went over Euphrates, and went through Mesopotamia, and destroyed all >>the high cities<< that were upon the river Arbonai, till ye come to the sea."
2:28 - "Therefore the fear and >>dread of him fell upon all the inhabitants of the sea coasts<<, which were in Sidon and Tyrus, and them that dwelt in Sur and Ocina, and all that dwelt in Jemnaan; and they that dwelt in Azotus and Ascalon feared him greatly."
3:6 - "Then came he down toward >>the sea coast<<, both he and his army, and set garrisons in >>the high cities<<, and took out of them chosen men for aid.
5:3 - "And he said unto them, Tell me now, ye sons of Chanaan, who this people is, that dwelleth in the hill country, and what are the cities that they inhabit, and what is the multitude of their army, >>and wherein is their power and strength, and >>what king<< is set over them, or captain of their army;<<"
5:23 - "For, say they, we will not be afraid of the face of the children of Israel: for, lo, >>it is a people that have no strength nor power for a strong battle<<"
6:3 - "He will send his power, and will destroy them from the face of the earth, and >>their God shall not deliver them<<: but we his servants will destroy them as one man; for they are not able to sustain the power of our horses."
6:19 - ">>O Lord God of heaven<<, behold their pride, and pity the low estate of our nation, and look upon the face of those that are sanctified unto thee this day."
7:4 - "Now the children of Israel, when they saw the multitude of them, were greatly troubled, and said every one to his neighbour, Now will these men lick up the face of the earth; >>for neither the high mountains, nor the valleys, nor the hills, are able to bear their weight."<<
7:12 - "Remain in thy camp, and keep all the men of thine army, and let thy servants get into their hands >>the fountain of water<<, which issueth forth of the foot of the mountain:"
cont.
7:28 - "We take to witness against you >>the heaven and the earth, and our God and Lord of our fathers<<, which punisheth us according to our sins and the sins of our fathers, that he do not according as we have said this day.
8:13 - "And now try >>the Lord Almighty<<, but ye shall never know any thing."
8:16 - "Do not bind the counsels of the >>Lord our God<<: for God is not as man, that he may be threatened; neither is he as the son of man, that he should be wavering.
8:20 - "But we know none other god, therefore we trust that he will not despise us, >>nor any of our nation.<<"
8:26 - ">>Remember what things he did to Abraham, and how he tried Isaac<<, and what happened to Jacob in Mesopotamia of Syria, when he kept the sheep of Laban his mother's brother.
9:14 - "And make every nation and tribe to acknowledge that thou art the God of all power and might, and that there is none other that protecteth the people of Israel but thou."
Back to 9:12 - "I pray thee, I pray thee, O God of my father, and God of the inheritance of Israel (Ref Abraham & Issac), Lord of the heavens and earth, Creator of the waters (high cities, low cities & cities by the sea) , king of every creature, hear thou my prayer:"
The most important point is why not "lord of creation" of "god of creation"?
Yehovah is being lined up against the invading king as the king of all people & cites.
This is not talking about the Genesis creation & I am afraid that at the moment I have to agree with Trinity Delusion, that every time Ktisis is mentioned the genesis creation is being assumed.
Also note the crossover language that fits well with Rev 1:5 & 3:14.
Isaiah 52:7:-
How lovely on the mountains
Are the feet of him who brings good news,
Who announces peace
And brings good news of happiness,
Who announces salvation,
And says to Zion, “Your >>>God<<< reigns!”
https://biblehub.com/text/isaiah/6-1.htm
"Lord"
https://biblehub.com/text/psalms/47-5.htm
All about kingship but still called god.
With ktisis, I'm not assuming the Genesis account, but merely considering how the word is used contextually. I never said the word always means creation, but in some contexts, it does. The passage you referenced in Judith seems clear. The Genesis account does not have to be in play for ktisis to mean create. See the multiple occurrences in Revelation.
Earlier, I posted what Lightfoot writes about the matter. LSJ and Murray Harris agree.
From the Greek Lexicon for the Septuagint:
κτίσις,-εως+ N3F 0-0-0-0-16=16
Jdt 9,12; 16,14; Tob 8,5; TobBA 8,15
creation Sir 16,17; created things, creature Jdt 9,12; αἱ κτίσεις creatures TobBA 8,5
Cf. LARCHER 1983 229(Wis 2,6); VANNI 1995, 288; WALTERS 1973 219-224.339
κτίσμα,-ατος+ N3N 0-0-0-0-6=6
3 Mc 5,11; Wis 9,2; 13,5; 14,11; Sir 36,14
creation Sir 38,34; creature Wis 9,2; neol.?
