Sporadic theological and historical musings by Edgar Foster (Ph.D. in Theology and Religious Studies and one of Jehovah's Witnesses).
Tuesday, December 22, 2020
David L. Turner Comments on Matthew 6:13 (Baker Exegetical Commentary Series)
Turner apparently thinks the "evil one" could be Satan or be a reference to evil itself, which seems to be depend on whether the noun phrase in Greek is masculine or neuter.
Richard Bell's "Deliber us from Evil" is a great reference in this regard ... not only in terms of biblical exegesis, but also making sense of it theologically.
I think the tou poneyrou is Satan, I think the use of the article points in that direction, I would think if a general principle is at play it would be without the article; i.e 2 Cor 1:10 Christ rescues us from Teylikoutou Thanatou without any article, 1 Thess 1:10 has Jesus rescuing us from Teys Orgeys (the wrath), but it's not wrath in general, it's wrath that is coming, also Jesus seems to talk about wicked people, generations, spirits, thoughts, etc etc ... but not the principle of wickedness.
I concur that the substantival use of poneros is likely referring to Satan, not simply to evil in the abstract or even concrete evil. Besides Matthew 6:13, see Matthew 5:37; 13:38; Luke 11:4; John 17:15; Ephesians 6:16; 1 John 3:12; 5:19.
I posted about Derek Brown's dissertation here and we then discussed texts dealing with Satan. See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/search?q=derek+brown
It's a stretch to connect the prodigal son illustration with Jesus and Satan: Jesus explained the parable's significance himself. Yes, it may have further applications, but Satan and Jesus?
See https://www.jstor.org/stable/43723649?refreqid=excelsior%3A1bf5a476f52070167e7cfce54c6be907&seq=1
I disagree with many of the premises in the article, but I'm only going to address the points you mentioned:
1) The article did not explicitly state that "Maśṭēmāh" is personification for the leader of evil forces/Satan, but it may be implied. But I think personification is fairly common in scriptural literature. Examples would not be hard to adduce; however, I do not view Satan as merely the personification of evil and I do not cozy up with writers, who want to soften his image. This is not to imply that you're doing that.
2) I don't know of any particular verse in the Bible that teaches we have to harmonize all things in Scripture. On the other hand, I believe a reasonable inference is that the Bible does not contradict itself, even if it provides little information about Satan in the Tanakh, but then later discusses Satan the Devil more in the GNT.
3) A case can be made for progressive revelation by reading Acts of the Apostles and 1 Peter. Also, what about Daniel 12? Another illustration is the "seed of promise," now rendered "offspring" by NWT 2013. Genesis 3:15 supplies enigmatic details that are unraveled bit by bit. It is later revealed that Christ is the seed long with those who remain "in union with him." One complex matter is that the Christian Bible is composed of books written by two world religions, not just one.
I have read the text/translations of it. It's difficult to make a definitive pronouncement on the part you mention since the text is illegible at certain points, but the saying about the gods appears to be a mythical declaration that Babylon's deities were not happy with Babylon's fall and the subsequent rule by Medo-Persia.
This ritual came from the reality of civilisation (the growing of grain) and irrigation. Cyrus sent "the gods" (Baals were all about people and there agriculture) home and there people because the land itself was collapsing under the agricultural pressure. If he had not they would all have died. I can say this because there has never been a civilisation in history that did not have some form of grain as it basis and the salting of a land, even if it took 1000 years it always ended the same way. Clearing the land helped them to last longer, but this is the curse and why it eventually could not be inhabited again.
Doesn't really matter how it was justified, because the reality was unavoidable.
Bringing in people's from all over the empire was political and at the same time suicidal.
[33] In addition, at the command of Marduk, the great lord, I settled in their habitations, in pleasing abodes, the gods of Sumer and Akkad, whom Nabonidus, to the anger of the lord of the gods, had brought into Babylon.
22 comments:
Richard Bell's "Deliber us from Evil" is a great reference in this regard ... not only in terms of biblical exegesis, but also making sense of it theologically.
I think the tou poneyrou is Satan, I think the use of the article points in that direction, I would think if a general principle is at play it would be without the article; i.e 2 Cor 1:10 Christ rescues us from Teylikoutou Thanatou without any article, 1 Thess 1:10 has Jesus rescuing us from Teys Orgeys (the wrath), but it's not wrath in general, it's wrath that is coming, also Jesus seems to talk about wicked people, generations, spirits, thoughts, etc etc ... but not the principle of wickedness.