κτίστης,-ου+ N1M 0-1-0-0-7=8
2 Sm 22,32; Jdt 9,12; 2 Mc 1,24; 7,23; 13,14
creator Jdt 9,12
*2 Sm 22,32 κτίστης creator- יוצרfor MT צורrock
κτίζω+ V 6-0-14-10-38=68
Gn 14,19.22; Ex 9,18; Lv 16,16; Dt 4,32
to found, to build (a city) [τι] 1 Ezr 4,53; to found, to establish [τι] Lv 16,16; to make, to create [τι] Gn
14,19; id. [τινα] Dt 4,32; to create sb as [τινά τι] Prv 8,22; to perpetrate [τι] Is 45,7
Cf. BARR 1961, 224; DOGNIEZ 1992 143.324; HARL 1986a, 52.161; WALTERS 1973 220-224. 339; WEVERS 1993, 198; →NIDNTT; TWNT
(→συγ-)
Also from the NIDNTTE:
In the LXX κτίζω occurs c. 65× (incl. 23× in Sirach); it is used to
render various Heb. terms, but mainly בָּ רָ אI, “to create” (16×, Deut 4:32 et al., esp. in Psalms). One should note, however, that in Genesis this Heb. vb. is usually rendered with ποιέω, “to do, make” (e.g., Gen 1:1, 21, 27), never with κτίζω (the / בָּ רָ אποιέω equivalence is found also in Isaiah, but with some exceptions; the later Gk. versions [Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus] do use
κτίζω consistently). In any case, κτίζω can be employed in its class. sense (e.g., of the founding of Egypt, Exod 9:18; the rebuilding of Jerusalem, 1 Esd 4:53), but mostly of God’s act of creation (e.g., heaven and earth, Gen 14:19[rendering קָ נָ הII]; human beings, Deut 4:32; a pure heart, Ps 51:10 [LXX 50:12]; the wind, Amos 4:13; cf. also συγκτίζω in Sir 1:14). The noun κτίσις is found some 15×, but only in the Apoc., and always with ref. to that which has been created by God, “creation, creature” (e.g., Jdt 9:12; Wis 2:6). Its synonym, κτίσμα, occurs 6× with the same meaning, again only in
the Apoc. (e.g., Wis 9:2; 13:5). The term κτίστης, likewise, refers always to God as the Creator (8×, incl. 2 Sam 22:32 [MT differently]; otherwise only in the Apoc., e.g., 2 Macc 1:24). The rare adj. νεόκτιστος, which means “newly founded, recently built” in class. Gk., is used of newly created animals (only Wis 11:18).
God as Lord and Creator in Judith:
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=koTrKxWIgvIC&oi=fnd&pg=PA179&dq=judith+9:12&ots=SCGuczq0gu&sig=Onbt386vKeYMBqa-SiK26Y7fgfk#v=onepage&q=judith%209%3A12&f=false
Does this contradict my point?
'created things, >>>creature<<< Jdt 9,12"
Created and creatures are not the same and contextually the creatures are humans not including other animals.
The context of the whole account is clear.
What Bible passage directly calls yehovah, king of creation?
All creatures is that yehovah is king of all, but is only in relation to humans and rulership in this context.
This is not genesis.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.biblegateway.com/passage/%3fsearch=Judith%2b9&version=GNT&interface=amp
Now hear my prayer, O God of my ancestor Simeon, the God in whom >>>Israel trusts<<, >>ruler<< of heaven and earth, creator of the >>rivers and the seas<<, king of all creation.
Even though this translation uses "creation" the meaning is clearly different.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Iw9MAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA227&lpg=PA227&dq=judith+9:12+%22king+of+all%22+not+creation&source=bl&ots=jh2bBtFgtq&sig=ACfU3U0ixIECdd5CTPNWiWu1XnGklp3BZA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiCrdXi4eLlAhXluXEKHSxtC2EQ6AEwBHoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=judith%209%3A12%20%22king%20of%20all%22%20we%20might%20wonder&f=false
Note what this author wonders about the reference to water.
IMO she was getting on the right track.
creatures are created things, but there is also a subtle difference between the two. At times, "creature" refers to humans, but other times, to animals or to both. YHWH created ta panta. To see how God rules over his creation, see https://www.google.com/books/edition/Psalms_Proverbs/ocE7CwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=yahweh+king+of+creation&pg=PA23&printsec=frontcover
Read Psalm 145: that God rules over all creation is a basic scriptural datum. Maybe in context, the rulership is limited to humans, but it could refer to every creature (period) since it mentions Jehovah's creation of the waters and his dominion over heaven and earth.
I'm aware that Judith is not Genesis. Give me some credit :)
Did you also read the Hermeneia comments on Judith that I posted?
Compare Psalm 24:1; 47:1ff; 148:1ff; Rev. 5:13; 14:7.
Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD. Praise ye the LORD. (Psalm 150:6 KJV)
See the note for Judith 1:11 on this page: http://www.usccb.org/bible/jdt/1:11#18001011
Note page 244 in the author's work: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Iw9MAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA227&lpg=PA227&dq=judith+9:12+%22king+of+all%22+not+creation&source=bl&ots=jh2bBtFgtq&sig=ACfU3U0ixIECdd5CTPNWiWu1XnGklp3BZA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiCrdXi4eLlAhXluXEKHSxtC2EQ6AEwBHoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=king%20creation&f=false
See Judith 16:14.
Genesis 2:7.
Bill Mounce on ktisis:
Definition:
(1) pr. a framing, founding; (2) in NT creation, the act of creating, Rom. 1:20; creation, the material universe, Mk. 10:6; 13:19; Heb. 9:11; 2 Pet. 3:4; a created thing, a creature, Rom. 1:25; 8:39; Col. 1:15; Heb. 4:13; the human creation, Mk. 16:15; Rom. 8:19, 20, 21, 22; Col. 1:23; a spiritual creation, 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15; (3) an institution, ordinance, 1 Pet. 2:13
More about YHWH as king of creation:
https://books.google.com/books?id=5gDpnBt5vsQC&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=yahweh+has+become+king&source=bl&ots=AgKTGNBFjG&sig=ACfU3U1uG8Krxiua7T3CeodFivXpBOu8Gg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiBpOnfguPlAhUKmuAKHanrBWs4ChDoATAEegQIBxAB#v=onepage&q=yahweh%20has%20become%20king&f=false
LXX The rulers of the people are assembled with the God of Abraam: for God's mighty ones of the earth have been greatly exalted.
Compare Psalm 33:6; 104:30.
You sent forth your spirit and it >>>shaped<<< them ?
This is with reference to creatures.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Judith%2016%3A14
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3266264?read-now=1&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Quoting from the Hermeneia commentary on Judith (extended remarks about 9:12):
“My father” may refer (1) to Simeon, as in 9:2, either as a real or metaphorical progenitor; (2) to Judith’s own father, invoking her family’s place in the tradition of worshiping God; or (3) to the patriarchs Jacob or Abraham. Moore argues for the first; there is a rhetorical expansion from the most specific (God of my father) to the people Israel (God of the inheritance of Israel) to the cosmic (king of all your creation).97 Schmitz/Engel, however, place father and inheritance of Israel in parallel; God of my father is a reference to the ancestry of the people. In addition, Die Sorge um den Erbbesitz (Jdt 4, 12; 8, 22) geht mit der Bitte an Gott ein- her, sich für seinen Erbbesitz einzusetzen (Jdt 13, 5). . . . Die Rückkehr eines jeden auf seinen Erbbesitz . . . (16, 21) ist daher ein ersehntes Ziel.98
Their reading appears more likely. The complex but plausible arrangement of Xeravits would support this. Of the five cola in this verse, he sees the first two, God of my father and God of the inheritance of Israel, as parallel and nearly identical—God as sole deity of Israel. The last two, creator of the waters and king of all creation, are also parallel—God as creator.99 At the center lies an affirmation of universal Lordship: despota of heaven and earth. This despota harks back to and contrasts with Holofernes as despota (5:20, 24; 7:9, 11; 11:10) and Nebuchadnezzar as lord and king of whole earth (6:4; 11:1).100 Several of the phrases are not found elsewhere in the Bible in these precise forms—God of the inheritance of Israel, ruler of heaven and earth, and creator of the waters, and, as noted in the excursus at 8:35 (“The Book of Judith and Greek Philosophy”), there is some innovation in this prayer in terms of theological ideas; the lord of heaven and earth is the God who controls past, present, and future in v. 5. The creator of waters could resonate with the lack of water in the story (see also 16:15),101 but this is not necessary; it suggests power over Yamm, Sea.