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm
See chapter 8.
I concur that the substantival use of poneros is likely referring to Satan, not simply to evil in the abstract or even concrete evil. Besides Matthew 6:13, see Matthew 5:37; 13:38; Luke 11:4; John 17:15; Ephesians 6:16; 1 John 3:12; 5:19.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1476993X10363030
https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/handle/10161/18778
https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/satan-the-prodigal-son-9781850758204/
I posted about Derek Brown's dissertation here and we then discussed texts dealing with Satan. See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/search?q=derek+brown
It's a stretch to connect the prodigal son illustration with Jesus and Satan: Jesus explained the parable's significance himself. Yes, it may have further applications, but Satan and Jesus?
See https://www.jstor.org/stable/43723649?refreqid=excelsior%3A1bf5a476f52070167e7cfce54c6be907&seq=1
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-interpretation/who-is-satan/
This is not the only personification in the intertestimental and NT period is it?
Maśṭēmāh
What tells us in scripture itself that all writings have to be harmonised or that there is to be a progressive revelation?
I disagree with many of the premises in the article, but I'm only going to address the points you mentioned:
1) The article did not explicitly state that "Maśṭēmāh" is personification for the leader of evil forces/Satan, but it may be implied. But I think personification is fairly common in scriptural literature. Examples would not be hard to adduce; however, I do not view Satan as merely the personification of evil and I do not cozy up with writers, who want to soften his image. This is not to imply that you're doing that.
2) I don't know of any particular verse in the Bible that teaches we have to harmonize all things in Scripture. On the other hand, I believe a reasonable inference is that the Bible does not contradict itself, even if it provides little information about Satan in the Tanakh, but then later discusses Satan the Devil more in the GNT.
3) A case can be made for progressive revelation by reading Acts of the Apostles and 1 Peter. Also, what about Daniel 12? Another illustration is the "seed of promise," now rendered "offspring" by NWT 2013. Genesis 3:15 supplies enigmatic details that are unraveled bit by bit. It is later revealed that Christ is the seed long with those who remain "in union with him." One complex matter is that the Christian Bible is composed of books written by two world religions, not just one.
I wrote a little about progressive revelation here: https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2015/02/progressive-illumination.html
Have you read the text of the Cyrus cylinder? Specifically about disaster and the gods leaving the land. Do you understand what is being said here?
I have read the text/translations of it. It's difficult to make a definitive pronouncement on the part you mention since the text is illegible at certain points, but the saying about the gods appears to be a mythical declaration that Babylon's deities were not happy with Babylon's fall and the subsequent rule by Medo-Persia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salting_the_earth
"Hadrian leveled the ruins of Jerusalem, sowed the land with salt"
https://www.frommers.com/destinations/jerusalem/in-depth/history
This ritual came from the reality of civilisation (the growing of grain) and irrigation. Cyrus sent "the gods" (Baals were all about people and there agriculture) home and there people because the land itself was collapsing under the agricultural pressure. If he had not they would all have died. I can say this because there has never been a civilisation in history that did not have some form of grain as it basis and the salting of a land, even if it took 1000 years it always ended the same way. Clearing the land helped them to last longer, but this is the curse and why it eventually could not be inhabited again.
Doesn't really matter how it was justified, because the reality was unavoidable.
Bringing in people's from all over the empire was political and at the same time suicidal.
https://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/meso/cyrus.html
My comments pertained to the lines designated 9) and 10) in the link above.
[33] In addition, at the command of Marduk, the great lord, I settled in their habitations, in pleasing abodes, the gods of Sumer and Akkad, whom Nabonidus, to the anger of the lord of the gods, had brought into Babylon.
https://www.livius.org/sources/content/cyrus-cylinder/cyrus-cylinder-translation/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229515612_A_Defense_of_the_Theory_of_Progressive_Soil_Salinization_in_Ancient_Southern_Mesopotamia/link/5bc4b3dea6fdcc03c788b1ce/download
See also https://www.ancient.eu/article/166/the-cyrus-cylinder/
and https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-96190-3_2
The Influence and Use of Daniel in the Synoptic Gospels
https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1159&context=dissertations
Have you seen this:- https://youtu.be/foLI3KGbMnk
Regarding the death of Judas?
CF Acts 20:9.
Thanks for the dissertation link. I have not seen the video you mentioned, but might take a look this evening.
See page 213 of the dissertation regarding textual variant of Dan 12:4 and its possible implications.
Post a Comment