βασιλεῦ πάσης κτίσεώς σου, σὺ εἰσάκουσον τῆς δεήσεώς µου occurs in Judith 9:12.
16:14 has σοὶ δουλευσάτω πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις σου, ὅτι εἶπας, καὶ ἐγενήθησαν, ἀπέστειλας τὸ πνεῦµά σου, καὶ ᾠκοδόµησεν.
But why should we limit the creatures of 16:14 to humans rather than to other created things by God? Animals are creatures.
This article might be worth perusing: John R. Levison, "Judith 16:14 and the Creation of Woman," Journal of Biblical Literature 114.3 (Fall 1995): 467-469.
I will read it, as you provided the link. But notice that Levison sees an allusion to Psalm 104:30 in Judith 16:14.
104:30 is not restricted to humans but includes other creatures.
I am not disputing allusions to many verses but if we accept Judith 16:14 as we have it then the one word narrows the allusion right down. He says woman but I just leave it at humans. All these works point out that phrases are being used in a different way but I am saying also a slightly different meaning.
The account specifically says "high cities", normal "cities" & "cities next to the sea". Do these commentators have anything to say about it?
Heaven, earth, waters.
CF Hebrews 12:22.
An interesting verse is Mark 10:6
https://biblehub.com/text/mark/10-6.htm
Was man ἀρχῆς κτίσεως or were they the last of creation?
If the first, then what creation?
The Hermeneia commentaries are detailed; I'll just quote part of what the commentator observes for Judith 2:21-28:
Interesting to note is that the invasion referenced here is that of Artaxerxes
III Ochus, the very same that may have provided the model for the invasion
in Judith.
There are two series of peoples and places encountered here, a more distant set (vv. 21–27) and a closer set (v. 28). In the distant set are:
Nineveh
Plain of Bectileth
Cilicia
hill country
Put and Lud
Rassisites
Ishmaelites
Cheleon
Euphrates
Mesopotamia
Wadi Abron
Cilicia
Japheth
Arabia
Midianites
plain of Damascus
Some of the sites are unknown or improbably presented. The plain of
Bectileth is unknown, but here is located north of Upper Cilicia.6 Rassisites are unknown, as are Cheleon and Wadi Abron.7 Japheth, located near Arabia, is unknown in this context, although in Genesis 10 Japheth is the progenitor of Europeans. Put and Lud are uncertain sites, although in the primeval genealogies and table of nations in Genesis 10 Put is used for Libya (Gen 10:6), and Lud for a people of North Africa (Gen 10:13) or Lydia (Gen 10:22; also Isa 66:19). Put and Lud are mentioned together in Jer 46:9; Ezek 27:10; and 30:5. Ishmaelites and Midianites are archaizing but are mentioned together in Gen 37:28, 36. The plain of Damascus is difficult placed after Japheth, if the latter is near Arabia. The progression of the campaign is often as tortured as the fantasy place-names would suggest. Gruen sums up the problem thus:
Holofernes’ men must have trekked about three hundred miles from Nin-
eveh to Cilicia in just three days, crossed and recrossed the Euphrates
three times, entered Cilicia twice, and approached the Palestinian coast
both by way of Damascus and through Arabia!8
Why would the list include bygone and invented cities? Some scholars have
labored to disentangle this jumble. Moore, for instance, corrects the itinerary by moving 2:25 to follow immediately after 2:21.9 But such efforts seem to be missing the nature of the text.
According to Genesis, wasn't "man" created on the 6th day? The language does not imply that something was created before Adam and Eve (like other humans), but we know that Genesis reports manimals being created before Adam or Eve.
The language of Mk. 10:6 is not all that clear, but John Gill thinks it refers to the world's creation or to human creation. See his commentary. Others say Mark 10:6 rules out an anterior creation.
Here's what Eckhard J. Schnabel writes:
Jesus emphasizes God’s original intention for people who are married over against later legal provisions for divorce. He asserts that the situation that prevailed at the beginning of creation, before the fall, is the standard to which human behaviour should conform as regards marriage and
divorce. Jesus first quotes Genesis 1:27: God ‘made them male and female’. The fact that the sexual differentiation of male and female existed from the beginning (rather than being a result of the fall) is the basis for the sexual union between man and woman spelled out in the second quotation. Genesis 2:24 describes the basic pattern of heterosexual, lifelong monogamy as the order for marital relationships that God has created. A man will leave his father and mother and thus the home in which he grew up: he starts his own family. He is united to his wife: God himself attaches the man to his wife (divine passive), a joining that results in the two (Gr. hoi dyo) becoming one flesh (Gr. sarx mia). The last point is repeated for emphasis: the union that
God creates between a husband and his wife results in the fact that they are no longer two, but one flesh.
[END QUOTE]
Compare Matthew 24:21; Mark 13:19; 2 Peter 3:3-4.
William L. Lane's Mark Commentary:
The appeal to the creation narrative lifts the discussion to a higher
plane by relating it to the purpose of God with regard to marriage. The citation of Gen. 1:27 and 2:24 does not reflect an arbitrary decision as to God’s will but entails an appeal over against legislation based upon fallen history to the true nature of human existence as it was revealed from the beginning of the creation.¹² The Mosaic permission was a departure from the creation ordinance and from the practice to which it obligated men. The original constitution of the race as male and female is the basis of marriage.
I may be that Judith is some kind of wisdom literature. I do not see it as a history, I also do not see the genealogy in Mathew as a history, maybe a Gematria for "david" (son of god). My only real point is how Judith uses ktisis - how it can be used by Hebraic thinking in the period leading up to the first century. Ktisis is dependent in many cases on how "heaven" (sky) & "Earth" (land) are understood. More importantly how "beginning" is understood in a number of cases.
In Hebrew "beginning" can also mean "best". I can see a number of instances where creation is referring to man & not all creation. There is room for certain instances to be understood as the best of creation - the ultimate man.
2 Timothy 2:8 Remember "Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descendant of David, according to my gospel,"
2 Tim. 1:8-10:
but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God;
9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:
Which "world"? Before the fall?
Also is the time eternal before or after that which is given?
https://biblehub.com/text/2_timothy/1-9.htm
Also this section is not a paraphrase of the LXX so other meanings need to be taken into account.
https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/files/34502224/442191.pdf
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VqlFBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=pro+chronon+aionon&source=bl&ots=wR7Fnvm3hj&sig=ACfU3U24L5q1HuITB5BEtM1zkyi9Snv3mw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiG2KfomYbmAhXznVwKHTkfCaoQ6AEwAHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=pro%20chronon%20aionon&f=false
Not how this work references rev 13:8.
Cf. Titus 1:2
The Greek is τὴν δοθεῖσαν ἡμῖν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων
It doesn't have to be before the fall; could be referring to the time before Adam and Eve produced children in view of Gen. 3:15 and Eph. 3:9-11. Also, that which is given, grace, likely precedes "time eternal." Notice the use of πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων
Does the dissertation on Pindar even have any bearing on 2 Timothy 1:8-10? Pindar and the Pastorals inhabit somewhat different worlds. There's apparently one mention of the Septuagint in the dissertation.
I've read Craig's work before and have the book. However, I don't want to agree 100% with his argument. I'm not dogmatic, but I tend to believe that God is everlastingly/sempiternally temporal. So does 2 Tim. 1:8-10 imply that time began via God's creation of time? I'm not sure we can read that meaning into the text.
For Rev. 13:8, see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2015/01/revelation-138-net-bible.html
For an opposing view, see note 13 in this piece:
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/10/4/239/htm#fn013-religions-10-00239
From disertation - " At first sight the phrase seems to mean `from the beginning'. Yet, as West points out, the sense of aion as `beginning' occurs first in the Septuagint, and its usage cannot be attributed to Hesiod. "
But does aion as 'beginning' in the LXX supersede the other understandings or is is just another option?
It is no coincidence that the term also means `lifetime'.
Your post is why I specifically highlighted Rev 13:8.
On rev 13:8 - "Rejecting what is clearly stated by the Greek, they fail to see the unique theological contribution John makes to developing Christian thought, with its own logic, as they work with a linear time that John transcends."
I think that is a fair comment.
https://www.academia.edu/29892909/_Eternity_Revisited_A_Study_of_the_Greek_Word_%CE%B1%E1%BC%B0%CF%8E%CE%BD
https://www.academia.edu/29798032/Life_Time_Entirety._A_Study_of_AI%CE%A9N_in_Greek_Literature_and_Philosophy_the_Septuagint_and_Philo
The adjectival form of aion occurs in 2 Tim 1:9, and it occurs with pro--so that restricts its meaning. See BDAG:
https://forum.evangelicaluniversalist.com/t/bdag-on-aionios/1313
I don't buy Moloney's view of Rev. 13:8. NET Bible explanation makes more sense and so does David Aune's view.
Revelation scholar Robert Thomas discusses Revelayion 13:;8:
The connection of the phrase (apo katabolēs kosmou) with what precedes it is in question, however. Is it connected directly with γέγραπται (gegraptai), “the book of life written from the foundation of the world,” or with (esphagmenou), “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world”? The chief support for connecting it with esphagmenou is the verse’s word order. The phrase follows immediately after the participle.⁶⁵ This compares with a twelve-word separation between the phrase and gegraptai (Mounce). On the other side, the chief argument for connecting the phrase with gegraptai is a parallel in 17:8 where that is the only connection possible.
The same finite verb and the same phrase in that verse must have a direct connection because the verse has no word about the Lamb or His being slain (Swete, Lenski). Of course, in 13:8 John may be supplementing the thought of 17:8 with something different (Alford, Caird, Johnson), but 17:8 offers a rejoinder to the principal objection to the gegraptai connection. It has a seven-word separation between the phrase and gegraptai, thus showing that a contextual separation is no serious obstacle to its connection with gegraptai. Consistency of usage by the same author is the stronger consideration, so the sense “the book of life written from the foundation of the world” is the best solution. This sense fits into the immediate context better too. It advances the argument that continues through 13:10 by implying that the elect are predestined to refrain from beast-worship and therefore suffer persecution. This reassures them in the midst of their powerlessness against the beast, they are still in the keeping providence of God, having been there since the foundation of the world (Ladd).
Ian Paul:
"From the Greek text, it is not clear what ‘from the foundation of the world’ (AT) refers to – whether names that are written, or the Lamb who was slain; comparison with 17:8 could suggest the former, but the grammar here suggests the latter. The reference is not to the actual timing of the lamb’s death (as the narrative of Rev. 12 has made clear), but to the plan of redemption through the blood of the lamb being in God’s mind from the very beginning, an idea expressed in similar terms in Matthew 25:34; Ephesians 1:4; 1 Peter 1:20."
Compare Revelation 3:5.
The fact that Rev 17:8 has no ambiguity does no prove anything. 13:8 has no ambiguity either. Not liking a reading does not make it wrong. How about the books and the lamb from the foundation of the word - the question is, what world?
See page 171 of the dissertation by Heleen Keizer. Including footnote 222.
Also, see page 149, footnote 143.
Duncan, no source that I quoted merely said it's a matter of not liking the translation. And while I think Revelation 17:8 is strong evidence for rejecting Moloney's suggestion, the NET bible gives another reason to reject it.
The world could be the universe or the world of humankind. Aune has a good discussion of that issue.
Actually, 13:8 does have ambiguity as most commentators point out.
"tn The prepositional phrase “since the foundation of the world” is traditionally translated as a modifier of the immediately preceding phrase in the Greek text, “the Lamb who was killed” (so also G. B. Caird, Revelation [HNTC], 168), but it is more likely that the phrase “since the foundation of the world” modifies the verb “written” (as translated above). Confirmation of this can be found in Rev 17:8 where the phrase “written in the book of life since the foundation of the world” occurs with no ambiguity."
What "another" reason?
These commentators, do they make any reference to exodus 32:32,33 when speaking of Rev 13:8?
Also, Deut 29:20?
Rev Revelation 21:27 is of note.
I was talking about the part, it is more likely that the phrase “since the foundation of the world” modifies the verb “written”
Then NET cites Rev. 17:8 as confirmation of this grammatical observation. While they don't spell out the reasons why their translation is more likely apart from consideration of 17:8, the other commentators do give further reasons.
To cite a grammatical observation which is not based on 17:8 alone, then to cite 17:8 for confirmation are two different things.
I don't recall if Exodus 32:32-33 is cited by Mounce, Aune (etc) for Rev. 13:8, but I know it's usually invoked when discussing 3:5.
Did a quick check at biblehub, but did not find any commentators there yet that invoke Exodus 32.
Alford favors the "Lamb who was slain" interpretation. He writes:
whose (the change into the singular arises from resolving πάντες into its component individuals) name (οὗ … αὐτοῦ, the usual Hellenistic redundance: see reff.) is not written in the book of life of the Lamb which is slain from the foundation of the world (these last words are ambiguously placed. They may belong either to γέγραπται, or to ἐσφαγμένου. The former connexion is taken by Hammond, Bengel, Heinr., Ewald, Züllig, De Wette, Hengstb., Düsterd. But the other is far more obvious and natural: and had it not been for the apparent difficulty of the sense thus conveyed, the going so far back as to γέγραπται for a connexion would never have been thought of. See this remarkably shewn in the Catena: ὧν γέγραπται, ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου γέγραπται· οὕτω γὰρ δεῖ νοεῖν, οὐχ ὡς ἡ γραφὴ ἔχει· ὅτι μηδὲ ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου ἡ τοῦ ἀρνίου σφαγή. The difficulty however is but apparent: 1Peter 1:19, 1Peter 1:20 says more fully the same thing. That death of Christ which was foreordained from the foundation of the world, is said to have taken place in the counsels of Him with whom the end and the beginning are one. Ch. 17:8, which is cited by De W. as decisive for his view, is irrelevant. Of course where simply the writing in the book of life from the foundation of the world is expressed, no other element is to be introduced: but it does not therefore follow, that where, as here, other elements are by the construction introduced, that, and that alone is to be understood).
[END QUOTE]
Yet he admits the ambiguity of Rev. 13:8.
There is a long discussion here about Rev. 13:8--https://community.logos.com/forums/t/25709.aspx
The verses you cited seem to have a bearing on the book of life expression in Revelation.
Keizer does not mention "pro" in footnote 222 although she has produced an excellent study.
Did you also see the thesis by S. Šćepanović? Aion and chronos.
Not read Šćepanović yet. I am just hoping that Keizer is still in a position to complete part 2 of her work - the NT and beyond.
My impression is that the book of life in revelation is a new version of the book. Not sure if jubilees has any beating on it yet. Have not had time to compare.
There seem a significant, subtle difference between the tanakh and revelation. It would seem that it is assumed that all start out in the book in the tanakh but may be erased, but revelations book has people being added instead?
I'm not sure the Tanakh excludes names being added. But see Dan. 12:1; Malachi 3:16; Philippians 4:3.
Isn't Malachi 3:16 looking forward, to a new scroll?
Daniel 12:1 speaks of those "found written" which is ambiguous. It does not specifically say that they are to be written in.
Also, what does Daniel 12:4 imply? Closing a book of life?
Thought it might be useful to add the Peshitta of Rev 13:8 at this point:-
http://www.dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_verse.php?verse=Revelation+13:8&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=150&source=
I think Luke 10:20 is refering to the old book.
Also Hebrews 12:22,23
Why couldn't Malachi 3:16 be talking about an already existent scroll (book)? All this discourse about "books/scrolls" is metaphorical anyway like the books opened in Dan. 7.
Expositor's Bible Commentary (Daniel-Malachi):
Though it must have seemed to the prophet that all of his words of warning and calls to repentance have been to no avail, such, happily, is not the case. Some people do fear—that is, come to understand God for who he really is, and in the light of that understanding confess and repent of their sins (v.16). As a result, their names are inscribed on the Lord’s memorial scroll, a record of all those who truly know him and walk in covenantal fidelity before him. The concept of such a collection of names originated long before Malachi’s time (cf. Ex 32:32; Isa 4:3; Da 12:1) and reappears in the NT as “the book of life” (Rev 20:12–15). It should not be understood as a literal written record but as the infallible retention of the names of the redeemed of all the ages in the omniscient mind of the Lord.
I don't think Dan. 12:4 talks about the same book as 12:1. But here are thoughts to consider:
Joyce Baldwin (Tyndale Commentary): Michael, already referred to in 10:13, 21, is now the great prince who has charge of your people; essentially a fighter (cf. Rev. 12:7), his charge is to protect God’s suffering people. Though he is great, he does not prevent them from enduring the suffering; rather he delivers them in the midst of it (cf. chapters 3 and 6). The book in this context is the book of the living, as in Psalm 69:28; that is, there will be survivors, despite heavy loss of life.
William B. Nelson's comments on Daniel 12:1:
The “time of distress” will be greater than any previous one, yet Daniel’s “people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered” (12:1). Perhaps the writer is reflecting on Jeremiah 30:7: “How awful that day will be! None will be like it. It will be a time of trouble for Jacob, but he will be saved out of it.” The notion of a great tribulation that will precede the second coming of Jesus is incorporated into NT apocalyptic theology too (Matt. 24:21–31; Mark 13:19–27; Luke 21:20–28; Rev. 7:14). “The book” is the book of life (Exod. 32:32–33; Ps. 69:28; Isa. 4:3; Ezek. 13:9; Mal. 3:16–18). In most of the OT, where there was no clear teaching concerning a resurrection, the book would have been understood to contain the names of those who were part of God’s covenant people. Here in Daniel, which does teach the resurrection of the dead, it might be a list of those chosen to be raised from the dead, or it might just record those destined for life instead of death, mean- ing those who will survive the persecution. The belief in a book of life continues in the NT (Phil. 4:3; Rev. 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:12, 15). This book is different from two other types of documents the seer speaking with Daniel is aware of: the books of judgment, which are records of individuals’ deeds (Dan. 7:10; cf. Rev. 20:12), and the book of truth, which is an account of future events as God has predetermined them (Dan. 10:21).
Robertson's WP on Luke 10:20:
Are written (ενγεγραπται — engegraptai). Perfect passive indicative, state of completion, stand written, enrolled or engraved, from ενγραπω — engraphō common verb. “As citizens possessing the full privileges of the commonwealth” (Plummer).
[END QUOTE]
Compare Philippians 3:20.
IVP NT Commentary Series:
Jesus proclaims the disciples' authority over serpents and scorpions, creatures that symbolize the presence of Satan (on Satan as enemy, Foerster 1964d:813-14; Grundmann 1965:400; Foerster 1967:579; 2 Cor 11:3; Testament of Dan 6:1-4; 3 Baruch 13:1-3). Here Jesus is not endorsing snake handling but stating that the disciples now possess the power to resist Satan. Nothing will harm them. Jesus makes this last statement very emphatically, since the Greek term ouden ("nothing") is in the emphatic position and the emphatic Greek particles ou me ("shall not") are used.
Despite all this, Jesus urges the disciples to see that their power is not the major blessing. They should rejoice not so much because evil forces are subject to them, but because their names are written in heaven. The real blessing is to possess life and be enrolled among heaven's permanent citizens. Here is the source of constant joy. The present imperative for rejoice (chairete) in verse 20 indicates that they should constantly rejoice in the fact that the great census of God contains their names. Jesus alludes to the "book of life" here (Ex 32:32; Ps 69:28; Is 4:3; Dan 7:10; 12:1; Phil 4:3; Rev 3:5; 20:12, 15; 21:27; Schrenk 1964a:619-20; Traub 1967:532 n. 295). Ministry with God is a privilege, and access to God's power is exciting, but the real cause of joy is that we have true and everlasting life before God.
I am not sure that the metaphorical aspect of the scroll affects the point I am trying to make.
4Q112 Daniel has an interesting variant at 8:1 -
"1 In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar >>>a word was revealed<<<, a vision appeared to me, even to me, Daniel, after that which appeared to me at the first."
"7.In Esther 6:1 the reference is not to a heavenly book but to a daily chronicle. Such a memorandum book, in which the reports of messengers coming in from the empire were recorded, was common throughout the Ancient Near East (Glazier- McDonald 1987:220). The idea of books preserved in heaven in which events are predetermined by Yahweh and in which the names of the righteous or the evil are written, is also well known in the Hebrew Bible (cf. Ex 32:32; Dt 12:1; Ps 58:8; 69:28; Is 4:3; 65:6; Jr 22:30; Ezk 13:9; Dn 12:1). In Psalm 69:28, ‘book of life’ is mentioned signifying and constituting ‘heavenly registers of those who will be spared from judgement; they are those who constitute a holy remnant, those who are predestined for real life’ (Groenewald 2003:98)."
Not sure what the source for the last commentary is, but many want to read the idea of predestination into the book language. It's unnecessary. However, it will probably contour to happen.
I stress the metaphorical aspect in order to avoid taking the book language too literally. I'm not saying it necessarily affects your poont.
The footnote I posted is from a paper that in most other ways is not pertinent to the discussion. The "predestination" language comes from the fact that the names appear to be already written. They can also be erased which argues to some extent against "predestination" language. But is it part of a precursor to notional preexistence?
It's hard to say if the book motif can be linked with the rise of notional preexistence in Judaism. It would take historical spadework to establish the point.
https://www.academia.edu/24599084/CREATION_IN_COLOSSIANS_A_Thesis_Submitted_to_the_Faculty_of_Biblical_Studies_Gordon-Conwell_Theological_Seminary?auto=download
Post a Comment